From kadie Tue Sep 10 11:38:48 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA22774
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for kadie); Tue, 10 Sep 1991 11:37:30 -0400
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 11:37:30 -0400
From: "Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <199109101537.AA22774@eff.org>
To: kadie
Subject: Caf-talk notes from Aug 26 to Sept 1
Status: R
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 08:56:46 1991
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA24063; Mon, 26 Aug 91 08:56:43 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA14767; Mon, 26 Aug 91 08:56:05 -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 AA14746; Mon, 26 Aug 91 08:55:19 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org)
Date: 26 Aug 91 12:51:26 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.125126.23058@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
References: <1991Aug22.184036.20080@eff.org>, <1991Aug23.150637.11652@ms.uky.edu>,
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
Status: OR
pmoloney@unix1.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>>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.
Ah, but how many issues have you put together and distributed in five
minutes? I'm willing to bet that, even though you might be the sole
editor of a campus magazine, you spend a large amount of time developing
articles and editing them. Usenet, on the other hand, can be "dumped on"
in fewer than five minutes. There's the difference.
>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)
Interesting; why was their access to news removed?
>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.
Oh, I agree completely. There is also a large misunderstanding on the
part of many University personnel. Until people, both in and out of the
computational loop, understand the function of Usenet member sites, admini-
strators will have to deal with the ignorance. An ignorant bureaucrat is
far more dangerous than an ignorant user.
>Opinions? Or an I talking bullshit (it _is_ quite late here)?
Makes sense to me.
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 Mon Aug 26 10:26:52 1991
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA24336; Mon, 26 Aug 91 10:26:49 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA15990; Mon, 26 Aug 91 10:26:11 -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 AA15821; Mon, 26 Aug 91 10:11:25 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org)
Date: 26 Aug 91 13:38:12 GMT
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.133812.13541@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>, <1991Aug23.181444.12021@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
Status: OR
In article <1991Aug23.181444.12021@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>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.
I don't know about Northern Illinois, but if an instructor capriciously assigns
a failing grade, there IS a process for a student to challenge it.
--
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)
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 10:41:58 1991
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA24403; Mon, 26 Aug 91 10:41:55 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA16263; Mon, 26 Aug 91 10:41:12 -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 AA16182; Mon, 26 Aug 91 10:36:44 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org)
Date: 26 Aug 91 13:49:45 GMT
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.134945.13628@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
Status: OR
In article , cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>Adult periodicals are restricted? Certainly not in the way you're
>restricting alt.sex. Can you imagine the person at the register
>saying, "I'm sorry, I cannot sell you this issue of Playboy magazine.
>I do not have access to your personal data, such as your birthdate. I
>have no way of ascertaining that you will not show this magazine to
>your younger friends or relatives, or leave it out in the street where
>anyone can see it. This material is oriented towards adults, and
>should be restricted."
>
>Also, last I heard, there are absolutely no restrictions on what books
>a young person can buy at a bookstore, or borrow from the library.
>True, most people under the age of 12 or 13 may have a hard time
>borrowing books from the adult section of the library, but this is
>mostly to protect the books from people who may not return them or pay
>the fines than to protect the children from 'dangerous' knowledge. And
>you're talking about college students here, not 12 year olds.
Heard on the radio this morning that there is now a group trying to prevent
children from borrowing "Henry and June" from the Montgomery County Public
Library-- right now, children with an unrestricted card (which they can get
with the permission of their parents) can borrow ANYTHING in the library.
The Montgomery County library not only doesn't worry about people checking out
adult videotapes and showing them to minors, it doesn't prevent minors from
checking out adult videotapes themselves. If this is the case, and is
unpunishable, then how could allowing nonminors access to alt.sex be
punishable, even if a minor does get access?
--
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)
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 10:27:10 1991
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA24345; Mon, 26 Aug 91 10:27:07 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA16064; Mon, 26 Aug 91 10:26:29 -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 AA15823; Mon, 26 Aug 91 10:11:29 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org)
Date: 26 Aug 91 13:54:35 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.135435.7338@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca>, <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>,
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
Status: OR
cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) 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.
>
>Adult periodicals are restricted?
They certainly are. I've seen vendors ask "young-looking" customers
for identification before selling them a copy of Playboy. Why do you
think so many stores hide the adult periodicals under the counter?
>Certainly not in the way you're
>restricting alt.sex. Can you imagine the person at the register
>saying, "I'm sorry, I cannot sell you this issue of Playboy magazine.
>I do not have access to your personal data, such as your birthdate.
As I said, I have witnessed customers being asked to provide proof of
age before purchasing adult literature.
>I have no way of ascertaining that you will not show this magazine to
>your younger friends or relatives, or leave it out in the street where
>anyone can see it. This material is oriented towards adults, and
>should be restricted."
Here's the difference. In your scenario, you are *purchasing* a piece
of adult literature; once you walk out the door with it, it is no longer
a concern of the vendor. With alt.sex (and netnews in general), the
situation is different; you will continue to use my facilities to access
this adult material, so it is still my concern.
That newsstand vendor doesn't care if you give a Playboy to your kid
brother; you BOUGHT it, so it's yours to do with as you see fit. There
are no further ramifications to him. On the other hand, you do not pur-
chase netnews from me; there is no transfer of ownership/responsibility.
Therefore, there are possible ramifications for me that do not apply to
the newsstand vendor.
>Also, last I heard, there are absolutely no restrictions on what books
>a young person can buy at a bookstore, or borrow from the library.
Gee, I guess that's why so many libraries require a parent's permission
before allowing a customer under 18 to browse/borrow from the adult
collection. This was the subject of several discussions in the early
days of alt.censorship, and I think that these policies are in place at
many libraries.
>True, most people under the age of 12 or 13 may have a hard time
>borrowing books from the adult section of the library, but this is
>mostly to protect the books from people who may not return them or pay
>the fines than to protect the children from 'dangerous' knowledge.
Oh, really? It all depends on your location. In many rural areas, there
is a definite "protect the children" attitude.
>And
>you're talking about college students here, not 12 year olds.
No, I'm not. I specifically mentioned concern about the "12-year-old
kid brother".
>Are you going to try to protect your account holders'
>younger siblings from comp.acad-freedom.* ?
This is an apple. That is an orange. 'Nuff said.
>Alt.sex is one of Usenet's most popular newsgroups; if you're going to
>block it you ought to have a better reason than the one you stated
>above.
Would you prefer that I come up with some spurious argument that allows
me to trash every hierarchy except comp.*, rec.*, and biz.*? It would
be ridiculously easy, you know; all I would have to do is claim "disk
space", and alt.* would be out the window. Instead, I would like to
offer as much news as possible. However, that requires the implementa-
tion of finer control measures. It's almost along the lines of "kill
alt.sex so that alt.sources can live." Is this such a terrible thing?
Every library has the same problem; they can only fund a given number
of subscriptions, and some of the decisions there are every bit as arbi-
trary as those of news admins. Do you protest the subscriptions (or lack
thereof) of your local library?
--
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 Mon Aug 26 14:26:44 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25175; Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:26:42 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA20318; Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:26:05 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 26 Aug 91 17:35:08 GMT
From: bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Robert S.)
Message-Id: <49170@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
Subject: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
The problem of the distribution of pornographic material on the net is one
that must be solved. Pornography, by nature, exploites woman, children and
leads to a warped sense of the nature of the sexual drive resulting
in higher unwanted pregnancies, sexually oriented crimes, and the greater
spread of STD's. As one other article on this group pointed out, we
really don't know who might be viewing this material. Also, may I point
out that part of many people's money who don't want this stuff on the net is
being used to support it. Finally, any respectable academic institution
should not be carrying this trash anyway as it is contary to the objective of
the institution; namely the education of young people in disciplines
useful for the BENEFIT of society. Pornography and related uses is
contrary to this objective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bond - University of Pennsylvania
Chemical Engineering Labs <<------>>
Reply to: bond@picasso.seas.upenn.edu <<---->>
<<>>
"Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice."
- Foghorn Leghorn
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 17:12:04 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25739; Mon, 26 Aug 91 17:12:01 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA23660; Mon, 26 Aug 91 17:11:20 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 26 Aug 91 20:09:44 GMT
From: consp04@bingsunq.bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd)
Message-Id:
Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <49170@netnews.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
The original poster (bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Robert S.)) is
full of beans; the argument, which we've heard (and ignored) before
is: Pornography is bad so it shouldn't be on the net.
What he really wants is to see pornography eliminated. In
other words, "I don't like it, so other people shouldn't have access
to it."
Ding! Censorship.
By the same token, imagine the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem of the distribution of pornographic material on
the INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM is one that must be solved.
Pornography, by nature, exploits women and children and leads to a
warped sense of the nature of the sexual drive resulting in higher
unwanted pregnancies, sexually oriented crimes, the greater spread of
STD's, and a decline in the value of short-term municipal bond
futures. TRUCKS carrying pornography are big, heavy, and can cause
accidents. As one other article on this group pointed out, we really
don't know who might be viewing this material. Also, may I point out
that part of many people's money who don't want this stuff on the
INTERSTATES is being used to support it. Finally, any respectable
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION should not be carrying this trash anyway
as it is contary to the objective of the institution; namely the
transportation of goods for the BENEFIT of society. Pornography and
related uses is contrary to this objective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The dumbest argument I ever heard. We don't need thought
police on the Internet.
-- Dan
--
Daniel F. Boyd
consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
"A lot of the world's ills could be fixed with more disk space."
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 27 01:01:54 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA26854; Tue, 27 Aug 91 01:01:51 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA01060
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 01:00:46 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Message-Id: <199108270500.AA01039@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 20:57:09 -0900
From: "ACAD2A::FFDMG"
From: "Dean Gottehrer"
Subject: New models
Status: OR
A few notes I would like to toss into this discussion of models to use for
regulating (or not regulating) e-mail and posting to various news groups,
forums or conferences:
The newspaper/magazine/printed media model is not a very good one for net
communication. Remember that freedom of press belongs to the person who owns
one. If you follow that logic, the medium used to publish is the mainframe
computer. This gives the owner of that mainframe the right to determine what
would be published on or through it if this model were to be adopted. Your
local printed news medium does not print anything you want to submit. It has
reporters and editors who determine what gets in and what doesn't. It is
subject to libel laws and a host of other restrictions that don't apply here.
Two models offer what I think is a good world for both users and system
administrators. The first is the public utility. The normal public utility
you think of in this regard is the telephone company. It takes whatever
message you want to send and delivers it pretty much intact. If you use it to
harass, the phone company can stop you. If you make obscene phone calls, they
can also stop you. But for the most part, you are pretty free to say what you
want without fear of the message not getting through. Normally, the phone
company does not monitor what you have to say.
The other model is the public forum. (In a posting from Carl today one of the
books he quoted mentioned this theory.) Once a public forum comes into
existence, the state is hard pressed to stop it. Public forums exist in many
places and in many forms. Generally they are places where people can speak
their mind, kind of like the town square. They are the reasons groups can set
up tables and hand out leaflets at airports and even on private property in
shopping malls.
Seems to me that we achieve the greatest amount of freedom for users to speak
and write and freedom from headaches for sysadmins if we say people are free
to say what they want. That's their right and sysadmins are not responsible
for monitoring what they say, when they say it or to whom they direct it.
I, for one, would like to see us devote positive energy into figuring out how
to do that rather than figuring out all the reasons why we can't or shouldn't.
Our contry was built on freedom. I never cease to be amazed at the number of
its citizens who seem to want to limit those freedoms. But as someone else
once said, eternal vigilence is the price we pay for liberty.
Finally, I'd like to drop back a few days and pick up on a question posed by
one of our contributors. He asked what was the largest amount in damages ever
won by someone who sued the university for limiting freedom of speech.
(Please correct me if I have misstated the thrust of the question.) I don't
know the answer to that question, but I suspect the amount was fairly low.
Suits along those lines are generally directed toward reinstating the right
rather than going after damages. How much is your right to free speech worth?
Can you put a dollar value on it?
On the other side of the coin, I do know as of about five years ago when I
last taught a course in media law that no student newspaper in the United
States, high school or post secondary, had been successfully sued for libel.
NOT ONE NEWSPAPER! Remember that any fool who can persuade a lawyer can sue.
But to be successful you first have to get past a judge who must find that you
have a prima facie case, which means with libel that you probably have to
prove that the publication was false and the person who published it knew it
was false and that it somehow defamed the individual it was directed at,
before you ever get to a jury.
The advantage of the public utility or the public forum models or some
combination thereof is that the people who operate the method for transmitting
the message cannot be held responsible for its content. Strong arguments can
be made, ironically, that sysadmins who read mail for content are editors and
liable for the liability libel creates just as much as the writer. Everyone
who has a hand in the publication of a libel is liable for the damages. And
those who sue go for the deep pockets, meaning those who have money to pay
damages. The way to get sysadmins off the libel hook is to make sure that
they are not reading--and thus not editing--messages to or from the net.
My suggestion for positive action is to Carl and others who feel the need to
produce something that will protect the rights to speak freely on the net is
to work for changes in the AAUP Joint Statement on student rights. I'd like
to suggest that someone who lives in the Washington, D.C. local calling area
get in touch with the AAUP national office there to see if they are planning
to rework their statements on academic freedom to take into account the
changes in technology that we have witnessed in the past 10 years.
Instead of screaming and hollering about abuses (both by users and
administrators) let's work for a national statement that we can all use to
ensure freedom to say what you want and relieve administrators of the burden
of having to watch what people say. That kind of thought police is going out
of style in the Soviet Union. Wouldn't it be ironic if it reared its ugly
head in the good ole US of A?
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 27 00:40:57 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA26821; Tue, 27 Aug 91 00:40:53 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA00707
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 00:38:53 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 26 AUG 91 23:37:42 CDT
From: ROBERT ERVIN JONES
Subject: ^^^
Message-Id: <910826.23374220.050561@USM.CP6>
Comments: Please Acknowledge Reception
Status: OR
FOR T HOSE THAT CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE SARCASM AIMED AT ROBERT BOND
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bond associated the publicly funded network systems and his desire not to
su
support such 'pornographic' material presented on Alt.sex*.
He states pornography as being 'bad' without stating what he deems
to be pornographic except to imply he was referring to a talk forum.
Bond also associates the articles with unwanted social behavior in his
OPINION and with not only a degradation of society but also a physical
threat to mankind s health. He also states that academic institutions
that should be considered repectable would not carry such commentary.
WE also see Bond stating to know the objectives of our education system.
BOnd goes on to sate us with knowledge from his worldly mind that
pornography can not benefit society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russotto states that those with permission to pornographic knowledge
can be granted through the use of an admitting library card.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I state the account a user has on a computer system, university, site or
whatever grants that person a 'library card' to use to the areas he
is permitted access to and is responsible for the use of his account,
not the site to which he logs onto or receives requested material from.
Therefore, I assure Russotto that if he believes a system is being utilized
the sway (sp) way it should, then a users account is his library card
granting access. Those without a card/account will stick to bbs' or
ho They can stay home and watch the television.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
christopher Davis shows the similiarities of MS-DOS, a computer utility
exploited by many and funded by all through taxes for R&D IBM takes and so fo
rth
is something he sarcastically states as not being wanted and that
allfunding for MS-DOS should be cnacelled and/or stopped. He states
MS-DOS as taking advantage of systems and forcing others to use such
system whether they want to or not ( or they don't get their programs ).
And, that useage of such results in virii and other unwanted problems.
He sl-- also states that MS-DOS is unbeneficial, it does not advance for
new systems to mature and succeed MS-DOS that would benefit us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Boyd also makes a similiar comparison of Bond's comments
on pornography to the federally funded highway system. This is
federally funded, yet we see sexual and 'pornographic' advertisements
everywhere along these routes we are forced to take. Cars, by very nature
thenselves, ar nothing but phallic symbols to degrade humanity.
How often do we have to put up with car commercials liking their
products to sexual organs or stimulus ??? Yet, we all fund this
through taxes though we may not all desire it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to such forums is regulated at the user end.
And, if parents allow their children access to such areas
others find objectionable then either the parent has given
such child access and permission for such, or the parent is
lax in such areas and need to find themselves a way to behave
more responsibly on the child's behalf if that is what they wish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My access to this forum is granted by myself and my university . . .
I believe we are intelligent enough to look after my own welfare if
I certainly can't . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ihope that is enough to provide answers . . . I really hate to go
to oversimplifications for those that can not understand . . .
All SP's and such courtesy of a computer link that will not accept
backspaces from my remote location.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* aka Frosty ---* | GCMS, SotMESC, DPMA, ACM, CSQ, FP
I speak for none . . . Just to be safe | What a great bunch of acronyms
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 27 17:08:38 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA29552; Tue, 27 Aug 91 17:08:35 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA19215
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 17:07:29 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 27 Aug 91 08:53:24 GMT
From: heidi@ucthpx.uct.ac.za (Heidi de Wet)
Message-Id: <1991Aug27.085324.16171@ucthpx.uct.ac.za>
Organization: Dept of Elec Eng, UCT
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <49170@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>In article <49170@netnews.upenn.edu> bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
> (Robert S.) writes:
>>The problem of the distribution of pornographic material on the net is one
>>that must be solved.
>
>...but first it must be proven. I see quite a bit of sexually
>explicit material on the net, which is illegal in some areas, but
>haven't seen much exploitation of women and children. The biggest
>problem with groups such as alt.sex.pictures is copyright violation,
>not "pornography" (whatever that is).
If you go through the dictionary definition tree of pornography, and
ignore the circular parts, what comes out is roughly "that which
shocks". The only thing on Usenet which shocks me is the determined
closed-mindedness of some posters.
--
Heidi de Wet heidi@ucthpx.uct.ac.za
Never eat a windfall apple; never stray from the path;
and never trust a man whose eyebrows meet.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 27 09:43:58 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA27820; Tue, 27 Aug 91 09:43:55 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA12200
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 09:42:42 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 09:42:18 -0400
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Message-Id: <9108271342.AA12611@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
X-Mailer: EZMAIL V3.4
Subject: A Utilitarian Approach to Scholarship
Status: OR
>
>bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Robert S.) writes:
>
[...]
>> Finally, any respectable academic institution
>>should not be carrying this trash anyway as it is contary to the objective of
>>the institution; namely the education of young people in disciplines
>>useful for the BENEFIT of society. Pornography and related uses is
>>contrary to this objective.
Using that analysis then, I can think of a lot of course areas that are
currently taught that aren't beneficial to society. We shouldn't teach
high-energy physics, because that can lead to nuclear devices, which certainly
aren't beneficial to society. We probably shouldn't teach much beyond
introductory chemistry, since that can lead to research and production of such
things as dioxin, a highly potent carcinogen. Music is also of dubious
"benefit," as are theatre and other arts. Since this is an English-speaking
nation, there's no need to teach foreign languages or foreign cultures - for
the vast majority of society such a skill isn't "useful." In the arena of the
social sciences, I would think that there isn't much that's a "benefit" to
society. In economics, the experts themselves can't agree on what good
policies are; the sociologists can't seem to stop any of the various -isms
that permeate our society; the historians can't seem to stop us from repeating
the mistakes of the past; the political scientists can't help us design
governing systems that are fair, equitable, and representative; and the
psychologists don't seem to be doing a good job in keeping us well-adjusted.
In the biological sciences....
In short, based on a purely utilitarian approach to learning, we should
discard the entire university system! After all, most of what goes in
academia seems neither to be "useful" or "beneficial."
The above opinion is my own and should be taken for what it is (send e-mail if
you can't figure it out.)
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 27 08:06:36 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA27593; Tue, 27 Aug 91 08:06:34 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA10729
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 08:05:22 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Message-Id: <199108271205.AA10709@eff.org>
Cc: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 Aug 91 17:35:08 +0000. <49170@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 13:04:17 +0100
From: Gordon Joly
Status: OR
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Robert Bond - University of Pennsylvania
>> Chemical Engineering Labs <<------>>
>> Reply to: bond@picasso.seas.upenn.edu <<---->>
>> <<>>
>> "Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice."
>> - Foghorn Leghorn
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the rest. Whilst pontificating about images on Usenet and how
society will deteriorate as result, Robert Bond manages to use the
word "girl" in his .signature.
Perhaps the use of the term "girl" is too subtle a point for him.
Agreed, sexism in language is a tricky one, mate.
____
Gordon Joly +44 71 387 7050 ext 3716
Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
Order is paramount in anarchy.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 27 13:28:13 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA28788; Tue, 27 Aug 91 13:28:10 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA15266
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 13:26:36 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Message-Id: <199108271726.AA15246@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 13:24:28 EDT
From: Frank Anshen
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
In-Reply-To: Message of 26 Aug 91 17:35:08 GMT from
Status: OR
I know of no reliable evidence which indicates that pornography causes
"higher unwanted pregnacies, sexually oriented crimes, and the greater
spread of STD's." I don't even believe that it has been reliably associated
with worts.
Frank Anshen
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 27 18:18:46 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA29777; Tue, 27 Aug 91 18:18:44 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA21378
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 18:17:44 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 27 AUG 91 17:17:32 CDT
From: ROBERT ERVIN JONES
Subject: ^^^
Message-Id: <910827.17162896.051891@USM.CP6>
Comments: Please Acknowledge Reception
Status: OR
Isn't it great to know that we have someone like Bond to tell
us how to live and to structure our lives for us ???
* aka Frosty ---* | GCMS, SotMESC, DPMA, ACM, CSQ, FP
I speak for none . . . Just to be safe | What a great bunch of acronyms
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Aug 28 13:50:55 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA02438; Wed, 28 Aug 91 13:50:40 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA12484
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Wed, 28 Aug 1991 13:49:14 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 13:49:03 -0400
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Message-Id: <9108281749.AA23399@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
X-Mailer: EZMAIL V3.4
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>
>>I seem to remember that the U.S. Supreme Court finally came up with a definition
>>for porography saying words to the effect of 'we can't give a description, but
>>we know it when we see it'
>
>Just a clarification. In the United States, by default pornography is
>protected by the Constitution. Only the subset of pornography that is
>"obscene" is not protected.
>
>- Carl
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>
>
>
In Miller v. California, the court set out a three-prong standard
for definitions of obscene. An article is abscene, and thus not protected by
the First amendment if average citizen, using contempory comunnity standards,
would find that the work in question has no serious literary, scientific,
social, or artistic value. It was this standard which was used in Cincinnati
last summer when the sheriff of Hamilton County brought suit to close the
Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit. The jury found there was sufficient artistic
value in the allegedly obscene pictures and thus was protected.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Aug 28 15:38:05 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA02794; Wed, 28 Aug 91 15:38:02 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA16240
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Wed, 28 Aug 1991 15:37:06 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 15:36:36 -0400
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Message-Id: <9108281936.AA28462@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
X-Mailer: EZMAIL V3.4
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
>[...]
>>In Miller v. California, the court set out a three-prong standard
>>for definitions of obscene. An article is abscene, and thus not protected by
>>the First amendment if average citizen, using contempory comunnity standards,
>>would find that the work in question has no serious literary, scientific,
>>social, or artistic value. It was this standard which was used in Cincinnati
>>last summer when the sheriff of Hamilton County brought suit to close the
>>Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit. The jury found there was sufficient artistic
>>value in the allegedly obscene pictures and thus was protected.
>[...]
>
>Another clarification. The Miller test of obscenity is:
>
>1) must appeal to the prurient interest
>
>2) must describe sexual conduct in a way that is "patently offensive"
>to community standards
>
>AND
>
>3) when taken as a whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic,
>political, or scientific value"
>
>Note that only "patently offensiveness" is decided by community
>standards.
>
>- Carl
You're right. I was trying to quote from memory, and I obviously didn't do a
very good job. It was my understanding, however, that in a late-1990 case
the U.S.S.C. had extended the community-standard criterion to the serious-value
component of the test.
Any info on this?
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Aug 28 12:29:10 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA02182; Wed, 28 Aug 91 12:29:03 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA10724
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Wed, 28 Aug 1991 12:27:38 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk.Wed@eff.org, 28.Aug.1991.17:02:23.+0100@eff.org
From: Mark Evans
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 17:03:52 +0100
Message-Id: <12714.9108281603@uk.ac.aston.uhura>
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
I seem to remember that the U.S. Supreme Court finally came up with a definition
for porography saying words to the effect of 'we can't give a description, but
we know it when we see it'
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Aug 28 16:31:58 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA03138; Wed, 28 Aug 91 16:31:55 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA16759
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Wed, 28 Aug 1991 16:30:44 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: dave
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Message-Id: <1991Aug28.202944.11851@bradley.bradley.edu>
Organization: Bradley University
References: <9108281749.AA23399@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 20:29:44 GMT
Lines: 24
Apparently-To: info-academic-freedom@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Status: OR
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.MIL (Robert F Solon) writes:
>In Miller v. California, the court set out a three-prong standard
>for definitions of obscene. An article is abscene, and thus not protected by
>the First amendment if average citizen, using contempory comunnity standards,
>would find that the work in question has no serious literary, scientific,
>social, or artistic value. It was this standard which was used in Cincinnati
>last summer when the sheriff of Hamilton County brought suit to close the
>Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit. The jury found there was sufficient artistic
>value in the allegedly obscene pictures and thus was protected.
To be a little more specific, to be judged obscene, a work must (1) be
found to appeal to prurient interests, (2) be patently offensive by
contemporary community standards, and (3) lack any serious artistic,
social, or scientific value. In most cases I've seen the third point has
been the make-or-break criteria. For instance, it saved "Naked Lunch" by
William S. Burroughs from being banned in Boston (as well as the
Mapplethorpe exhibit you mentioned), but it sank (in the opinion of
the particular federal judge who made the decision) _As_Nasty_as_They_
_Wanna_Be_ by 2 Live Crew.
--
========*davE*......making the world safe for intelligent dance music.========
Wanna die young? Snort dandelions.
(David Vessell) (Bradley University Computing Services) (dave@bradley.edu)
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Aug 28 20:28:53 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA03734; Wed, 28 Aug 91 20:28:51 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA20534
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Wed, 28 Aug 1991 20:22:34 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 28 Aug 91 21:02:59 GMT
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Message-Id: <1991Aug28.210259.3773@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Organization: University of Hawaii
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
Subject: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Status: OR
1. "Any price for freedom is too high."
If I carry alt.sex, someone might object, and this would be
an inconvenience to me. I or my university might even get sued,
and if so, the bad guys might win.
2. "Someone else denies freedoms, so it must be ok."
I once saw a newstand vendor refuse to sell Playboy to a
five year old. Same thing. And what better model to follow
for a university in a free society?
3. "We had to destroy freedom in order to save it." (variant of #1)
A reporter will notice I carry alt.sex. It will get into
the news. Someone will write a congressman. The congressman
will call NSF. NSF will not renew the grant that pays for
network access. Legitimate research will be impeded, no one
will be able to read news, and (here's the killer) the very
people who wanted alt.sex will not have access to it!!
--
Greg Lee
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Aug 28 18:10:55 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA03406; Wed, 28 Aug 91 18:10:51 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA18270
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Wed, 28 Aug 1991 18:07:33 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 28 Aug 91 21:09:11 GMT
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Message-Id: <7834@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <1991Aug28.184506.15269@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
The sad thing about the alt.sex debate is that most of the contents of
alt.sex isn't obscene by any definition. People ask about the effectiveness
of different birth control methods; there is discussion of dating, sex,
and social relationships; there is discussion of the morality of various
kinds of sexual relationships; there is discussion of the risk of AIDS
and other diseases.
Considering the importance of these issues in modern society, especially
among the college students that make up a large fraction of the alt.sex
readership, and considering the limited number of "safe places" to talk
about such personal subjects, my suspicion is that alt.sex is serving
a very valuable function!
Yes, there are "porno stories" that people submit there. Most would
qualify as "sexually explicit romantic fantasy." I've seen equally
explicit material in many best-selling novels. Some of the fiction is
quite good, most is pretty bad, but literary merit is not a decent
ground for censorship.
A few years back, there was an absolutely vile story posted in alt.sex
-- Cindy's Torment. Just about everyone who read it found it revolting,
yet I think the net effect of the ensuing discussion was positive.
Subjects like the victimization of women and the very nature of morality
were central to that discussion, and I think many people participated
in the discussion who normally would have stood silently on the sidelines
and ignored such issues.
There are also "dirty jokes" and other potentially degrading material
posted in alt.sex. Generally, when these are indeed degrading, they are
roundly attacked as such, and I suspect that, if anything, this provides
something of a moral education for those who post such material.
The other alt.sex... newsgroups may be subject to similar defenses,
but I will leave them to others.
Douglas Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Aug 28 21:30:10 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA03852; Wed, 28 Aug 91 21:30:06 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA21489
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Wed, 28 Aug 1991 21:22:36 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 29 Aug 91 00:29:43 GMT
From: wolves!ggw (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.002943.15138@wolves.uucp>
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <475E3B736880119D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, <1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship
Status: OR
<1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>From _Public School Law: Teachers' and Student' Rights_ by Martha
>McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe:
>
>---start quote---
>[p.124]
>Permissible and Impermissible Content
>[...]
>--- end quote---
Carl,
so far, you have made this (or substantially similar) points
three times. Twice, folks have pointed out that your analogy for
applying this particular judgement do not reasonably match the situation
being discussed.
Simply repeating points over and over again does not augment
their applicability. It simply starts to sound like the braying of an
animal. (Besides, I wouldn't want to offend the jackasses I know :-)
--
Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...duke!wolves!ggw [use the maps!]
Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: dlv@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU (Dimitri Vulis)
Subject: The New York Newsday on RELCOM and the putsch
Message-ID: <199108310615.AA04985@eff.org>
From: SK@ccvm.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Info-Nets@Think.Com
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 29 Aug 91 02:21:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 182
We talk about freedom in the abstract. Here is an example of real freedom
threatened and freedom regained and the role played by computing networks.
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
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
[This is a submission to the SUEARN-L digest; I'm sending a cc:, since I figure
this is of interest. SUEARN-L archives can be FTP'd from impaqt1.mem.drexel.edu
[129.25.10.1], directory pub/suearn/back-issues.]
The following is reproduced without permission
from the New York Nesday, August 28th, 1991.
Tales of the Net That Said Nyet
by Joshua Quittner
It was the computer message seen 'round the world:
``Please stop flooding the only narrow channel with bogus messages [and] with
silly questions,'' Vadim Antonov [avg@hq.demos.hq] wrote to westerners
attempting to send electronic mail to Russia during the early hours of the
coup.
``Note that it's neither a toy nor a means to reach your relatives or friends.
We need the bandwidth to help organize the resistance. Please, do not (even
unintentionally) help those fascists!''
The message, sent from Antonov's computer in Moscow late on the night of Aug.
19, was copied and posted dozens of times across the United States and abroad,
on electronic bulletin boards, databses where users can log in and swap
messages publicly. Antonov, one of the builders of the Soviet Union's
two-year-old computer communications network, known as Relcom, knew its severe
limitations---and its awesome potential to spread information---as well as
anyone.
And no one cared more about keeping the system alive and well: The lanky,
long-haired programming wizard, described by friends as ``the first among
equals'' at a Moscow-based software cooperative aptly named DEMOS, and his
peers, were working to keep communications channels open to hundreds of
pro-democracy activists at 70 cities around the Soiet Union.
``At the beginning, we had no idea what was happening. We were preparing for
long-term underground activity,'' Antonov said by telephone from moscow in his
first interview yesterday. [+7 095 231 2129].
He said the network reached as high as Gen. Konstantin Kobets, head of Russian
President Boris Yeltsin's defence committee, who was ready to rely on the
network should the crisis worsen. An information bucket-brigade of sorts, it
extended to personal computer users in remote republics, who would print out
directives and news updates, posting them in public. And it included computer
correspondents in the United States and Europe, who provided timely news feeds.
``Computer communications are more democrati by nature than mass media like TV
or newspapers, simply because they don't belong to a single entity. There;s no
central authority over the network,'' Antonov said. ``We all realized it was
the only chance for us to survive.''
[Pseudo-technical nonsense omitted :) ]
While television stations and major media were muzzled, and while radio
reception was jammed in some parts of the country, the computer network stayed
intact, Antonov and others said. ``Transcripts of Yeltsin's speeches were sent.
News went back and forth,'' said Ray Davis, a programmer in Frankfurt, Germany,
who corresponded with the DEMOS workers throughout the coup. ``If the coup
hadn't failed, they might all be in jail right now.''
``I sat here sending them news from the U.S.,'' said Larry Press, a computer
scientist at California State University. ``There were people around the world
sending them news.''
The DEMOS group had its setbacks, however. One member attempted to bring a
laptop computer, outfitted with a high-speed modem and network-compatible
communications software, into the White House, as the bouilding that houses
Russian parliament is known, but coulnd't get through, Antonov said. The
machine would have made communcation easier for the correspondents inside.
And KGB agents undoubtedly knew about the underground network, Antonov said.
``During the last night of the coup we got a strane phone call to our
headquarters,'' he said. ``The caller said, `We are your users. Please give us
your modem phone number.' ''
This was an absurd statement, since anyone who knew about the network knew how
to interconnect to it. The DEMOS people gave the caller different instructions:
``We said to them rude words,'' he said.
Some notes from the computer underground
Here are some electronic messages sent from Soviet computer users who helped
mobilize resistance by sending out information. Most of these messages are from
people in the United States and Europe. They were compiled by Larry Press, a
California State University computer science professor. Senders sometimes used
punctuation marks to create ``sideways smiley faces,'' such as :-) to denote
irony, sarcasm or happiness.
Monday Aug. 19
~From: Vadim Antonov, DEMOS Software Cooperative
...I've seen the tanks with my own eyes. I hope we'll be able to communicate
during the next few days. Communists cannot rape the Mother Russia once again!
~From: Polina Antonova, a DEMOS programmer
...Thanks Heaven, these cretins don't consider us mass media!
Tuesday, Aug. 20
~From: Polina Antonova
Hi! Don't worry, we're OK though frightened and angry. Moscow is full of tanks
and military machines, I hate them. They try to close all mass media, they
shutted up CNN an hour ago, Soviet TV transmits opera and old movies. But,
thanks Heaven, they don't consider RELCOM mass media or they simply forgot
about it. Now we transmit information enough to put us in prison for the rest
of our life :-). Hope all will turn out well at long last. -Polina
~From: Anonymous
If these dogs win, for certain they'll throw us in prison---we distributed the
proclamation from Yeltsin and the Moscow and Leningrad Soviets throughout the
entire Soviet Union, together with the forbidden communiques from Interfa [an
independent News aganecy -DV]...
Greetings from the underground
~From: Enn Tyugu
Estonia has survived until this hour. The troops are neat Tallinn and more are
coming, but they have not yet got to the TV and radio centers. latvia and
Lithuanian mass media are already in the hands of the troops. many people are
around our vulnerable buildings protecting them and building barricades. Mostly
heavy trucks are being used as barricades. -Thanks for your support.
~From: Anonymous
To all people of good will! We want you to know that the democracy of the USSR
is in great danger... Right now the center of Moscow is surrounded by tanks and
soldiers... We need your moral support! ... Down with the Communist tyranny!
Wednesday, Aug. 21
~From: Polina Antonova
Don't worry, the only danger for us is if they catch and arrest us, as we're
sitting at home...and distributing all inf. we have. I can only hear these
tanks, and, it seems, aircraft. But I have to know, what's happening near White
house! ... -Polina
~From: Polina Antonova
Really good news. Right now we're listening to the Radio Russia (without any
jamming!) they told that the Eight left Moscow, no one knows where...Hard to
believe...May be, they really run away? Radio asks for information about their
location.
~From: Polina Antonova
Thank you, Larry!
Now all information media are on, CNN transmits our ``Time'' TV program, and I
can watch them both! [They've got a sat dish -DV]
I've heard (maybe it was CNN) that they withdraw armed forces from Baltic
cities. I'm not near the parliament, I'm still at the computer, but the
situation on the net became lighter now and I hope to sleep a little, it was my
dream during last two days. :-) You can't even imagine, how grateful we are for
your help and support in this terrible time! The best thing is to know, that we
aren't alone. -Cheers, Polina
Thursday, Aug. 22
~From: George Tereshko
When the dark night fell upon Moscow, Relcom was one source of light for us.
Thanks to all these brave people we could get information and hope. I would
also like to thank the people running Soviet BBSs who provided another net for
information flow.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: dlv@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU (Dimitri Vulis)
Subject: The New York Newsday on RELCOM and the putsch
Message-ID: <199108310615.AA04985@eff.org>
From: SK@ccvm.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Info-Nets@Think.Com
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 29 Aug 91 02:21:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 182
We talk about freedom in the abstract. Here is an example of real freedom
threatened and freedom regained and the role played by computing networks.
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
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
[This is a submission to the SUEARN-L digest; I'm sending a cc:, since I figure
this is of interest. SUEARN-L archives can be FTP'd from impaqt1.mem.drexel.edu
[129.25.10.1], directory pub/suearn/back-issues.]
The following is reproduced without permission
from the New York Nesday, August 28th, 1991.
Tales of the Net That Said Nyet
by Joshua Quittner
It was the computer message seen 'round the world:
``Please stop flooding the only narrow channel with bogus messages [and] with
silly questions,'' Vadim Antonov [avg@hq.demos.hq] wrote to westerners
attempting to send electronic mail to Russia during the early hours of the
coup.
``Note that it's neither a toy nor a means to reach your relatives or friends.
We need the bandwidth to help organize the resistance. Please, do not (even
unintentionally) help those fascists!''
The message, sent from Antonov's computer in Moscow late on the night of Aug.
19, was copied and posted dozens of times across the United States and abroad,
on electronic bulletin boards, databses where users can log in and swap
messages publicly. Antonov, one of the builders of the Soviet Union's
two-year-old computer communications network, known as Relcom, knew its severe
limitations---and its awesome potential to spread information---as well as
anyone.
And no one cared more about keeping the system alive and well: The lanky,
long-haired programming wizard, described by friends as ``the first among
equals'' at a Moscow-based software cooperative aptly named DEMOS, and his
peers, were working to keep communications channels open to hundreds of
pro-democracy activists at 70 cities around the Soiet Union.
``At the beginning, we had no idea what was happening. We were preparing for
long-term underground activity,'' Antonov said by telephone from moscow in his
first interview yesterday. [+7 095 231 2129].
He said the network reached as high as Gen. Konstantin Kobets, head of Russian
President Boris Yeltsin's defence committee, who was ready to rely on the
network should the crisis worsen. An information bucket-brigade of sorts, it
extended to personal computer users in remote republics, who would print out
directives and news updates, posting them in public. And it included computer
correspondents in the United States and Europe, who provided timely news feeds.
``Computer communications are more democrati by nature than mass media like TV
or newspapers, simply because they don't belong to a single entity. There;s no
central authority over the network,'' Antonov said. ``We all realized it was
the only chance for us to survive.''
[Pseudo-technical nonsense omitted :) ]
While television stations and major media were muzzled, and while radio
reception was jammed in some parts of the country, the computer network stayed
intact, Antonov and others said. ``Transcripts of Yeltsin's speeches were sent.
News went back and forth,'' said Ray Davis, a programmer in Frankfurt, Germany,
who corresponded with the DEMOS workers throughout the coup. ``If the coup
hadn't failed, they might all be in jail right now.''
``I sat here sending them news from the U.S.,'' said Larry Press, a computer
scientist at California State University. ``There were people around the world
sending them news.''
The DEMOS group had its setbacks, however. One member attempted to bring a
laptop computer, outfitted with a high-speed modem and network-compatible
communications software, into the White House, as the bouilding that houses
Russian parliament is known, but coulnd't get through, Antonov said. The
machine would have made communcation easier for the correspondents inside.
And KGB agents undoubtedly knew about the underground network, Antonov said.
``During the last night of the coup we got a strane phone call to our
headquarters,'' he said. ``The caller said, `We are your users. Please give us
your modem phone number.' ''
This was an absurd statement, since anyone who knew about the network knew how
to interconnect to it. The DEMOS people gave the caller different instructions:
``We said to them rude words,'' he said.
Some notes from the computer underground
Here are some electronic messages sent from Soviet computer users who helped
mobilize resistance by sending out information. Most of these messages are from
people in the United States and Europe. They were compiled by Larry Press, a
California State University computer science professor. Senders sometimes used
punctuation marks to create ``sideways smiley faces,'' such as :-) to denote
irony, sarcasm or happiness.
Monday Aug. 19
~From: Vadim Antonov, DEMOS Software Cooperative
...I've seen the tanks with my own eyes. I hope we'll be able to communicate
during the next few days. Communists cannot rape the Mother Russia once again!
~From: Polina Antonova, a DEMOS programmer
...Thanks Heaven, these cretins don't consider us mass media!
Tuesday, Aug. 20
~From: Polina Antonova
Hi! Don't worry, we're OK though frightened and angry. Moscow is full of tanks
and military machines, I hate them. They try to close all mass media, they
shutted up CNN an hour ago, Soviet TV transmits opera and old movies. But,
thanks Heaven, they don't consider RELCOM mass media or they simply forgot
about it. Now we transmit information enough to put us in prison for the rest
of our life :-). Hope all will turn out well at long last. -Polina
~From: Anonymous
If these dogs win, for certain they'll throw us in prison---we distributed the
proclamation from Yeltsin and the Moscow and Leningrad Soviets throughout the
entire Soviet Union, together with the forbidden communiques from Interfa [an
independent News aganecy -DV]...
Greetings from the underground
~From: Enn Tyugu
Estonia has survived until this hour. The troops are neat Tallinn and more are
coming, but they have not yet got to the TV and radio centers. latvia and
Lithuanian mass media are already in the hands of the troops. many people are
around our vulnerable buildings protecting them and building barricades. Mostly
heavy trucks are being used as barricades. -Thanks for your support.
~From: Anonymous
To all people of good will! We want you to know that the democracy of the USSR
is in great danger... Right now the center of Moscow is surrounded by tanks and
soldiers... We need your moral support! ... Down with the Communist tyranny!
Wednesday, Aug. 21
~From: Polina Antonova
Don't worry, the only danger for us is if they catch and arrest us, as we're
sitting at home...and distributing all inf. we have. I can only hear these
tanks, and, it seems, aircraft. But I have to know, what's happening near White
house! ... -Polina
~From: Polina Antonova
Really good news. Right now we're listening to the Radio Russia (without any
jamming!) they told that the Eight left Moscow, no one knows where...Hard to
believe...May be, they really run away? Radio asks for information about their
location.
~From: Polina Antonova
Thank you, Larry!
Now all information media are on, CNN transmits our ``Time'' TV program, and I
can watch them both! [They've got a sat dish -DV]
I've heard (maybe it was CNN) that they withdraw armed forces from Baltic
cities. I'm not near the parliament, I'm still at the computer, but the
situation on the net became lighter now and I hope to sleep a little, it was my
dream during last two days. :-) You can't even imagine, how grateful we are for
your help and support in this terrible time! The best thing is to know, that we
aren't alone. -Cheers, Polina
Thursday, Aug. 22
~From: George Tereshko
When the dark night fell upon Moscow, Relcom was one source of light for us.
Thanks to all these brave people we could get information and hope. I would
also like to thank the people running Soviet BBSs who provided another net for
information flow.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 29 Aug 91 05:51:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 50
>1. "Any price for freedom is too high."
> If I carry alt.sex, someone might object, and this would be
> an inconvenience to me. I or my university might even get sued,
> and if so, the bad guys might win.
An inconvenience to me is a loss of MY freedom. I am thoroughly convinced that
people are confusing the freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Freedom
of press, the current model for Usenet, is the freedom of the owner of the
press, i.e. the owner of the hardware. Just as a magazine or newspaper
publisher publishes what they want according to their convenience, so does a
Usenet computer owner.
>
>2. "Someone else denies freedoms, so it must be ok."
> I once saw a newstand vendor refuse to sell Playboy to a
> five year old. Same thing. And what better model to follow
> for a university in a free society?
>
The United States is a free society? Do your really believe that? The court
system, the lawyers and the politicians do all they can to come up with new
and restrictive rules which they at times have the temerity to term "freedoms"
and "reforms". A truly free society would not need one cop for every 250
persons or the truly gigantic number of individuals in prison. It would also
not need Customs and Immigration police and laws. Any one who wants to come
to a truly free society or leave it should be able to do so without any
restrictions.
>3. "We had to destroy freedom in order to save it." (variant of #1)
> A reporter will notice I carry alt.sex. It will get into
> the news. Someone will write a congressman. The congressman
> will call NSF. NSF will not renew the grant that pays for
> network access. Legitimate research will be impeded, no one
> will be able to read news, and (here's the killer) the very
> people who wanted alt.sex will not have access to it!!
>
You have described a scenario that happens all to often in the way you
describe it.
Just because something is popular does not make it good. Drugs are popular,
alcohol is popular. The most basic rule of advertising is that sex sells.
>Greg Lee
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Free Speech or Free Press Model?
Message-ID: <9108291857.AA01643@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 29 Aug 91 10:57:38 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 61
In reply to the mail from ...
I write:
>
>>I guess my goal is to try to maximize the property and civil rights
>>of the owners of the systems as well as the First Amendment rights
>>of the users. Since at times these rights conflict, we have to
>>delineate the extent of each.
>
Sanjay Kapur writes:
>I know this and you have already stated this in your article, but I would like
>to re-emphasize:
>
> Freedom of press is also a First Amendment right of the
> owner of the press and is much more than a "property" right.
>
That's my entire point: it seems that there are conflicting First amendment
rights here, i.e., the owners' First amendment free-press rights, and the
users' First amendment free-speech rights.
Let me put my question another way: How do we balance the apparently
conflicting First Amendment rights of owners and users? Is such a balancing
even possible?
I think it is. I think that as long as owners clearly indicate what groups
they will carry, and are required to give reasonable notice that the content
of the newsfeed is about to change, then owners may carry any groups they
wish, regardless of things like technological capacities. Users who
participate are aware of the available newsgroups and know that their speech
is protected in conjunction with those groups, (and of course all e-mail).
Owners agree to protect speech and to give prior notice; users may accept the
agreement or not participate on that system. If they do participate, their
speech is protected.
I already hear one counter-argument, and I honestly don't know how this would
fit in. Should speech that is sent via an e-mail gateway to groups not carried
by the user's system be protected? I don't know. Any ideas?
Another question: Do the sysadmins on a publicly-funded site have any rights
to exercise prior restraint in any form whatsoever, except for involuntary
things like limits because of disk capacity? To what degree must a site be
"publicly-funded" to fall under this criterion?
All kinds of questions - not so many answers :(
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 14:59:51 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06286; Thu, 29 Aug 91 14:59:48 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA15087
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 14:55:35 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 14:57:38 -0400
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Message-Id: <9108291857.AA01643@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
X-Mailer: EZMAIL V3.4
Subject: Re: Free Speech or Free Press Model?
Status: OR
In reply to the mail from ...
I write:
>
>>I guess my goal is to try to maximize the property and civil rights
>>of the owners of the systems as well as the First Amendment rights
>>of the users. Since at times these rights conflict, we have to
>>delineate the extent of each.
>
Sanjay Kapur writes:
>I know this and you have already stated this in your article, but I would like
>to re-emphasize:
>
> Freedom of press is also a First Amendment right of the
> owner of the press and is much more than a "property" right.
>
That's my entire point: it seems that there are conflicting First amendment
rights here, i.e., the owners' First amendment free-press rights, and the
users' First amendment free-speech rights.
Let me put my question another way: How do we balance the apparently
conflicting First Amendment rights of owners and users? Is such a balancing
even possible?
I think it is. I think that as long as owners clearly indicate what groups
they will carry, and are required to give reasonable notice that the content
of the newsfeed is about to change, then owners may carry any groups they
wish, regardless of things like technological capacities. Users who
participate are aware of the available newsgroups and know that their speech
is protected in conjunction with those groups, (and of course all e-mail).
Owners agree to protect speech and to give prior notice; users may accept the
agreement or not participate on that system. If they do participate, their
speech is protected.
I already hear one counter-argument, and I honestly don't know how this would
fit in. Should speech that is sent via an e-mail gateway to groups not carried
by the user's system be protected? I don't know. Any ideas?
Another question: Do the sysadmins on a publicly-funded site have any rights
to exercise prior restraint in any form whatsoever, except for involuntary
things like limits because of disk capacity? To what degree must a site be
"publicly-funded" to fall under this criterion?
All kinds of questions - not so many answers :(
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 16:17:17 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06460; Thu, 29 Aug 91 16:17:14 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA16921
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:15:43 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Received: from SUVM (SYSGAM) by SUVM (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 1007; Thu, 29
Aug 91 16:13:51 LCL
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 15:41:06 LCL
From: "Glenn A. Malling"
Organization: Syracuse University / Computing and Network Services
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-Id: <910829.154106.LCL.SYSGAM@SUVM>
In-Reply-To: <1991Aug29.130602.33084@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Status: OR
We seem to approaching the crux of the matter. Computer communication is
something NEW! The old paradigms don't fit. Freedom of the press doesn't
fit. Freedom of speech doesn't fit. The notion of a common carrier
doesn't fit. This newness is (IMHO) the reason for EFF.
Ninety years ago the only paved roads outside of urban areas were
privately owned toll roads. Somehow we've ended up with a highway network
"owned" by the government(s) and payed for for the most part by taxation.
And yet the telephone network which began at approximately the same time
is privately owned in the US.
What is this new thing? Should it be public, private, mixed, regulated,
unregulated? Who pays for it? And how? Pay per use, subscription,
taxation? Who gets to use it? And under what terms?
Keep in mind that the network we have today is not what we'll have
tomorrow and the answers to all those questions will change. Can we
devise principles which will apply now as well as tomorrow and the day
after? Difficult questions. Puts me in awe of Franklin, Madison, Hamilton
et. al.
Glenn A. Malling (SYSGAM@SUVM) or sysgam@suvm.acs.syr.edu
Computing & Network Services (315)-443-4111
Machinery Hall
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York 13244
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 11:52:03 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA05645; Thu, 29 Aug 91 11:52:00 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA10712
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 11:48:53 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
From: Aydin Edguer
Message-Id: <9108291548.AA00963@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 11:48:50 EDT
In-Reply-To: <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>; from "cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu" at Aug 29, 91 3:53 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL6]
Status: OR
> Try this for a thought:
> You've made points several times about the "owners" of machines and their
> control. But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
> Not the faculty. Not the administrators. The people who pay tuition
> to attend the school are your employers, and if they weren't there, you
> wouldn't be there either.
Wrong. The owner of a university is *NOT* the students. They are the
_customers_, not the owners or employers.
Try to keep your thoughts straight.
Aydin Edguer
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <9108291548.AA00963@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
References: <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 91 15:48:50 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 13
> Try this for a thought:
> You've made points several times about the "owners" of machines and their
> control. But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
> Not the faculty. Not the administrators. The people who pay tuition
> to attend the school are your employers, and if they weren't there, you
> wouldn't be there either.
Wrong. The owner of a university is *NOT* the students. They are the
_customers_, not the owners or employers.
Try to keep your thoughts straight.
Aydin Edguer
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 11:28:26 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA05585; Thu, 29 Aug 91 11:28:24 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA10314
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 11:22:35 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 29 Aug 91 15:53:36 GMT
From: cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Organization: University of North Texas
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Status: OR
In article <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
(referring to someone he didn't attribute...)
>>2. "Someone else denies freedoms, so it must be ok."
>> I once saw a newstand vendor refuse to sell Playboy to a
>> five year old. Same thing. And what better model to follow
>> for a university in a free society?
Leading to a corollary...
> The United States is a free society? Do your really believe that? The court
> system, the lawyers and the politicians do all they can to come up with new
> and restrictive rules which they at times have the temerity to term "freedoms"
> and "reforms". A truly free society would not need one cop for every 250
> persons or the truly gigantic number of individuals in prison. It would also
> not need Customs and Immigration police and laws. Any one who wants to come
> to a truly free society or leave it should be able to do so without any
> restrictions.
In other words, "You're not free, so stop worrying about it. Freedom is
a pipe dream shared only by those with delusions of adequacy..."
I know you don't accept this, but some of us in the U.S. *do* believe
in freedom. We know that there are severe restrictions on our lives,
and we know that most of the things being done would send the Founding
Fathers into fits of apoplexy. These things are happening on a daily
basis, and most folks don't even notice...
BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!
> 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
Try this for a thought:
You've made points several times about the "owners" of machines and their
control. But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
Not the faculty. Not the administrators. The people who pay tuition
to attend the school are your employers, and if they weren't there, you
wouldn't be there either.
So be a good employee and do the right thing, instead of being another
bureaucrat...
;-)
--
| C Irby cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu cirby@untvax |
| Between the politicians, the lawyers, the bureaucrats, the insurance |
| salesmen, and the TV commentators- not to mention the fools, lovers, |
| and idiots- we may be the only two honest people left in the world. |
| And I can see that card you have up your sleeve... |
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!mips.mitek.com!sol.acs.unt.edu!vaxb.acs.unt.edu!cirby
From: cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 91 15:53:36 GMT
References: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: usenet@sol.acs.unt.edu (Sol USENet Administrator)
Organization: University of North Texas
Lines: 57
In article <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
(referring to someone he didn't attribute...)
>>2. "Someone else denies freedoms, so it must be ok."
>> I once saw a newstand vendor refuse to sell Playboy to a
>> five year old. Same thing. And what better model to follow
>> for a university in a free society?
Leading to a corollary...
> The United States is a free society? Do your really believe that? The court
> system, the lawyers and the politicians do all they can to come up with new
> and restrictive rules which they at times have the temerity to term "freedoms"
> and "reforms". A truly free society would not need one cop for every 250
> persons or the truly gigantic number of individuals in prison. It would also
> not need Customs and Immigration police and laws. Any one who wants to come
> to a truly free society or leave it should be able to do so without any
> restrictions.
In other words, "You're not free, so stop worrying about it. Freedom is
a pipe dream shared only by those with delusions of adequacy..."
I know you don't accept this, but some of us in the U.S. *do* believe
in freedom. We know that there are severe restrictions on our lives,
and we know that most of the things being done would send the Founding
Fathers into fits of apoplexy. These things are happening on a daily
basis, and most folks don't even notice...
BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!
> 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
Try this for a thought:
You've made points several times about the "owners" of machines and their
control. But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
Not the faculty. Not the administrators. The people who pay tuition
to attend the school are your employers, and if they weren't there, you
wouldn't be there either.
So be a good employee and do the right thing, instead of being another
bureaucrat...
;-)
--
| C Irby cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu cirby@untvax |
| Between the politicians, the lawyers, the bureaucrats, the insurance |
| salesmen, and the TV commentators- not to mention the fools, lovers, |
| and idiots- we may be the only two honest people left in the world. |
| And I can see that card you have up your sleeve... |
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!eniac.seas.upenn.edu!bond
From: bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Robert S.)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* [Davis Rebuke]
Message-ID: <49385@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 91 15:54:34 GMT
References: <49170@netnews.upenn.edu>
From: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Robert S.)
Distribution: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 56
Nntp-Posting-Host: eniac.seas.upenn.edu
RB> == Robert S.
RB> The problem of the distribution of pornographic material on the net
RB> is one that must be solved. Pornography, by nature, exploites
RB> woman, children and leads to a warped sense of the nature of the
RB> sexual drive resulting in higher unwanted pregnancies, sexually
RB> oriented crimes, and the greater spread of STD's. As one other
RB> article on this group pointed out, we really don't know who might
RB> be viewing this material. Also, may I point out that part of many
RB> people's money who don't want this stuff on the net is being used
RB> to support it. Finally, any respectable academic institution
RB> should not be carrying this trash anyway as it is contary to the
RB> objective of the institution; namely the education of young people
RB> in disciplines useful for the BENEFIT of society. Pornography and
RB> related uses is contrary to this objective.
CD > == Christopher Davis
CD> The problem of the distribution of MS-DOS related material on the net is
CD> one that must be solved. MS-DOS, by nature, exploits silicon and leads
CD> to a warped sense of the nature of the computing drive resulting in
CD> higher unwanted programs, copyright oriented crimes, and the greater
CD> spread of computer viruses. As one other article on this group pointed
CD> out, we really don't know who might be viewing this material. Also, may
CD> I point out that part of many people's money who don't want this stuff
CD> on the net is being used to support it. Finally, any respectable
CD> academic institution should not be using MS-DOS anyway as it is contrary
CD> to the objective of the institution; namely the education of young
CD> people in disciplines useful for the BENEFIT of computer users. MS-DOS
CD> and related programs is contrary to this objective.
CD> [Note: I tried to preserve your grammatical errors as well as your
CD> incredibly long paragraph.]
[Note: Real cute, I'm sorry if you find any grammatical errors, but I am
a scientist not an English professor. In any event, your attempt to
satirize my article has added nothing worthwhile to the debate over the topic
and is incredibly inane anyway.]
CD> --
CD> Christopher Davis | ELECTRONIC MAIL WORDS OF WISDOM #5:
CD> System Manager & Postmaster | "Internet mail headers are
CD> Electronic Frontier Foundation | not unlike giblets."
CD> +1 617 864 0665 NIC: [CKD1] | -- Brian Reid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bond - University of Pennsylvania
Chemical Engineering Labs <<------>>
Reply to: bond@picasso.seas.upenn.edu <<---->>
<<>>
"Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice."
- Foghorn Leghorn
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 13:23:50 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA05914; Thu, 29 Aug 91 13:23:48 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA12892
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 13:22:44 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 29 Aug 91 15:54:34 GMT
From: bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Robert S.)
Message-Id: <49385@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <49170@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* [Davis Rebuke]
Status: OR
RB> == Robert S.
RB> The problem of the distribution of pornographic material on the net
RB> is one that must be solved. Pornography, by nature, exploites
RB> woman, children and leads to a warped sense of the nature of the
RB> sexual drive resulting in higher unwanted pregnancies, sexually
RB> oriented crimes, and the greater spread of STD's. As one other
RB> article on this group pointed out, we really don't know who might
RB> be viewing this material. Also, may I point out that part of many
RB> people's money who don't want this stuff on the net is being used
RB> to support it. Finally, any respectable academic institution
RB> should not be carrying this trash anyway as it is contary to the
RB> objective of the institution; namely the education of young people
RB> in disciplines useful for the BENEFIT of society. Pornography and
RB> related uses is contrary to this objective.
CD > == Christopher Davis
CD> The problem of the distribution of MS-DOS related material on the net is
CD> one that must be solved. MS-DOS, by nature, exploits silicon and leads
CD> to a warped sense of the nature of the computing drive resulting in
CD> higher unwanted programs, copyright oriented crimes, and the greater
CD> spread of computer viruses. As one other article on this group pointed
CD> out, we really don't know who might be viewing this material. Also, may
CD> I point out that part of many people's money who don't want this stuff
CD> on the net is being used to support it. Finally, any respectable
CD> academic institution should not be using MS-DOS anyway as it is contrary
CD> to the objective of the institution; namely the education of young
CD> people in disciplines useful for the BENEFIT of computer users. MS-DOS
CD> and related programs is contrary to this objective.
CD> [Note: I tried to preserve your grammatical errors as well as your
CD> incredibly long paragraph.]
[Note: Real cute, I'm sorry if you find any grammatical errors, but I am
a scientist not an English professor. In any event, your attempt to
satirize my article has added nothing worthwhile to the debate over the topic
and is incredibly inane anyway.]
CD> --
CD> Christopher Davis | ELECTRONIC MAIL WORDS OF WISDOM #5:
CD> System Manager & Postmaster | "Internet mail headers are
CD> Electronic Frontier Foundation | not unlike giblets."
CD> +1 617 864 0665 NIC: [CKD1] | -- Brian Reid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bond - University of Pennsylvania
Chemical Engineering Labs <<------>>
Reply to: bond@picasso.seas.upenn.edu <<---->>
<<>>
"Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice."
- Foghorn Leghorn
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!lll-winken!taurus!aldebaran!schweige
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <2713@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 29 Aug 91 15:56:43 GMT
References: <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Reply-To: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 50
In article <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>Try this for a thought:
>You've made points several times about the "owners" of machines and their
>control. But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
>Not the faculty. Not the administrators. The people who pay tuition
>to attend the school are your employers, and if they weren't there, you
>wouldn't be there either.
>
>So be a good employee and do the right thing, instead of being another
>bureaucrat...
>
>;-)
>| C Irby cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu cirby@untvax |
Actually, I have a hard time buying this argument. I'd be more comfortable
with "student as paying customer" expecting certain services. Paying tuition
hardly makes a student an owner of the school. If it is a state run
institution, you might make the argument that all residents of the state share
in the ownership (and even this would exclude students from outside the state).
In a case of a private institute, the corporation that runs it are the owners.
Tuition payments rarely cover the expenses of running a school, they make up
the difference between the expenses of running the school and other sources
of income - research grants (government and industry), corporate endowments,
income from the alumni association, investments, etc. Even in the case of
government run schools, school employees are responsible to the jurisdiction
as a whole, and not any one particular resident.
One of the other issues I haven't seen discussed much during recent postings,
is that as much as we might like Usenet to be a free speech medium, no one
has been able to cite a precedent establishing it as such. No one has been
able to show where Usenet posting can be considered a "right" as opposed to a
privilege. The publishing analogy, with 'Freedom of the Press' as the
governing paradigm, seems to be the more accurate model at present.
Supposing for a moment that might statement above is correct, and that we agree
that the situation should be changed so that it is practical to establish
freedom of speech as the model for what can be posted? I'm curious as to
what this would entail, but also recognize that a lot of court cases dealing
with the "electronic frontier" will have to be decided, and new legislation
enacted, before this becomes clear.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 12:24:44 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA05734; Thu, 29 Aug 91 12:24:38 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA11784
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 12:22:35 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 29 Aug 91 15:56:43 GMT
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Message-Id: <2713@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Status: OR
In article <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>Try this for a thought:
>You've made points several times about the "owners" of machines and their
>control. But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
>Not the faculty. Not the administrators. The people who pay tuition
>to attend the school are your employers, and if they weren't there, you
>wouldn't be there either.
>
>So be a good employee and do the right thing, instead of being another
>bureaucrat...
>
>;-)
>| C Irby cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu cirby@untvax |
Actually, I have a hard time buying this argument. I'd be more comfortable
with "student as paying customer" expecting certain services. Paying tuition
hardly makes a student an owner of the school. If it is a state run
institution, you might make the argument that all residents of the state share
in the ownership (and even this would exclude students from outside the state).
In a case of a private institute, the corporation that runs it are the owners.
Tuition payments rarely cover the expenses of running a school, they make up
the difference between the expenses of running the school and other sources
of income - research grants (government and industry), corporate endowments,
income from the alumni association, investments, etc. Even in the case of
government run schools, school employees are responsible to the jurisdiction
as a whole, and not any one particular resident.
One of the other issues I haven't seen discussed much during recent postings,
is that as much as we might like Usenet to be a free speech medium, no one
has been able to cite a precedent establishing it as such. No one has been
able to show where Usenet posting can be considered a "right" as opposed to a
privilege. The publishing analogy, with 'Freedom of the Press' as the
governing paradigm, seems to be the more accurate model at present.
Supposing for a moment that might statement above is correct, and that we agree
that the situation should be changed so that it is practical to establish
freedom of speech as the model for what can be posted? I'm curious as to
what this would entail, but also recognize that a lot of court cases dealing
with the "electronic frontier" will have to be decided, and new legislation
enacted, before this becomes clear.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 13:48:58 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA05981; Thu, 29 Aug 91 13:48:54 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA13384
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 13:47:04 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Message-Id: <9108291748.AA27958@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Subject: Free Speech or Free Press Model?
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 13:47:59 EDT
Priority: bulk
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL15]
Status: OR
Recent posters have written about whether Usenet can be better
classified under the First Amendment's freedom-of-the-press clause,
or whether the freedom-of-speech model is more appropriate. I'm not
sure that either is appropriate in whole, but each seems to be
appropriate in part:
Usenet seems to have aspects of the free-speech or "public forum"
model in that people can gather (electronically, as it were) to
discuss what's on their minds. In that way, Usenet becomes a forum
of views, and thus each individual's speech is thus presumably
protected by the First Amendment.
Usenet also appears to have aspects of the free-press model, in that
the media used to communicate thoughts and ideas are owned, and thus
controlled, and controllable by, private concerns (although many nodes
are publically funded - like mine, for example.) Part of the
free-press model, as I understand it, is the freedom of the owner(s)
to decide what gets published/broadcast/dissemminated/posted. Thus,
the owners(s) are also protected by the First Amendment, i.e., what
gets published may not, in general, be censored or be subject to prior
restraint by the government.
Question: May the owner(s) of the nodes of Usenet interfere with
their users' First Amendment rights of free expression? It has
already been pointed out that even on private property, owners may
not stop dissemination of materiel by Hari Krishnas or whatever. So
mere ownership apparently does not convey an automatic right to
control content. There appears to be somewhat of a conflict between
owners and users of Usenent. In almost every other medium, the
owners may decide almost completely what they may or may not
disseminate. Yet in Usenet it has been argued that sysadmins/owners
may not read private files (generally), and may not interfere with
e-mail. It has also been argued that saving off articles by
sysadmins is incorrect in that such practices are indirect prior
restraint. So I, at least, am not too sure what the situation is.
I wonder if there is a middle ground. What if we said that owners
may regulate the content of their newsfeed, but must carry the
entire feed as received; owners may choose which newsgroups to
carry, and are not obligated to carry the maximum possible newsfeed
(determined by disk space or other hardware), and that changes to
the newsfeed itself can only take place after a reasonable waiting
period has elapsed. Users, for their part, may participate in any
newsgroup carried by their systems; all e-mail and articles will be
free from prior restraint on the part of the owners, and they agree
to follow the standards delineated by the owner(s) of their system.
In other words, within the framework of the newsfeed determined by the
owners and publicly promulgated (ther owners' right), users are
protected in their speech by the fullest extent of the first
Amendment (the users' right).
I guess my goal is to try to maximize the property and civil rights
of the owners of the systems as well as the First Amendment rights
of the users. Since at times these rights conflict, we have to
delineate the extent of each.
The above opinion is, of course, my own, and does not represent any
policy of the United States, the U.S. Dept. of Defense, the Defense
Logistics Agency, or any subpart thereof.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch - "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Free Speech or Free Press Model?
Message-ID: <9108291748.AA27958@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 29 Aug 91 17:47:59 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 66
Recent posters have written about whether Usenet can be better
classified under the First Amendment's freedom-of-the-press clause,
or whether the freedom-of-speech model is more appropriate. I'm not
sure that either is appropriate in whole, but each seems to be
appropriate in part:
Usenet seems to have aspects of the free-speech or "public forum"
model in that people can gather (electronically, as it were) to
discuss what's on their minds. In that way, Usenet becomes a forum
of views, and thus each individual's speech is thus presumably
protected by the First Amendment.
Usenet also appears to have aspects of the free-press model, in that
the media used to communicate thoughts and ideas are owned, and thus
controlled, and controllable by, private concerns (although many nodes
are publically funded - like mine, for example.) Part of the
free-press model, as I understand it, is the freedom of the owner(s)
to decide what gets published/broadcast/dissemminated/posted. Thus,
the owners(s) are also protected by the First Amendment, i.e., what
gets published may not, in general, be censored or be subject to prior
restraint by the government.
Question: May the owner(s) of the nodes of Usenet interfere with
their users' First Amendment rights of free expression? It has
already been pointed out that even on private property, owners may
not stop dissemination of materiel by Hari Krishnas or whatever. So
mere ownership apparently does not convey an automatic right to
control content. There appears to be somewhat of a conflict between
owners and users of Usenent. In almost every other medium, the
owners may decide almost completely what they may or may not
disseminate. Yet in Usenet it has been argued that sysadmins/owners
may not read private files (generally), and may not interfere with
e-mail. It has also been argued that saving off articles by
sysadmins is incorrect in that such practices are indirect prior
restraint. So I, at least, am not too sure what the situation is.
I wonder if there is a middle ground. What if we said that owners
may regulate the content of their newsfeed, but must carry the
entire feed as received; owners may choose which newsgroups to
carry, and are not obligated to carry the maximum possible newsfeed
(determined by disk space or other hardware), and that changes to
the newsfeed itself can only take place after a reasonable waiting
period has elapsed. Users, for their part, may participate in any
newsgroup carried by their systems; all e-mail and articles will be
free from prior restraint on the part of the owners, and they agree
to follow the standards delineated by the owner(s) of their system.
In other words, within the framework of the newsfeed determined by the
owners and publicly promulgated (ther owners' right), users are
protected in their speech by the fullest extent of the first
Amendment (the users' right).
I guess my goal is to try to maximize the property and civil rights
of the owners of the systems as well as the First Amendment rights
of the users. Since at times these rights conflict, we have to
delineate the extent of each.
The above opinion is, of course, my own, and does not represent any
policy of the United States, the U.S. Dept. of Defense, the Defense
Logistics Agency, or any subpart thereof.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch - "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 29 Aug 91 17:50:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 27
>Although school boards are not obligated to support student papers, if
>a given publication was originally created as a free speech forum,
>removal of financial or other school board support can be construed as
>an unlawful effort to stifle free expression. In essence, school
>authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
>because of displeasure with the content. [...]
>
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
The simple solution is for all systems administrators to explicitly state at
account assignment time that the computer is not a "free speech forum".
(This is already implied if the account is for research or class use.)
Also, the argument that Netnews access is a "student publication" is not a
valid argument. (The Berkeley OCF is the only "student publication"/"free
speech forum" that I know off. I personally believe that this is the proper
and constitutionally protected approach to the free speech question.)
Both the above arguments make the case cited by Carl inapplicable in the case
of a University owned instructional computing facility.
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
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!wupost!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!1k1mgm
From: 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.130602.33084@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 91 13:06:01 CDT
References: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 57
In article <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
> I am thoroughly convinced that
> people are confusing the freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Freedom
> of press, the current model for Usenet, is the freedom of the owner of the
> press, i.e. the owner of the hardware. Just as a magazine or newspaper
> publisher publishes what they want according to their convenience, so does a
> Usenet computer owner.
>
> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
I don't think this 'press' analogy makes any sense at all, not in any
legal, structural or operational sense. Even if there were sites
(lord help us, there may be) that don't provide a 'live' Usenet, but
instead offer users a selected, censored, read-only 'Usenet Digest,'
they would not be creating a 'publication' with its own identity as
much as they would be providing some sort of clipping service. [Note below.]
It seems to me that we need to keep in mind the 'virtual' nature of
Usenet as a process (not an entity) separate from the iron, copper,
glass and silicon on which it flows. When I first read the above post,
my reaction was that a decent analogy was not a university's student
paper (or faculty newsletter, etc.) but the university's telephone
system (including the phones in the dorms, *explicitly* intended for
arbitrary personal use). But that's not it, either. Usenet is
more like a vaguely purposive telephone-tree or fax-tree that would
utilize the phone system. No one worries about what students in
the dorms do with their telephones, unless they're using them to
commit crimes, are engaging in certain narrowly-defined harrassing
or 'terroristic threat'-type behavior, or (in some cases) making
commercial use of the phones in violation of contracts. And
while office phones are generally designated for 'business'
purposes, most universities take a broad view of the business-relatedness
of personal- and professional-development activities. (Why the
difference? I guess that as staff, I'm not a paying customer....)
The main difference is that telephones are defined by law and custom
as common carriers, whereas Usenet isn't, yet. It badly needs to
be. How did we get in this situation where people feel that it's
not only acceptible but desirable to monitor and censor ASCII
pulses coming over copper wire B, while there's no possible mechanism
to censor voice pulses over adjacent copper wire A, and wannabe
censors could go to jail if they tried to monitor that traffic?
I should probably quit bitching and send a check to the EFF....
Christopher Gunn Molecular Graphics and Modeling Lab
SPAN--KUPHSX::GUNN Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Malott Hall
913-864-4428 or -4495 University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
[Note: clipping services. For non-trivial amounts of money you
can pay such agencies to monitor newspapers and magazines and
send you clippings of items on the subjects you want. Used
mostly by businesses that want to know what's being said about
them. It would be interesting to find out to what extent Usenet
is being scanned in this sort of organized way. I've noticed
that if I mention Fred's Widgets in a way that suggests I'm in
the market for some widgets, I sure hear from Fred in a hurry.]
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 15:10:49 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06323; Thu, 29 Aug 91 15:10:46 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA15269
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 15:07:38 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: 29 Aug 91 13:06:01 CDT
From: 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.130602.33084@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Status: OR
In article <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
> I am thoroughly convinced that
> people are confusing the freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Freedom
> of press, the current model for Usenet, is the freedom of the owner of the
> press, i.e. the owner of the hardware. Just as a magazine or newspaper
> publisher publishes what they want according to their convenience, so does a
> Usenet computer owner.
>
> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
I don't think this 'press' analogy makes any sense at all, not in any
legal, structural or operational sense. Even if there were sites
(lord help us, there may be) that don't provide a 'live' Usenet, but
instead offer users a selected, censored, read-only 'Usenet Digest,'
they would not be creating a 'publication' with its own identity as
much as they would be providing some sort of clipping service. [Note below.]
It seems to me that we need to keep in mind the 'virtual' nature of
Usenet as a process (not an entity) separate from the iron, copper,
glass and silicon on which it flows. When I first read the above post,
my reaction was that a decent analogy was not a university's student
paper (or faculty newsletter, etc.) but the university's telephone
system (including the phones in the dorms, *explicitly* intended for
arbitrary personal use). But that's not it, either. Usenet is
more like a vaguely purposive telephone-tree or fax-tree that would
utilize the phone system. No one worries about what students in
the dorms do with their telephones, unless they're using them to
commit crimes, are engaging in certain narrowly-defined harrassing
or 'terroristic threat'-type behavior, or (in some cases) making
commercial use of the phones in violation of contracts. And
while office phones are generally designated for 'business'
purposes, most universities take a broad view of the business-relatedness
of personal- and professional-development activities. (Why the
difference? I guess that as staff, I'm not a paying customer....)
The main difference is that telephones are defined by law and custom
as common carriers, whereas Usenet isn't, yet. It badly needs to
be. How did we get in this situation where people feel that it's
not only acceptible but desirable to monitor and censor ASCII
pulses coming over copper wire B, while there's no possible mechanism
to censor voice pulses over adjacent copper wire A, and wannabe
censors could go to jail if they tried to monitor that traffic?
I should probably quit bitching and send a check to the EFF....
Christopher Gunn Molecular Graphics and Modeling Lab
SPAN--KUPHSX::GUNN Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Malott Hall
913-864-4428 or -4495 University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
[Note: clipping services. For non-trivial amounts of money you
can pay such agencies to monitor newspapers and magazines and
send you clippings of items on the subjects you want. Used
mostly by businesses that want to know what's being said about
them. It would be interesting to find out to what extent Usenet
is being scanned in this sort of organized way. I've noticed
that if I mention Fred's Widgets in a way that suggests I'm in
the market for some widgets, I sure hear from Fred in a hurry.]
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Free Speech or Free Press Model?
Message-ID: <92373F17B8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 29 Aug 91 18:07:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 44
>Question: May the owner(s) of the nodes of Usenet interfere with
>their users' First Amendment rights of free expression? It has
>already been pointed out that even on private property, owners may
>not stop dissemination of materiel by Hari Krishnas or whatever. So
>mere ownership apparently does not convey an automatic right to
>control content.
The dissemination of information on private property right was overturned
by the Supreme Court a few years back, a few months after it was established
by the same court. I guess they realized the full implications. I do not
have the citation but I do remember that the Mall Owners lobbied hard and made
good arguments at the Supreme Court. The right of the Hare Krishnas to
disseminate materiel in a public place (government owned public airport,
public square) etc. is unhindered.
>I guess my goal is to try to maximize the property and civil rights
>of the owners of the systems as well as the First Amendment rights
>of the users. Since at times these rights conflict, we have to
>delineate the extent of each.
I know this and you have already stated this in your article, but I would like
to re-emphasize:
Freedom of press is also a First Amendment right of the
owner of the press and is much more than a "property" right.
>
>
>The above opinion is, of course, my own, and does not represent any
>policy of the United States, the U.S. Dept. of Defense, the Defense
>Logistics Agency, or any subpart thereof.
>
>
>Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
>Administrative Information Branch - "We Code, You Explode!!"
>Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
>DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
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 Thu Aug 29 13:44:22 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA05972; Thu, 29 Aug 91 13:44:18 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA13276
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 13:43:23 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Message-Id: <199108291743.AA13257@eff.org>
Cc: bond@picasso.seas.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* [Davis Rebuke]
In-Reply-To: Your message of 29 Aug 91 15:54:34 +0000. <49385@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 18:42:09 +0100
From: Gordon Joly
Status: OR
>> [Note: Real cute, I'm sorry if you find any grammatical errors, but I am
>> a scientist not an English professor. In any event, your attempt to
>> satirize my article has added nothing worthwhile to the debate over the topic
>> and is incredibly inane anyway.]
Ignorance is bliss. You standards are amazing.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Robert Bond - University of Pennsylvania
>> Chemical Engineering Labs <<------>>
>> Reply to: bond@picasso.seas.upenn.edu <<---->>
>> <<>>
>> "Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice."
>> - Foghorn Leghorn
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert still has that "girlie" .signature file. The word "girl" is
highly derogatory.
DEFINE girl
DEFINITION 0
girl \'g*r(-*)l\ \-.hu.d\ n [ME gurle, girle young person of either sex]
often attrib 1a: a female child 1b: a young unmarried woman 1c: a single
or married woman of any age 2a: a female servant or employee 2b: SWEETHEART
2c: DAUGHTER - girl.hood n
The term "girl" was used to mean male child the Middle Ages. It was
tranferred to the female gender as a negative statement.
____
Gordon Joly +44 71 387 7050 ext 3716
Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
Order is paramount in anarchy.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly)
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* [Davis Rebuke]
Message-ID: <199108291743.AA13257@eff.org>
From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
References: <49385@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 91 19:42:09 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 37
>> [Note: Real cute, I'm sorry if you find any grammatical errors, but I am
>> a scientist not an English professor. In any event, your attempt to
>> satirize my article has added nothing worthwhile to the debate over the topic
>> and is incredibly inane anyway.]
Ignorance is bliss. You standards are amazing.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Robert Bond - University of Pennsylvania
>> Chemical Engineering Labs <<------>>
>> Reply to: bond@picasso.seas.upenn.edu <<---->>
>> <<>>
>> "Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice."
>> - Foghorn Leghorn
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert still has that "girlie" .signature file. The word "girl" is
highly derogatory.
DEFINE girl
DEFINITION 0
girl \'g*r(-*)l\ \-.hu.d\ n [ME gurle, girle young person of either sex]
often attrib 1a: a female child 1b: a young unmarried woman 1c: a single
or married woman of any age 2a: a female servant or employee 2b: SWEETHEART
2c: DAUGHTER - girl.hood n
The term "girl" was used to mean male child the Middle Ages. It was
tranferred to the female gender as a negative statement.
____
Gordon Joly +44 71 387 7050 ext 3716
Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
Order is paramount in anarchy.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SYSGAM@SUVM.BITNET (Glenn A. Malling)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <910829.154106.LCL.SYSGAM@SUVM>
X-Unparseable-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 15:41:06 LCL
From: SYSGAM%SUVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Organization: Syracuse University / Computing and Network Services
References: <1991Aug29.130602.33084@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 91 20:15:39 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 27
We seem to approaching the crux of the matter. Computer communication is
something NEW! The old paradigms don't fit. Freedom of the press doesn't
fit. Freedom of speech doesn't fit. The notion of a common carrier
doesn't fit. This newness is (IMHO) the reason for EFF.
Ninety years ago the only paved roads outside of urban areas were
privately owned toll roads. Somehow we've ended up with a highway network
"owned" by the government(s) and payed for for the most part by taxation.
And yet the telephone network which began at approximately the same time
is privately owned in the US.
What is this new thing? Should it be public, private, mixed, regulated,
unregulated? Who pays for it? And how? Pay per use, subscription,
taxation? Who gets to use it? And under what terms?
Keep in mind that the network we have today is not what we'll have
tomorrow and the answers to all those questions will change. Can we
devise principles which will apply now as well as tomorrow and the day
after? Difficult questions. Puts me in awe of Franklin, Madison, Hamilton
et. al.
Glenn A. Malling (SYSGAM@SUVM) or sysgam@suvm.acs.syr.edu
Computing & Network Services (315)-443-4111
Machinery Hall
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York 13244
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID:
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 29 Aug 91 23:18:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 192
>[...]
>
>Here is some info about to free speech forums at public universities.
>It outlines the different types of forums and the rules for each one.
>
>In San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986),
>a high school board rejected an anti-draft advertisement that the
>San Diego Committee Against Registration and the Draft (CARD)
>wanted to place in student newspapers. The Court said:
Is this a 2nd Circuit court of Appeals decision or a Supreme Court Decision?
>
>--- begin quote--
>
>CARD's advertisement comes within the boundaries of the limited public
>forum the Board has created. Having established a limited public forum
>the Board cannot, absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude
>speech otherwise within the boundaries of the forum.... In particular,
>the Board cannot allow the presentation of one side of an issue, but
>prohibit the presentation of the other side ... Here, the board
>permitted mixed political and commercial speech advocating military
>service, but attempted to bar the same type of speech opposing
>interest justifying its conduct. Accordingly, the Board violated the
>First Amendment when it excluded CARD's advertisements from the
>newspapers.
>
>[...]
But Newsnet is not a Newspaper.
>The values embodied in the First Amendment require the state, under
>certain circumstances, to provide members of the public with access to
>its facilities for purpose of speech. Certain state facilities, which
>may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special
>constitution status as "public forums." [...references...] In these
>public forums, the First Amendment narrowly circumscribes the
>government's power to exclude or regulate speech. Of course, a state's
>mere ownership or control of a facility does not, in itself, guarantee
>access under the First Amendment. [... references ...] Similarly,
>merely permitting public access to a government facility does not
>necessarily open it for use as a public forum. [... references ...]
>However, even with respect to nonpublic forums, the state may not act
>unreasonably. _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct at 3448.
>
I am still not convinced that Newsnet is a public forum. What about private
Universities?
>In _Perry_ and _Cornelius_, the Supreme Court identified three types of
>forums to which the public's right to access varies, as does the type
>of limitations the state may impose upon the right. The Court first
>focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have
>been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, where
>"the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply
>circumscribed. [...references...] The Court stated that
>
Newsnet is not that long in tradition and a Government Fiat definitely does
not apply.
>
>The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
>"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
>place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call
>this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum
>by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state
>to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the
>public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first
>place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
>the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
>the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the
>groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
>Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
>discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
>discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
>
I will accept that alt.sex.* is a valid newsgroups, the day Nude sunbathing is
legal in front of the White House or the Supreme Court.
>Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
>impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
>forum is quite restricted:
>
>"{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
>character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
>same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
>time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
>content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
>compelling state interest." [refs]
>
If prohibiting Nude sunbathing is a compelling state interest, banning alt.
sex.* can easility shown to be also.
>"Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and
>second types of public forums, [ref]although in the latter type of
>forums those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries
>of the specific forum that has been established.
>
>The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by
>tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref]
>such as a military base or jail. The Court recognized that this type of forum is governed by standard different from those applicable to the first two. The
>Court stated that
>
>"{i}n addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may
>reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or
>otherwise, as long as that regulation on speech is _reasonable_". [ref]
>
Who define "reasonable"?
>"The existence of reasonable grounds for limiting access to a
>nonpublic forum, however, will not save a regulation that is in
>reality a facade for viewpoint-based discrimination." _Cornelius_,
>105 S.Ct. at 3454.
>
Just like nude sunbathing?
>IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
>
>The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the
>third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that
>the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums.
>In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
>nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government
>intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by
>"{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property
>and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref]
>
>In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to
>create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are
>devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a
>newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some
>other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that
>is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted
>policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the
>students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to
>certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under
>the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most
>other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of
>the type found in _Widmar_. [ref]
Except for computers dedicated to Usenet news, most computers are rarely
"devoted entirely to expressive activity". The admitted policy and practice
of a computing facility may in fact prohibit some of the discussion.
>
>[...]
>
>
>B. Viewpoint-Based Discrimination
>
>Furthermore, it appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based
>discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military
>recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one
>side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to
>those who advocated military service. The Board then refused, without
>a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the
>same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was
>engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated,
>"{t}o permit one side of a debatable public question to have a
>monopoly in expressing its views ... is the antithesis of
>constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_ [refs] In other words,
>"the First Amendment means that the government has no power to
>restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
>matter, or its content.
But is Usenet a Public Forum as defined by that court?
>_Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref].
>Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public
>forum.
Can you please expand on this? This may be a more interesting point for
private Universities.
> _Cornelius_ [ref]. Accordingly, the Board's viewpoint
>discrimination provides a second ground for holding that even if the
>school newspapers do not constitute a public forum, the Board violated
>the First Amendment in excluding CARD's advertisement.
>
>--
>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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID:
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 30 Aug 91 01:14:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 25
>
>Netnews, including a public university's, is devoted entirely to
>expressive activity. Everything that appears in netnews is speech,
>whether commercial, political, artistic, or some other type.
What about software that comes over Netnews.
Netnews may be devoted to some expressive activity but the computer it runs on
may not be. The best policy would be to have dedicated student owned
computing systems for this purpose.
>Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a nonpublic
>forum.
As I said earlier, I am very interested in this. Can you please expand on it?
>--
>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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <9108301325.AA11373@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 30 Aug 91 05:25:23 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 74
In reply to the mail from ...
>
>
>[...] I think public universities legally
>can and do pick and choose which topics they want in their Netnews
>forums.
Then it seems you are granting Wes' right to not carry alt.sex at his site.
>
>Given that legally you *can* make this selection, how *should* you
>make this selection? I advocate library selection rules.
Why? I'm not convinced that Usenet is like a library. I think a better
analogy would be that it's like a form of privately owned transportation like
an airline. Airlines transport passengers to wherever their routes go. A
passenger of an airline may enjoy the full range of services offered by that
airline. If a customer wishes to travel to some destination not serviced by
the airline, that passemger may request that a new route be added, but the
airline is under no legal or even moral obligation to provide the new route.
Similarly, Usenet sites transmit articles wherever their downstream feeds go.
A user of Usenet may enjoy the full range of services (e-mail and all offered
newsgroups) offered by that site. If a user wishes to access a newsgroup not
carried by the site, that user may request that it be added, but the site is
under no legal or even moral obligation to provide the newsgroup. Discretion
rests fully with the owner(s) and the owners' representatives (sysadmins).
Within the context of the services provided, however, the owners _are_, I
believe, obligated to allow full, free, and uncensored expression.
>
>Likewise, you might be able to legally restrict all email to the topic
>of discrete mathematics. But for most systems, I advocate opening
>email to all topics. [For one thing, it would be very hard to enforce
>the discrete-math only rule without violating your users' privacy.]
E-mail should be private at all times. It originates from a specific user and
is destined (generally) for a specific user or users. It does not normally
contain the "public" quality of a Usenet article. To that extent, it should
be always protected, and sysadmins should always ask for permission before
reading users' e-mail or accessing private directories.
It sounds like we're reaching a consensus on the rights of owners vis-a-vis
users. But several questions still remain:
On systems that are publicly funded, like mine, does the sysadmin have a legal
responsibility to provide the fullest possible newsfeed? After all, I and my
sysadmin are agents of the Federal Government. We are directly bound by the
First Amendment, i.e., it does not apply to our actions via the Fourteenth. To
what degree may the sysadmins of publicly funded systems exercise the same
control which we have said owners of private systems enjoy?
We have said that e-mail generally should enjoy a very high measure of
protection. What about e-mail that is sent to a Usenet gateway? (This
article is one, for example.) Is it as fully protected as if I had sent it to
Wes or Carl or Sanjay directly? What about if I had sent it directly but then
was excerpted in a Usenet article? What about if I send e-mail via a Usenet
gateway to a newsgroup that my system doesn't carry?
I have even more questions, but these will do for now :)
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
Path: eff!world!uunet!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!manuel!gauss!brendan
From: brendan@gauss.anu.edu.au (Brendan Scott)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* [Davis Rebuke]
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Aug 91 09:18:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: gauss.brendan.683543904
References: <49385@netnews.upenn.edu> <199108291743.AA13257@eff.org>
From: news@newshost.anu.edu.au
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Lines: 21
G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:
[lotsa stuff removed]
>>> "Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice."
>>> - Foghorn Leghorn
>Robert still has that "girlie" .signature file. The word "girl" is
>highly derogatory.
>The term "girl" was used to mean male child the Middle Ages. It was
>tranferred to the female gender as a negative statement.
Well la di la di la di la di la.
Does anyone give a hoot and a half?
Why is there such a shortage of grey matter about this world?
>Gordon Joly +44 71 387 7050 ext 3716
Brendan
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <9108301737.AA25001@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 30 Aug 91 09:37:54 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 27
In reply to the mail from ...
>
>Looking at usenet with an airline analogy, there is the obvious point that
>a customer can always choose another airline.
>With academic computing facilities this is less easy.
>
>
>
Perhaps. And that is unfortunate. From a _moral_ standpoint, given the lack
of alternatives that often exist, owners/sysadmins _should_ make an affort to
carry requested newsgroups. After all, it's certainly a lot easier to do a
newgroup than it is to set up a new airline route. But I think the point of
the analogy remains: owners/sysadmins are under no obligation to provide the
fullest possible newsgroup feed. They must only respect the First Amendment
rights in those groups that are carried.
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly)
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* [Davis Rebuke]
Message-ID: <199108301017.AA08785@eff.org>
From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
References:
Date: 30 Aug 91 12:17:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 19
>> Well la di la di la di la di la.
>>
>> Does anyone give a hoot and a half?
>>
>> Why is there such a shortage of grey matter about this world?
>>
>> >Gordon Joly +44 71 387 7050 ext 3716
>>
>> Brendan
Is this a reflexive or a rhetorical question?
____
Gordon Joly +44 71 387 7050 ext 3716
Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
Order is paramount in anarchy.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Message-ID: <9108302020.AA01956@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 30 Aug 91 12:20:11 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 82
In reply to the mail from ...
>
>In article <9108281749.AA23399@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes...
>>In reply to the mail from ...
>>>evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>>>>I seem to remember that the U.S. Supreme Court finally came up with a definition
>>>>for porography saying words to the effect of 'we can't give a description, but
>>>>we know it when we see it'
>
>>>Just a clarification. In the United States, by default pornography is
>>>protected by the Constitution. Only the subset of pornography that is
>>>"obscene" is not protected.
>>>- Carl
>
>>In Miller v. California, the court set out a three-prong standard
>>for definitions of obscene. An article is abscene, and thus not protected by
>>the First amendment if average citizen, using contempory comunnity standards,
>>would find that the work in question has no serious literary, scientific,
>>social, or artistic value. It was this standard which was used in Cincinnati
>>last summer when the sheriff of Hamilton County brought suit to close the
>>Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit. The jury found there was sufficient artistic
>>value in the allegedly obscene pictures and thus was protected.
>>Bob
>
>Oh! "Three prong standard" sounds obscene to me.
>Actually, the 1st amendment has no "obscenity", "pornography", "things I
>don't like" exceptions. And it definitely doesn't have any exceptions to
>exceptions like "community standards" (commonly determined by the court to
>be the opinions of a small minority of the "community") or "artistic
>merit" (again, commonly determined by courts based on a small minority's
>opinion). It just says "Congress shall make no law".
>It doesn't say "unless they feel it's really important". Of course, they
>tried to ignore it, right off the bat, with the alien and sedition acts.
>For those who would point out that only the federal congress is prohibited
>from censorship, I would remind them of the, often stronger, provisions in
>most state constitutions.
Um, I don't believe this is correct. Justice Franfurter's remark that one
can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theate certainly seems like an exception. In
fact, the Court has found numerous exceptions to the various rights of the
First Amendment. I can't even begin to count the cases....
Also, please see Carl's clarification to the Miller test in a previous
article.
>
>The Ohio constitution, under which the Hamilton County shire reef would
>have been acting does have an exception for libel:
>
The Hamilton County sheriff must first observe the Constitution and Federal
Law, which is the supreme law of the land under Article VI.
>Art I, Sec 11. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his
>sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right;
>and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech,
>or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth may
>be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury,
>that the matter charged as libellous [sic] is true, and was published
>with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be
>acquited [sic].
>
>Note that, though it does mention that there is a responsibility for
>abuse, but that no law may be passed to cover it, but that there can be
>prosecutions for libel. (How, if there can be no law?)
I would think that laws determining how libel and slander are proven would
not contravene Section 11 above. Besides, the Mapplethorpe exhibit was
challenged on obscenity grounds, not libel grounds.
>
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!tulane!ukma!morgan
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <1991Aug30.131213.24391@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 30 Aug 91 13:12:13 GMT
References: <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> <1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu> <1991Aug29.234538.22350@eff.org>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
Lines: 45
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>[...]
>>I would agree that the addition of a usenet feed to a given com-
>>puter system might confer upon that system the status of a "limited public
>>forum". In anticipation of such a status, let's look at the next paragraph:
>[...]
>
>Just to add to what you are saying. A computer system be include
>several forums, for example, an email forum and a Netnews forum.
>Individual Netnews newsgroups might each be considered a distinct
>forums. Each forum might be limited in different ways. For example,
>any topic might be allowed in email, while the "uiuc.hazards"
>newsgroup might be restricted to official notes (as approved by a
>newsgroup moderator) related to toxic hazards on campus.
I've always considered NetNews as a single forum, since a single message
can be placed in many newsgroups, regardless of content. I think that
the "limiting" of newsgroups is achieved, in many cases, by moderation.
However, I don't want to see an all-moderated Usenet.
>Given that legally you *can* make this selection, how *should* you
>make this selection? I advocate library selection rules.
Sounds like a solid suggestion to me. I've already spoken with some
folks at the library, and I'll be received information on their selection
rules/processes. I think that some subtle changes will have to be made,
since NetNews is far more interactive than a library; on the whole, however,
I think that it will give me a solid base from which to work.
>Likewise, you might be able to legally restrict all email to the topic
>of discrete mathematics. But for most systems, I advocate opening
>email to all topics. [For one thing, it would be very hard to enforce
>the discrete-math only rule without violating your users' privacy.]
I don't EVER plan to place content restrictions on electronic mail.
I am a staunch supporter of email privacy, as many of you know.
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <3AB7D6ED58804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 30 Aug 91 14:13:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 70
>
>E-mail should be private at all times. It originates from a specific user and
>is destined (generally) for a specific user or users. It does not normally
>contain the "public" quality of a Usenet article. To that extent, it should
>be always protected, and sysadmins should always ask for permission before
>reading users' e-mail or accessing private directories.
I would like to make a few exceptions to the privacy of e-mail:
1) properly executed search warrant.
2) Security Investigation: When reasonable grounds exist for such an
investigation and the confidentiality of e-mail is preserved.
3) Problem investigation: When an emergency exists (e.g. looping mail filling
up spool, a corrupted disk etc.) and it is not possible to contact the user.
The confidentiality of e-mail should be preserved.
4) Misdirected mail. When the sender sends to a non-existent username. The
confidentiality of e-mail should be preserved.
I believe that the U.S. Post Office makes the same types of exceptions to
paper mail privacy.
>
>On systems that are publicly funded, like mine, does the sysadmin have a legal
>responsibility to provide the fullest possible newsfeed? After all, I and my
>sysadmin are agents of the Federal Government. We are directly bound by the
>First Amendment, i.e., it does not apply to our actions via the Fourteenth. To
>what degree may the sysadmins of publicly funded systems exercise the same
>control which we have said owners of private systems enjoy?
>
The recent Supreme Court decision which I have cited several times and is
applicable in a non-University setting is the abortion clinic decision. The
U.S. government is allowed to force doctors at government supported familiy
planning clinics to not even mention abortion.
>We have said that e-mail generally should enjoy a very high measure of
>protection. What about e-mail that is sent to a Usenet gateway? (This
>article is one, for example.) Is it as fully protected as if I had sent it to
>Wes or Carl or Sanjay directly? What about if I had sent it directly but then
>was excerpted in a Usenet article? What about if I send e-mail via a Usenet
>gateway to a newsgroup that my system doesn't carry?
>
If you want privacy protection from all the sites through which your message
transits, you will have to change the very nature of Usenet. Currently, as I
understand it, every Usenet site sets its own privacy policy.
>I have even more questions, but these will do for now :)
>
>
Your questions are relevant and add to the discussion, please keep them
coming.
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
>Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
>Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
>DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
>
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: IXIE400@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU (Phil Kizer ixie400@indyvax)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <01GA0296FUSW0000K0@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU>
From: IXIE400@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 30 Aug 91 14:34:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 40
On Fri, 30 Aug 91 13:37:54 -0400,
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) said,
>From a _moral_ standpoint, given the lack
>of alternatives that often exist, owners/sysadmins _should_ make an affort to
>carry requested newsgroups. After all, it's certainly a lot easier to do a
>newgroup than it is to set up a new airline route. But I think the point of
>the analogy remains: owners/sysadmins are under no obligation to provide the
>fullest possible newsgroup feed. They must only respect the First Amendment
>rights in those groups that are carried.
>
This is getting very close to a concern which I would like
to see addressed about Usenet feeds: that, given a site where
only some newsgroups are made available (for whatever reasons),
some attempt should be made by everyone concerned to be "fair"
and have a "balanced" selection.
For example, if soc.men is carried, soc.women should also be
available; or, if soc.singles is there, so should soc.motss, etc.
What I am trying to say is that "fairness" should be with respect to
the various categories of computer users, even potential ones.
Suppose an academic setting where "techies" have dominated
the use of computer resources. There are many newsgroups
on Usenet of potential interest to those in the liberal arts.
Does the choice of which newsgroups to make available depend
solely on past use, on "turf", or should the choice be made
more ideally on potential use, that is, informing the non-techie,
liberal arts people about what is out there and asking their
support (which might include grant funding, etc., if that is
generally the case with the traditional users).
I think a proactive approach, trying to ascertain the present
and future needs of users, including potential users, is better
for everyone than a merely reactive one, limited in focus to
the status quo.
Phil Kizer
ixie400@indyvax.iupui.edu
speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <3DD310CED8804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 30 Aug 91 14:36:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 16
>Which? Preserving liberty, or arranging for the employees and students
>of the university to pursue their affairs for the next grant cycle?
>They're both valid concerns. The first is more important.
The first may be more important but is irrelevant if there are no employees
or students left to enjoy the preserved liberty.
>
>--
>Greg Lee
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
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!noc.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsu1.cc.fsu.edu!otto
From: otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Message-ID: <1991Aug30.115128.13410@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Date: 30 Aug 91 15:51:28 GMT
References: <9108281749.AA23399@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Reply-To: otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Lines: 63
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
In article <9108281749.AA23399@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes...
>In reply to the mail from ...
>>evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>>>I seem to remember that the U.S. Supreme Court finally came up with a definition
>>>for porography saying words to the effect of 'we can't give a description, but
>>>we know it when we see it'
>>Just a clarification. In the United States, by default pornography is
>>protected by the Constitution. Only the subset of pornography that is
>>"obscene" is not protected.
>>- Carl
>In Miller v. California, the court set out a three-prong standard
>for definitions of obscene. An article is abscene, and thus not protected by
>the First amendment if average citizen, using contempory comunnity standards,
>would find that the work in question has no serious literary, scientific,
>social, or artistic value. It was this standard which was used in Cincinnati
>last summer when the sheriff of Hamilton County brought suit to close the
>Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit. The jury found there was sufficient artistic
>value in the allegedly obscene pictures and thus was protected.
>Bob
Oh! "Three prong standard" sounds obscene to me.
Actually, the 1st amendment has no "obscenity", "pornography", "things I
don't like" exceptions. And it definitely doesn't have any exceptions to
exceptions like "community standards" (commonly determined by the court to
be the opinions of a small minority of the "community") or "artistic
merit" (again, commonly determined by courts based on a small minority's
opinion). It just says "Congress shall make no law".
It doesn't say "unless they feel it's really important". Of course, they
tried to ignore it, right off the bat, with the alien and sedition acts.
For those who would point out that only the federal congress is prohibited
from censorship, I would remind them of the, often stronger, provisions in
most state constitutions.
The Ohio constitution, under which the Hamilton County shire reef would
have been acting does have an exception for libel:
Art I, Sec 11. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his
sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right;
and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech,
or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth may
be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury,
that the matter charged as libellous [sic] is true, and was published
with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be
acquited [sic].
Note that, though it does mention that there is a responsibility for
abuse, but that no law may be passed to cover it, but that there can be
prosecutions for libel. (How, if there can be no law?)
I refer netfolk to the coverage on C-SPAN last night of the Bill of Rights
panel discussion, taped at the national convention of the Libertarian
Party, yesterday and played at 22:15 EDT (19:15 PDT). The panelists
included Ms. Strosser (sp?) of the ACLU, Jarrett Wollstein of the
International Society for Individual Liberty, "Red" Beckman speaking
for himself and the Fully Informed Jury Association, and a representative
from the Free Press Association. (Coverage this evening will include
presentations from the contenders for the party's presidential nomination.)
Each panelist discussed the government's increasing violations of a
selection of the articles in the Bill of Rights. (800-682-1776 for info)
jgo
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!ra!Jester.CC.MsState.Edu!fwp1
From: fwp1@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1534@ra.MsState.Edu>
Date: 30 Aug 91 16:11:04 GMT
References: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
From: usenet@ra.MsState.Edu
Organization: Computing Center, Mississippi State University
Lines: 58
Nntp-Posting-Host: jester.cc.msstate.edu
In article <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>I know you don't accept this, but some of us in the U.S. *do* believe
>in freedom. We know that there are severe restrictions on our lives,
>and we know that most of the things being done would send the Founding
>Fathers into fits of apoplexy. These things are happening on a daily
>basis, and most folks don't even notice...
>
>BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!
I agree with the above completely. But...
>Try this for a thought:
>You've made points several times about the "owners" of machines and their
>control. But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
>Not the faculty. Not the administrators. The people who pay tuition
>to attend the school are your employers, and if they weren't there, you
>wouldn't be there either.
I've seem many arguments on one issue or another on this forum that seem
to make the above assumption.
That assumption is false.
Students pay the university for a service. That fact does not give them
right of ownership or employer status. People paying rent in an apartment
complex don't own the building or employ the manager. People paying a
lawn care company don't own the company's equipment nor do they directly
employ the company's employees. The world is full of such analogies and
I'm aware of none where buying a service confers ownership or employer
status to the customer. Rather, a service provider decides what to offer
and what to charge for that offering. And the customer may decide whether
or not to pay or to seek better terms elsewhere.
The sole owner of university equipment is the university. In the case
of private institutions that ownership can ultimately be traced to
individual investors of one sort or another. In the case of public
institutions the owner is the state government.
You can legitimately make the case that the university belongs to the
taxpayers. It is the desires of those taxpayers that we need to attempt
to address. Generally students represent a very small segment of that
taxpayer base (both in numbers and money contributed). And the desires
and opinions of taxpayers frequently conflict, in my experience, with
those of students. The university tends to try to find some compromise
between the two.
>So be a good employee and do the right thing, instead of being another
>bureaucrat...
I am a good employee. I do what my boss tells me. If I don't know
what he wants I either ask or try to make a reasonable guess. He
does the same. And so it goes up the chain. So, get the taxpayers
to tell state officials what they want. Get those officials to
pass it down the line.
Asking me to do something other than what my boss tells me because
you think that 'the taxpayers' ten layers removed in the chain of
command would want it that way is impractical at best.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <24641.9108301700@uk.ac.aston.uhura>
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 30 Aug 91 19:00:58 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 3
Looking at usenet with an airline analogy, there is the obvious point that
a customer can always choose another airline.
With academic computing facilities this is less easy.
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:819 alt.censorship:1317
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!infopls!zane
From: zane@infopls.chi.il.us (Sameer Parekh)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
Message-ID: <52gi82w164w@infopls.chi.il.us>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 16:18:51 CDT
References: <1991Aug26.190318.20989@eff.org>
Organization: INFOPLUS support, Wheeling, IL
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> I've just gotten a load of books from the library. Here is a
> quote from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_
> 2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe,
> published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
>
[Precedent quoted]
Why is it that this doesn't apply to public high schools?
>
> - Carl
>
>
> --
> Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
> I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
Ask me about the Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net Project!
Apple II Forever! Ask me about the GNO multitasking project!
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: AXXLEVY@UICVMC.BITNET (, Stanley R. Levy)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.23
Message-ID: <199108302153.AA20310@eff.org>
From: AXXLEVY%UICVMC.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
References: AXXLEVY@UICVMC.BITNET (, Stanley R. Levy)
Date: 30 Aug 91 21:54:22 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 7
I appreciate having received these materials over the past few months. I
suspect that there is little uytility in keeping my name on the list.
Thanksfor being willing to share the information/commentary with me.
Levy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu 217/333/1300
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <9A31BD8B6880841F@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 31 Aug 91 01:37:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 23
>From: Mark Evans
>
>Looking at usenet with an airline analogy, there is the obvious point that
>a customer can always choose another airline.
>With academic computing facilities this is less easy.
In the United States, there are commercial compaines that will sell you (an
individual or private company):
1) usenet access for $15/month to $75/month. The only other charge is a
local phone call which is almost zero if you have flat rate or untimed
message rate service.
2) full usenet feed for $75/month to $200/month so you can establish your own
site.
There ARE alternatives and compared to the cost of tuition in this country,
they cost negligible amounts.
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.032203.32371@mp.cs.niu.edu>
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <3AB7D6ED58804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: 31 Aug 91 03:22:03 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 56
In article <3AB7D6ED58804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>I would like to make a few exceptions to the privacy of e-mail:
>1) properly executed search warrant.
>2) Security Investigation: When reasonable grounds exist for such an
> investigation and the confidentiality of e-mail is preserved.
>3) Problem investigation: When an emergency exists (e.g. looping mail filling
> up spool, a corrupted disk etc.) and it is not possible to contact the user.
> The confidentiality of e-mail should be preserved.
>4) Misdirected mail. When the sender sends to a non-existent username. The
> confidentiality of e-mail should be preserved.
>
>I believe that the U.S. Post Office makes the same types of exceptions to
>paper mail privacy.
>
One problem with this list is:
1) "Reasonable grounds" are ambiguous when investigators do not understand
the technology involved. The vacuum in current law is sufficiently
broad to allow investigators to seize SK's system and files from users
and browse private E-mail. There appears to be a discrepancy between
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and provisions of such fed
statutes as USC 18 %%2709 Sect 743 ("Counterintelligence Access to
Telephone Records") in which the former protects the privacy of
private email to some extent and the latter authorizes access to it.
Consider the following scenario: If Suzie is a suspected terrorist, and I,
not knowing this, exchange numerous, but innocent, private e-mail notes
with her, and it's on SK's system, the feds can raid SK's system and seize
and peruse all my email even though I am not the target of the investigation.
Steve Jackson Games was raided for far less. There are other scenarios that
give LE agents lattitude to justify e-mail snatches. Hence, a "properly
executed" warrant may be based on improper procedures. The demonstrable
actions of federal agents who "hack" the Constitution for their own
purposes should make us wary of such platitudes.
2) SK (it seems) is correctly saying that in security, administrative,
or technical situations, there is no need to peruse e-mail.
Postal investigations are quite circumscribed in what is allowed, and
these same principles should be extended to *private* email.
>If you want privacy protection from all the sites through which your message
>transits, you will have to change the very nature of Usenet. Currently, as I
>understand it, every Usenet site sets its own privacy policy.
If I send a steamy note from my university mainframe to a relationship
partner in Calif, and if that note for some reason is routed through a
private system, are you suggesting that the sysad/sysop has the right to
read it? Your point is unclear. There are numerous ways to set policies
that protect privacy at state-funded locales that do not require significant
changes in usenet structure. This is a separate topic, but the point is that
there seems to be an unhealthy fatalism in the above cite that ultimately
leads to a rationale suggesting that, because we can't *guarantee* privacy,
why bother with trying to protect it.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID:
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 31 Aug 91 04:47:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 25
>Perhaps. And that is unfortunate. From a _moral_ standpoint, given the lack
>of alternatives that often exist, owners/sysadmins _should_ make an affort to
>carry requested newsgroups. After all, it's certainly a lot easier to do a
>newgroup than it is to set up a new airline route. But I think the point of
>the analogy remains: owners/sysadmins are under no obligation to provide the
>fullest possible newsgroup feed. They must only respect the First Amendment
>rights in those groups that are carried.
>
>Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
>Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
>DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
>
But as I have mentioned several times now, commerical alternatives do exist
and are not very expensive. When Usenet started out, alternatives were
expensive and not easy to find, but times have changed.
A system administrator who turns off users by being restrictive will soon lose
users and be out of a job.
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!visix!news
From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.050140.22391@visix.com>
From: news@visix.com
Reply-To: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
References: <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 05:01:40 GMT
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
> But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
Nope. The students are the *customers*. The owners are the Trustees in
the case of a private university, or a state government in the case of
a public one. For many private universities, this is quite agressively
expressed.
> Not the faculty. Not the administrators.
These people are employees, and designated agents of the owners.
> The people who pay tuition
> to attend the school are your employers,
No, they are your customers.
> and if they weren't there, you wouldn't be there either.
True enough, but irrelevant. No business can exist without
customers, either.
Amanda Walker
Visix Software Inc.
--
"Breakfast is the most important meal of the afternoon." --Amelia T. Smith
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID:
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 31 Aug 91 05:44:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 69
>One problem with this list is:
>
>1) "Reasonable grounds" are ambiguous when investigators do not understand
> the technology involved. The vacuum in current law is sufficiently
> broad to allow investigators to seize SK's system and files from users
> and browse private E-mail. There appears to be a discrepancy between
> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and provisions of such fed
> statutes as USC 18 %%2709 Sect 743 ("Counterintelligence Access to
> Telephone Records") in which the former protects the privacy of
> private email to some extent and the latter authorizes access to it.
>Consider the following scenario: If Suzie is a suspected terrorist, and I,
>not knowing this, exchange numerous, but innocent, private e-mail notes
>with her, and it's on SK's system, the feds can raid SK's system and seize
>and peruse all my email even though I am not the target of the investigation.
>Steve Jackson Games was raided for far less. There are other scenarios that
>give LE agents lattitude to justify e-mail snatches. Hence, a "properly
>executed" warrant may be based on improper procedures. The demonstrable
>actions of federal agents who "hack" the Constitution for their own
>purposes should make us wary of such platitudes.
>
This kind of problem exists in nearly all fields of human endeveaour and is
the reason for the existence of "expert witnesses"
>2) SK (it seems) is correctly saying that in security, administrative,
> or technical situations, there is no need to peruse e-mail.
> Postal investigations are quite circumscribed in what is allowed, and
> these same principles should be extended to *private* email.
>
What I am saying is that the perusal of e-mail should be strictly limited for
the purposes of solving a real problem. The confidentiality of e-mail should
be preserved even though the required perusal of e-mail may violate privacy.
The limits of this perusal shoul be similar to the time-tried procedures of
the postal service.
>>If you want privacy protection from all the sites through which your message
>>transits, you will have to change the very nature of Usenet. Currently, as I
>>understand it, every Usenet site sets its own privacy policy.
>
>If I send a steamy note from my university mainframe to a relationship
>partner in Calif, and if that note for some reason is routed through a
>private system, are you suggesting that the sysad/sysop has the right to
>read it?
As Usenet currently works and is organized, the system administrator/operator
has every right to read whatever is in the system spool.
>Your point is unclear. There are numerous ways to set policies
>that protect privacy at state-funded locales that do not require significant
>changes in usenet structure. This is a separate topic, but the point is that
>there seems to be an unhealthy fatalism in the above cite that ultimately
>leads to a rationale suggesting that, because we can't *guarantee* privacy,
>why bother with trying to protect it.
>
No, the rationale is that since the network and the systems administrators can
not guarantee privacy, the user should recognize this fact and suitably
encrypt their e-mail. It is immoral for systems administrators to not inform
users of this "fact of life". Currently e-mail is more like a postcard rather
than a piece of paper mail in a paper envelope. Encryption is the "paper
envelope".
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
Path: eff!world!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!mips.mitek.com!sol.acs.unt.edu!vaxb.acs.unt.edu!cirby
From: cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.075308.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Date: 31 Aug 91 13:53:08 GMT
References: <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> <1991Aug31.050140.22391@visix.com>
From: usenet@sol.acs.unt.edu (Sol USENet Administrator)
Organization: University of North Texas
Lines: 24
In article <1991Aug31.050140.22391@visix.com>, amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
> cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>> But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
>
> Nope. The students are the *customers*. The owners are the Trustees in
> the case of a private university, or a state government in the case of
> a public one. For many private universities, this is quite agressively
> expressed.
Nope. In the case of a private university, I might buy this, but we need
to reclaim what we (as taxpayers) *do* own.
It's *our* government. It's *our* university. If they tell you otherwise,
they're lying. And it's that whole attitude of the government as an
independent creature that feeds many of the problems we have today.
| C Irby cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu cirby@untvax |
| Between the politicians, the lawyers, the bureaucrats, the insurance |
| salesmen, and the TV commentators- not to mention the fools, lovers, |
| and idiots- we may be the only two honest people left in the world. |
| And I can see that card you have up your sleeve... |
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu>
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>
Date: 31 Aug 91 16:25:38 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 85
In article <1991Aug30.221014.20654@eff.org> kadie@eff.ORG (Carl Kadie) writes:
>How about a compromise? Maybe a user (student, faculty, etc) could be
>given 24 or 48 hours after being contacted to make an appointment for
>a meeting. After that their account would be suspended until they made
>an appointment. (This is kind of like not being able to register for
>classes if you owe the University money.)
I have no problem with this provided:
(a) There is provision for immediate suspension where needed to protect
the system - I would expect use of this to be very rare.
(b) The 48 hours notice can be given by email. If the user doesn't bother
to read his email, too bad. That is his problem. This is somewhat
comparable to the idea that certain types of legal notices can be
published in appropriate newspapers/journals, and that publication is
deemed adequate notification.
>> If,
>>on the other hand, an instructor fails a student in a class, this will likely
>>have very serious long term consequences for the student, yet you accept that
>>this is something the instructor can do in the normal course of events,
>>subject only to some appeal procedure.
>
>I can't think of any better alternative than to have faculty assign
>grades. Note that even faculty can't punish a student for cheating
>without at least an informal hearing.
The faculty member can assign a grade of FAIL for cheating. Unless the
students appeals, there will be no hearing.
>> You only have to look at the mess the patent office and the
>>courts are making in computer related cases to realize that we do not have
>>the experience necessary to prepare such a set of rules as you propose.
>
>I agree with your assessment, but draw the opposite conclusion. I
>would say that the patent office and the courts are messed up because
>they don't have computer-specific laws to guide them.
The don't have the computer-specific laws to guide them because we do not
have enough experience to know how to design such laws. There have been
various attempts, largely unsuccessful, to draw up such laws.
>> When
>>you don't have the experience to understand the consequences you need to
>>grant a great deal of flexibility to those who make the decisions,
>
>Can you give examples of situations in which a sys admin needs a great
>deal of flexibility? Perhaps we can propose some rules that are clear
>enough to satisfy me and flexible enough to satisfy you.
I see a student has 50 processes running wild (our current per-user limit),
and I see a faculty member has 3 processes very carefully 'nice'd.
I need the flexibility to decide that the student problem is
inconsequential, probably caused by a shell script named 'test' which does
an 'if test ...', and I need the flexibility to kill two of the professor's
processes because, in spite of the 'nice', they are memory hogs and are
thrashing so severely as to cause severe interference with other users.
--
I see student A has started a daemon which watches for new logins, and
does 'write's to them. I see student B has started a daemon which watches
for new processes and attempts to 'kill' them.
I need the flexibility to determine that student A has done something
abusive and anti-social, while student B has merely seen a neat looking
program named 'init', tried it to see what it does, then attempted to kill
it after realizing his mistake. (Naturally I removed the world execute
permissions of 'init' after this happened).
--
I need the flexibility to decide that a student who is 'telnet'ing to port
2000 as some place halfway across the country is violating our rules
against playing games in the middle of the day. I need the flexibility to
decide that another student who is running a program called 'hangman' is
just working on an assignment in his programming class.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
Message-ID: <20AD49FF8880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 31 Aug 91 17:39:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 31
>>> You only have to look at the mess the patent office and the
>>>courts are making in computer related cases to realize that we do not have
>>>the experience necessary to prepare such a set of rules as you propose.
>>
>>I agree with your assessment, but draw the opposite conclusion. I
>>would say that the patent office and the courts are messed up because
>>they don't have computer-specific laws to guide them.
>
> The don't have the computer-specific laws to guide them because we do not
>have enough experience to know how to design such laws. There have been
>various attempts, largely unsuccessful, to draw up such laws.
>
I have another theory: Computer users etc. are normally very law abiding and
normally do not cause what society calls "real" problems. If society does not
see real problems, it sees no reason to come up with laws to solve them. It
is indeed very rare that us Computer types can not solve problems amicabily
amd informally. Also only very rarely is money involved and so most lawyers
are not interested. Computer types tend to be more educated and to some
extent more libertarian and so most of the time resist the formation of any
law regulating their activities and limiting their freedoms.
> Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
> Northern Illinois Univ.
> DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
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
Path: eff!world!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!umeecs!zip!bagchi
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Why does alt.sex exist?
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Aug 91 18:11:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: snarf.BAGCHI.91Aug31131117
From: usenet@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Mr. News)
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Lines: 21
A point that many seem to have overlooked is why
alt.sex is here in the first place? The folklore I've
heard was given when rec.pyrotechnics was created: to
keep the inevitable alt.sex type discussions out of "serious"
groups like sci.med. To create a ghetto for the perverts, in
a sense.
What's being inadvertently risked when a site blocks
receiving alt.sex.* is that anything that a user would post which
would ordinarily post to say, alt.sex.bestiality, would go to
rec.pets.*. I can guarantee that the newsadmin would get
hate mail if that started happening.
Funstuff...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)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.200827.32317@mp.cs.niu.edu>
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References:
Date: 31 Aug 91 20:08:27 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 61
Sanjay writes:
>(description of potential for abusing search & seizure omitted)
>This kind of problem exists in nearly all fields of human endeveaour and is
>the reason for the existence of "expert witnesses"
Expert witnesses generally come during the trial. In many of last year's
computer raids, the "experts" providing guidance to justify reasonable
grounds for obtaining the search warrant were from the teleco company
who initiated the investigation, which was something less than "expert"
and hardly detached. Privacy should be a policy, not a decision made at
the discretion of experts in any field.
x
>What I am saying is that the perusal of e-mail should be strictly limited for
>the purposes of solving a real problem. The confidentiality of e-mail should
>be preserved even though the required perusal of e-mail may violate privacy.
>The limits of this perusal shoul be similar to the time-tried procedures of
>the postal service.
Agreed. What I'm having difficulty understanding is what seems to be a
contradiction between your ideal (with which most of us agree) and the
policies you suggest, which seem to subvert that ideal.
>No, the rationale is that since the network and the systems administrators can
>not guarantee privacy, the user should recognize this fact and suitably
>encrypt their e-mail. It is immoral for systems administrators to not inform
>users of this "fact of life". Currently e-mail is more like a postcard rather
>than a piece of paper mail in a paper envelope. Encryption is the "paper
>envelope".
This depends on the system. Public systems, such as those at universities,
are bound by laws that private systems are not. E-mail is *not* like a
postcard. Like a letter in an evelope, one generally must take intrusive
actions to intercept the e-mail of another. Federal laws (eg, ECPA) and
corresponding universities policies can set sanctionable standards against
intrusion. Dolts can intrude on e-mail just as they can mug or steal
cars, and the lexicological difference between "can" and "may" should not
be forgotten. You *can* steal my car or intrude into my e-mail, but you
*may not*. At our school, our e-mail is inviolate (as are the contents of
our files), and for a sysad to rummage around in them without our
permission or without some prior formal authorization is not only against
our policy but illegal. Note that there is a difference between accessing
somebody's account to solve a systemic problem and rummaging around in their
files. To my knowledge, we've never had a problem here (Northern Ill. Univ),
and our computer crowd is highly professional, ethical, and does everything
possible (far beyond what is required) to help *all* users. But during a
rather uncomfortable period a year ago, I sought legal counsel and the
explicit law (and policy) not only prohibits the U from mucking about in
our files, but prohibits them from assisting LE without a warrant and,
unless legally constained by that warrant, they must notify the user.
(according to our school atty).
My point is E-mail not only *should* be private as an ethical matter, but
that it is quite possible to strengthen protections using existing laws and
policies, and by making these policies known to others (usually users,
because, here at least, our sysads are generally on the forefront of
protecting rights).
Jim Thomas
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!zurich.ai.mit.edu!ara
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Rights of Adjuncts
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Aug 91 20:34:05 GMT
From: news@ai.mit.edu
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Lines: 37
I have some questions but I'm not sure if this is the right place
to ask them since the emphasis in this newsgroup seems to be on
academic freedom in connection with computers and networks. Perhaps
someone will direct me to a better newsgroup. Having said that, let me
pose my questions.
Many schools hire or adopt "adjuncts". The terminology may vary from
school to school, e.g. they may be called Other (Specify). Sometimes
these are people hired directly by departments using some discretionary
autonomous authority granted by the administration. The same authority
also lets these departments extend use of facilities to certain
individuals.
Discussions with friends at other universities suggests to me that in
many cases, adjuncts have no official status at the universities where
they work or hang on. In one case I know of, there are adjuncts who teach
large lecture courses and are paid by the university but have no official
way of communicating with the administration because strictly speaking
their status does not exist. In that same case, the adjuncts would like
to form some kind of union or other negotiating body but have no
one to negotiate with because the administration does not recognize their
status. In other cases, individuals classified as adjuncts are wandering
scholars adopted by departments, receive no remuneration, may or may
not be asked to perform some services for the department and in general
have no formal redress for grievances.
I think the implications for academic freedom of an underclass in universities
without any formal status or definable rights are serious. I would like
to inquire into this matter further but I need to know what the situation
is at various schools.
If you have information about this please let me know. I would be glad to have
local information at individual schools as well as general studies that have
been made of this question.
Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
Path: eff!world!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!sm6h+
From: sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Why does alt.sex exist?
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Aug 91 20:40:47 GMT
References:
Organization: Freshman, Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 24
In-Reply-To:
Excerpts from alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk: 31-Aug-91 Why does alt.sex
exist? Ranjan Bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (924)
> A point that many seem to have overlooked is why
> alt.sex is here in the first place? The folklore I've
> heard was given when rec.pyrotechnics was created: to
> keep the inevitable alt.sex type discussions out of "serious"
> groups like sci.med. To create a ghetto for the perverts, in
> a sense.
Hmmm... possibly to provide an open (unmoderated) forum to express views
and questions about sex?
Stop laughing, people. Underneath all the bandwidth (I read it for
about a month each semester - then it starts repeating), there is some
serious, informative discussion.
Why ban that?
Why does rec.humor exist? Only to keep jokes out of serious newsgroups?
What would a system lose if it didn't carry rec.humor?
Somehow, I think less sites carry alt.sex than rec.humor.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 31 Aug 91 21:37:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 103
>Expert witnesses generally come during the trial. In many of last year's
>computer raids, the "experts" providing guidance to justify reasonable
>grounds for obtaining the search warrant were from the teleco company
>who initiated the investigation, which was something less than "expert"
>and hardly detached. Privacy should be a policy, not a decision made at
>the discretion of experts in any field.
The telephone company should be convinced then to get experts in the area of
privacy.
>Agreed. What I'm having difficulty understanding is what seems to be a
>contradiction between your ideal (with which most of us agree) and the
>policies you suggest, which seem to subvert that ideal.
I am just being realistic. An ideal is a good thing to have but may not be
implementable. The ideal is unenforceable, the policies I suggest would be.
>
>>No, the rationale is that since the network and the systems administrators can
>>not guarantee privacy, the user should recognize this fact and suitably
>>encrypt their e-mail. It is immoral for systems administrators to not inform
>>users of this "fact of life". Currently e-mail is more like a postcard rather
>>than a piece of paper mail in a paper envelope. Encryption is the "paper
>>envelope".
>
>This depends on the system. Public systems, such as those at universities,
>are bound by laws that private systems are not. E-mail is *not* like a
>postcard.
I was talking about Usenet. The EPCA and similar laws allow the system
administrator to "rummage".
Also I would very much like the exact wording of the law that "binds" public
systems. Are you writing about public as in "open to the public" or public as
in "owned by the government"? I do not know of any law currently on the books
that would really restrict the system administrator of a government owned
system. In any case such a law would be totally unenforceable for the very
simple reason that in all commercial operating systems of today, a system
administrator can "rummage" without any trace of such "rummaging".
>Like a letter in an evelope, one generally must take intrusive
>actions to intercept the e-mail of another. Federal laws (eg, ECPA) and
>corresponding universities policies can set sanctionable standards against
>intrusion.
EPCA sets limit on other users but no real limit on the system administrator.
A University policy that does put such a limit will be unenforceable for tha
reason given above. Such a policy therefore is a bad policy since it can not
be enforced and thus devalues all other policies.
>Dolts can intrude on e-mail just as they can mug or steal
>cars, and the lexicological difference between "can" and "may" should not
>be forgotten. You *can* steal my car or intrude into my e-mail, but you
>*may not*. At our school, our e-mail is inviolate (as are the contents of
>our files), and for a sysad to rummage around in them without our
>permission or without some prior formal authorization is not only against
>our policy but illegal. Note that there is a difference between accessing
>somebody's account to solve a systemic problem and rummaging around in their
>files.
My problem is this:
What if the system administrator declares that you are a "systemic
problem"?
>To my knowledge, we've never had a problem here (Northern Ill. Univ),
>and our computer crowd is highly professional, ethical, and does everything
>possible (far beyond what is required) to help *all* users. But during a
>rather uncomfortable period a year ago, I sought legal counsel and the
>explicit law (and policy) not only prohibits the U from mucking about in
>our files, but prohibits them from assisting LE without a warrant and,
>unless legally constained by that warrant, they must notify the user.
>(according to our school atty).
>
I can just say the Northern Ill. University has a decent school atty. Most
schools, both public and private, have a policy of cooperating with law
enforcement authoritities in their investigations.
>My point is E-mail not only *should* be private as an ethical matter, but
>that it is quite possible to strengthen protections using existing laws and
>policies, and by making these policies known to others (usually users,
>because, here at least, our sysads are generally on the forefront of
>protecting rights).
>
Your sysads may be generally on the forefront of protecting rights,
But did they inform you that anything going out over usenet as e-mail (as
opposed to Netnews) is not private. Also did they inform you that they can
rummage through your files without any trace whatsoever. I am not saying
that they will, but what if they are all fired next month and a new batch of
systems administrators is hired who are not that ethical?
Do they provide encryption facilities?
>Jim Thomas
>
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Why does alt.sex exist?
Message-ID: <4BE653D6E840CB70@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 31 Aug 91 22:49:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 13
>From: sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting)
>Why does rec.humor exist? Only to keep jokes out of serious newsgroups?
> What would a system lose if it didn't carry rec.humor?
>
>Somehow, I think less sites carry alt.sex than rec.humor.
Humor increases the morale of a group, sex decreases the morals of a group :-)
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
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:839 alt.censorship:1330
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!pdxgate!qiclab!techbook!szabo
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "What is Censorship?"
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.021217.5169@techbook.com>
Date: 1 Sep 91 02:12:17 GMT
References: <1991Aug31.022024.24738@eff.org>
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Lines: 32
>...[long list of actions librarians consider related to censorship]
>Censorship -- The removal of material from open access by government
>authority.
>
>In this books, the word "censorship" is used in its colloquial sense,
>encompassing all of these definitions.
A query as to the rationale for including a certain item in
a collection is considered, in colliquial usage, to be "censorship"? Wow.
Websters' defines "censorship" as the act of officials or a single
authority figure exercising control over the public morals.
Public boycotts, protests, etc., in no way qualify as "censorship"
under Websters' definition.
None of the actions listed, except the last, constitute either
the Webster definition or the colliqual usage of censorship.
Instead, they seem to be defining any sort of public criticism
or feedback as censorship. They are simply demonstrating their
attitude problem -- they know what is correct regarding choices
for public expenditure on the contents of libraries, etc., they
have the ultimate choice, and nobody else has a right to a say in the matter
or even a right to criticize the choices. In other words, they are
setting themselves up as the censors! This is a reprehensible attitude
for any person encharged with public money (and would quickly lead
to bankruptcy for any private organization).
--
szabo@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.054904.2909@mp.cs.niu.edu>
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: 1 Sep 91 05:49:04 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 100
In article <1991Sep1.001021.3065@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>I think the word "privacy" is being used to mean different things.
>
>I suggest that Sanjay and Jim (and anyone else who wants to) explain
>what they mean when they say that email is private? confidential? Are
>there degrees of privacy and confidentiality? If so, what are some of
>those degrees?
Sorry Carl. Thought we'd gone through it all before so I cut a few corners.
Sanjay is in error in his interpretation of the ECPA. There have been few
criminal or civil cases testing its limits, but the language is clear:
Sanjay claims that the ECPA does not prohibit sysads from accessing
documents when there exists an expectation of privacy. The wording of
the ECPA seems quite at odds with his claim (the full text is available
on the ftp sites of EFF and CuD (eff.org and ftp.cs.widener.edu). For those
lacking access, I'll be happy to provide a copy via private email.
By "private" I mean those files that I receive, send, or store, that
are a) not intended for public access and b) accessible to persons
other than those intended only through intrusive means.
This means that private mail that I send or receive (including mail that
arrives from a "public" hotline) is inviolable. This means that the files
on my system in which I store data are inviolable. This means that
papers I write and store on my system are inviolable. Neither sysops
nor users *may* access, copy, or make public my *private* information.
That fact that one *can* access my files does not grant them authorization,
and if they access my files when (key point coming) I have an *expectation of
privacy*, they have violated both law and policy. If Keith Hensen is reading
any of this, he can fill us in on his succcessful litigation against
California prosecutors invoking ECPA. Although LE folk were the defendants,
the premises of the plaintiff's case were not limited to LE. The point
is simply that if one has the means to access, or abuses authority to
access, the files of others, the the person owning the accessed files
has a legal option. There are exceptions, nuances, and grey areas, but the
general thrust is clear: *NO SYSOP OR SYSAD* has the right so muck about
in my data.
Sanjay claims that file-snooping may be necessary when there is a problem.
I can think of no circumstance when this is necessary (although perhaps
sysads can). If I am running a rogue program, it can be cut. If I am abusing
the system, my account can be frozen until an explanation is forthcoming.
If the sysad suspects that I have illegal info in my files, there is
*nothing* s/he can do *to my files.* S/he can notify authorities of their
suspicions, call me in for discussions, but they are prohibited from
entering my files, both by law and by privacy. Sanjay asks for specific
laws--there are many. Starting with the ECPA and other federal laws defining
improper access (most of which are untested and vague). In Illinois,
state laws that could be applied (successfully or not) included the
anti-computer abuse laws, copyright law, and similar statutes that,
although not written for cyberspace could be invoked. And, we have
University policies.
As a criminologist, one crucial component of my research includes
"problem populations" (crooks, etc). Much of my data are sensitive.
If I suspected somebody of rummaging about in my data, I would invoke
any and all laws in response because of its potentially damaging
potential. Yes, I could encrypt it. And I do. But that's not the point....
whether encrypted or not, this info is *private*! I have an expectation
of privacy both by statute and by policy.
The fact that we have laws against murder does not prevent me from picking
up an Uzi and blowing Sanjay away. Laws don't "prevent" in the same sense
that locked doors prevent. Laws establish the normative boundaries,
provide guidelines for which behaviors are sanctionable and which are not.
When I say that law "protects" my privacy, I hardly mean (and it is
absurd to assume otherwise, as Sanjay does) that a statute or a policy will
automatically bar somebody from behaving in a contrary manner. I simply
mean that it provides recourse when I can demonstrate that somebody
so-acted, and for those who lack the ethical means to constrain themselves,
the deterrent effect may hopefully constrain them.
I repeat: There are grey areas. Can somebody intercept my home-to-school
communications via microwave or cellular (if that's my means of
communication)? If my posts are routed through a *private* system where
the sysad as made it explicit that there is no expectation of privacy and that
all missives will be routinely/randomly monitored, do I lack privacy
protection even though I have it on the initiating and receiving end?
Certain types of accounts (eg, classroom accounts) may or may not have
protection. But, as it currently stands, as researcher, my private
files are *my* files. If our sysad has a problem with me or with what I am
doing, s/he has numerous options available. Accessing my private files is
not one of the licit options.
I'm not sure why Sanjay thinks it's so immoral for our sysad not to
advise all users that their files *might* be accessed without authorization
by others. Does a university tell students that they might be mugged, raped,
or murdered on campus, even though we have laws against such behavior?
My problem(s) with Sanjay's posts are that 1) I don't think he's read the
ECPA (or if so, hasn't read it well); 2) Seems to contradict himself in
supporting privacy on one hand while on the other saying we shouldn't
expect those bound to uphold it to do so; 3) He doesn't seem to read the
posts he responds to.
To Sanjay, I ask: You seem to claim that you have right to muck about in
my files. Under what circumstances and by what justification do you claim
this right?
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.161300.26079@mp.cs.niu.edu>
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: 1 Sep 91 16:13:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 75
In article <1991Sep1.054904.2909@mp.cs.niu.edu> tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (Jim Thomas) writes:
>[...]
>This means that private mail that I send or receive (including mail that
>arrives from a "public" hotline) is inviolable. This means that the files
>on my system in which I store data are inviolable. This means that
>papers I write and store on my system are inviolable. Neither sysops
>nor users *may* access, copy, or make public my *private* information.
Sorry to disagree Jim, but this can't be correct. I admit to not having
read ECPA very closely. I agree it almost certainly prohibits making
your information public or disclosing it to others. But it cannot prohibit
copying or accessing, since that is often needed for such matters as
backing up disks, moving files around in a reconfiguration, etc.
[Of course if by "my system" you mean a system that you personally own,
and the sysops are your employees, this is a different question - then as
owner, you set the rules and can decide not to have backups if you wish].
The more difficult question is whether the sysop can allow his human eyes
to see the contents of your files. I suspect there is sufficient ambiguity
in rules which allow backups but prevent disclosure, that eventually the
courts will get involved. As a practical matter, however, any prohibition
of such access is completely unenforceable unless we are willing to have
a KGB agent (or equivalent) constantly monitoring everyhting the sysop
does. And personally, I am opposed to unenforceable laws.
Your real protection, and in fact your only real protection, lies in
encrypting your files.
Are you aware that in most operating systems, when a file is removed, or
moved to a different location in a disk reorganization, the old data remains
on disk until overwritten? In some systems, including one that you use,
it is quite possible for a user to create a new file and have disk space
allocated, then read the pre-existing contents of that disk space before
writing anything new.
>As a criminologist, one crucial component of my research includes
>"problem populations" (crooks, etc). Much of my data are sensitive.
>If I suspected somebody of rummaging about in my data, I would invoke
>any and all laws in response because of its potentially damaging
>potential. Yes, I could encrypt it. And I do. But that's not the point....
>whether encrypted or not, this info is *private*! I have an expectation
>of privacy both by statute and by policy.
Unfortunately, your expectation of privacy is not compatible with our
current technology.
>I'm not sure why Sanjay thinks it's so immoral for our sysad not to
>advise all users that their files *might* be accessed without authorization
>by others. Does a university tell students that they might be mugged, raped,
>or murdered on campus, even though we have laws against such behavior?
I think Sanjay's point is that the risks of rape, murder, etc are well
known. The risk that data you consider private might leak out to be seen
by others is much less well known, and you are apparently unaware of it
yourself. I believe this is why Sanjay believes that warnings should
be provided.
I have occasionally given such warnings. I usually don't bother. I
find that most users do not believe the warnings anyway, or at least
don't seem to care. I also send email warnings to users who have left
their accounts wide open for anybody to access and write to their files,
but most users blithely ignore such warnings. Fortunately most computer
users are responsible intelligent people, and this is what provides much
of the privacy you expect.
You will probably find that the biggest disbelievers in technology are
the technologists themselves, for they know how unreliable their technology
really is.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
Message-ID:
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 1 Sep 91 17:37:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 33
>
>I think the word "privacy" is being used to mean different things.
>
>I suggest that Sanjay and Jim (and anyone else who wants to) explain
>what they mean when they say that email is private? confidential? Are
>there degrees of privacy and confidentiality? If so, what are some of
>those degrees?
>
>[I apologize for asking a questions and not suggesting possible
>answers. I hope Sanjay and Jim will take up the challenge.]
>
>- Carl
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
In that particular instance, I was trying to explain by context:
If no one reads the piece of mail except the intended recepient, the mail is
private.
If someone (a system administrator) reads the piece of mail but does not use
or divulge the contents to anyone, the mail is confidential. In the process
of solving a problem, the system administrator may be required to look at the
contents and so breach privacy. My reading of the ECPA seems to permit this.
I admit I was not clear by what I wrote.
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
Message-ID:
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: Sanjay Kapur
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 1 Sep 91 18:53:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 281
Jim Thomas, tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu, writes:
>Sorry Carl. Thought we'd gone through it all before so I cut a few corners.
>Sanjay is in error in his interpretation of the ECPA. There have been few
>criminal or civil cases testing its limits, but the language is clear:
>
I agree that the language is very clear, unfortunately, JIM, you have NOT read
it. It is better to quote than to interpret without quoting.
I will quote the relevant section of the ECPA
_ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic
communications prohibited
(2) (a) (i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an
operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or
agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication
service, whose facilities are used in the transmission
of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use
that communication in the normal course of his
employment while engaged in any activity which is a
necessary incident to the rendition of his service or
to the protection of the rights or property of the
provider of that service, except that a provider of
wire communication service to the public shall not
utilize service observing or random monitoring except
for mechanical or service quality control checks.
Let us call the above paragraph the "systems administrator immunity clause" for
reference.
>Sanjay claims that the ECPA does not prohibit sysads from accessing
>documents when there exists an expectation of privacy. The wording of
>the ECPA seems quite at odds with his claim (the full text is available
>on the ftp sites of EFF and CuD (eff.org and ftp.cs.widener.edu). For those
>lacking access, I'll be happy to provide a copy via private email.
>
See my above quote. Jim, you have obviously not read the ECPA.
>By "private" I mean those files that I receive, send, or store, that
>are a) not intended for public access and b) accessible to persons
>other than those intended only through intrusive means.
>
>This means that private mail that I send or receive (including mail that
>arrives from a "public" hotline) is inviolable. This means that the files
>on my system in which I store data are inviolable. This means that
>papers I write and store on my system are inviolable. Neither sysops
>nor users *may* access, copy, or make public my *private* information.
>
You must be joking, right?
>That fact that one *can* access my files does not grant them authorization,
>and if they access my files when (key point coming) I have an *expectation of
>privacy*, they have violated both law and policy. If Keith Hensen is reading
>any of this, he can fill us in on his succcessful litigation against
>California prosecutors invoking ECPA. Although LE folk were the defendants,
>the premises of the plaintiff's case were not limited to LE.
You are again off-base. If you look at the portion of the ECPA, it would be
awfully hard for the systems administrators to be the defendents!!!! It is
quite easy for Law Enforcement to be defendents because the ECPA does limit
them quite a bit.
> The point
>is simply that if one has the means to access, or abuses authority to
>access, the files of others, the the person owning the accessed files
>has a legal option. There are exceptions, nuances, and grey areas, but the
>general thrust is clear: *NO SYSOP OR SYSAD* has the right so muck about
>in my data.
>
Please read the ECPA.
>Sanjay claims that file-snooping may be necessary when there is a problem.
>I can think of no circumstance when this is necessary (although perhaps
>sysads can).
Please re-read my originial post. I gave several examples including disk
corruption and mail loops. I can give quite a few more.
>If I am running a rogue program, it can be cut. If I am abusing
>the system, my account can be frozen until an explanation is forthcoming.
>If the sysad suspects that I have illegal info in my files, there is
>*nothing* s/he can do *to my files.* S/he can notify authorities of their
>suspicions, call me in for discussions, but they are prohibited from
>entering my files, both by law and by privacy. Sanjay asks for specific
>laws--there are many.
If you know the laws, quote them. Do not just say there are many.
I will again quote the ECPA to counter your argument:
(3) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a
person or entity providing an electronic communication
service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the
contents of any communication (other than one to such person
or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on
that service to any person or entity other than an addressee
or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of
such addressee or intended recipient.
(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication
service to the public may divulge the contents of any such
communication --
(i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511(2)(a) or 2517
of this title;
(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any
addressee or intended recipient of such communication;
(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose
facilities are used, to forward such communication to
its destination; or
(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service
provider and which appear to pertain to the commission
of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law
enforcement agency.
Looking at the last paragraph and the last sentence of the system
administrator immunity clause quoted above, you are incorrect in your
assumptions.
>Starting with the ECPA and other federal laws defining
>improper access (most of which are untested and vague). In Illinois,
>state laws that could be applied (successfully or not) included the
>anti-computer abuse laws, copyright law, and similar statutes that,
>although not written for cyberspace could be invoked. And, we have
>University policies.
>
University policies may be your best protection because all the rest of the
laws will be superseded by the systems administrator immunity clause.
>As a criminologist, one crucial component of my research includes
>"problem populations" (crooks, etc). Much of my data are sensitive.
>If I suspected somebody of rummaging about in my data, I would invoke
>any and all laws in response because of its potentially damaging
>potential. Yes, I could encrypt it. And I do. But that's not the point....
>whether encrypted or not, this info is *private*! I have an expectation
>of privacy both by statute and by policy.
>
Please quote how you got the expectation of privacy by statue.
Please do not leave out clauses like the systems administrator immnunity clause.
>The fact that we have laws against murder does not prevent me from picking
>up an Uzi and blowing Sanjay away. Laws don't "prevent" in the same sense
>that locked doors prevent. Laws establish the normative boundaries,
>provide guidelines for which behaviors are sanctionable and which are not.
>When I say that law "protects" my privacy, I hardly mean (and it is
>absurd to assume otherwise, as Sanjay does) that a statute or a policy will
>automatically bar somebody from behaving in a contrary manner. I simply
>mean that it provides recourse when I can demonstrate that somebody
>so-acted, and for those who lack the ethical means to constrain themselves,
>the deterrent effect may hopefully constrain them.
>
I agree that laws are not everything. But if you live your life assuming that
you are safe, you are not living in this world but somewhere else.
Current law does not protect your privacy from the systems administrator.
It does protect you from Law Enforcement.
>I repeat: There are grey areas. Can somebody intercept my home-to-school
>communications via microwave or cellular (if that's my means of
>communication)?
Jim, You should really read the ECPA before making such ignorant remarks.
The ECPA clearly spells this out. Again I quote the punishment for this from
the ECPA:
(b) If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) of
this subsection and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose
or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage
or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic
communication with respect to which the offense under
paragraph (a) is a radio communication that is not scrambled
or encrypted, then --
(i) If the communication is not the radio portion of a
cellular telephone communication, a public land mobile
radio service communication or a paging service
communication, and the conduct is not that described in
subsection (5), the offender shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both,
and
(ii) if the communication is the radio portion of a cellular
telephone communication, a public land mobile radio
service communication or a paging service
communication, the offender shall be fined not more
than $500.
>If my posts are routed through a *private* system where
>the sysad as made it explicit that there is no expectation of privacy and that
>all missives will be routinely/randomly monitored, do I lack privacy
>protection even though I have it on the initiating and receiving end?
>Certain types of accounts (eg, classroom accounts) may or may not have
>protection. But, as it currently stands, as researcher, my private
>files are *my* files. If our sysad has a problem with me or with what I am
>doing, s/he has numerous options available. Accessing my private files is
>not one of the licit options.
>
Just a few points:
1) expectation of privacy is mostly a civil contractual matter and most often
not a criminal matter.
2) It is not unlawful to routinely/randomly monitor stuff when the purpose is
to do quality checks.
3) Yes, you do lack privacy protection once you are on the network.
4) For the purposes of the law, classroom accounts enjoy the exact same
protection as research accounts.
5) The ECPA mostly is meant for public service providers and really does not
cover private restricted systems like those belonging to a University.
6) ECPA covers mainly communications and is more or less silent on what is
already stored on the computer as files.
>I'm not sure why Sanjay thinks it's so immoral for our sysad not to
>advise all users that their files *might* be accessed without authorization
>by others. Does a university tell students that they might be mugged, raped,
>or murdered on campus, even though we have laws against such behavior?
Yes, most campuses do tell their students to be careful about being mugged,
raped or murdered. Our campus has a "walk service" in the evenings wherein a
student will walk with you across campus if you do not feel safe walking
alone. The campus newspaper publishes cases of muggings, rape or murder. No
one ever talks about files being accessed withouth authorization.
>My problem(s) with Sanjay's posts are that 1) I don't think he's read the
>ECPA (or if so, hasn't read it well);
Jim, you seem to have not read it at all.
>2) Seems to contradict himself in
>supporting privacy on one hand while on the other saying we shouldn't
>expect those bound to uphold it to do so;
I see nothing contradictory in that. I am just warning that people who have
an interest in their privacy should be fully informed and not live in
delusion. I support real privacy, not the illusion of privacy. Unless, the
illusion of privacy is removed, we can not make any progress towards real
privacy.
3) He doesn't seem to read the
>posts he responds to.
>
>To Sanjay, I ask: You seem to claim that you have right to muck about in
>my files. Under what circumstances and by what justification do you claim
>this right?
>
I have already quoted the ECPA above which underline those circumstances.
Jim, you seem to not understand the motives behind my postings. I am trying
to bring up arguments and the conditions as they exist in the real world.
I am not hostile to the idea of academic freedom I just want to be sure that
you are better prepared to defend academic freedom. I am just being
presumptious in assuming that you will be better able to defend those freedoms
becuase you debated with me. Any progress towards real academic freedom will
not be achieved if individuals interested in academic freedom are not prepared
to answer even my simple arguments. I hope that this debate prepares you
better when you actually have to fight for freedom.
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.211734.22816@mp.cs.niu.edu>
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: 1 Sep 91 21:17:34 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 84
In article <1991Sep1.161300.26079@mp.cs.niu.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
> Sorry to disagree Jim, but this can't be correct. I admit to not having
>read ECPA very closely. I agree it almost certainly prohibits making
>your information public or disclosing it to others. But it cannot prohibit
>copying or accessing, since that is often needed for such matters as
>backing up disks, moving files around in a reconfiguration, etc.
>[Of course if by "my system" you mean a system that you personally own,
>and the sysops are your employees, this is a different question - then as
>owner, you set the rules and can decide not to have backups if you wish].
The wording of the ECPA is somewhat flawed, but there is a distinction
between routine system maintenance (backups, etc) and accessing the contents
of my file that says dont.read.me that you then peruse, or worse, copy and
distribute to others. The former is clearly protected. The latter is *not*!
By "my system," I'm referring primarily to a state system, such as that at
a university. Private systems are a bit dodgier, but they, to, are
covered by may provisions of ECPA.
>
>courts will get involved. As a practical matter, however, any prohibition
>of such access is completely unenforceable unless we are willing to have
>a KGB agent (or equivalent) constantly monitoring everyhting the sysop
>does. And personally, I am opposed to unenforceable laws.
>
Because comm privacy laws are new and untested does not mean that they are
unenforceable. I suspect the wording of most will be rapidly revised as
the ambiguities and problems become more obvious. Perhaps, like
window-peeking, we cannot easily discover the lurking sysop, but when
lurking becomes obvious it is enforceable. If, for example, a sysad
reported to the police that I smoke marijuana on the basis of a private note
perused from my files, I would have a cause of action that, if successful,
is quite enforceable. .
>
> Unfortunately, your expectation of privacy is not compatible with our
>current technology.
>
Yes, I'm aware that "erased" files may exist until written over, and I'm
aware of the technological processes of copying/backup/etc. This isn't
the point, nor is it what the concerns here address. My "expectation of
privacy" lies in the fact that there are standards that limit the
extent and circumstances of accessing the *contents* of my file. This is
not a limitation (or an ignorance) of technology. It is a proscription of
behavior. I repeat: Because you have the means to access the internal
contents of my files (as opposed to manipulating the disk space which
contains my file) does not mean that you are *allowed* to, and all
some of us are saying is that "inviolable" is a value imperative not a
technological ability. . m
> I think Sanjay's point is that the risks of rape, murder, etc are well
>known. The risk that data you consider private might leak out to be seen
>by others is much less well known, and you are apparently unaware of it
>yourself. I believe this is why Sanjay believes that warnings should
>be provided.
I'm not sure what it is I'm unaware of, Neil. I fully understand the
technological risks and the ease of data intrusion. But so what? This
isn't the point. At stake is to what degree does electronic communication
have the expectation of privacy from snooping eyes, and what recourse does
one have when this expectation is violated? If you're saying that
technological data leaks can occur, or that somebody can access my files
(as they could private letters from my home mail box), no disagreement.
But, if you're saying that you have employees who routinely snoop in my
files, and I'm ignorant because I'm not aware of this, then you've got me:
I wasn't aware of this, and it's this latter issue that is at stake.
If it is this latter problem that is your point, the correct response isn't
to assume *my* ignorance, but to terminate those people immediately.
> You will probably find that the biggest disbelievers in technology are
>the technologists themselves, for they know how unreliable their technology
>really is.
>
To reiterate: We are not talking about a naive belief in the reliability
of technology, but about the intentional, purposive accessing of the
*contents of a file* when there is the expectation--by policy, law, and
ethics--that people will not be doing this.
There is a difference between utilizing technology (encryption, security
tech on the system, etc) and constraining behavior. It is the latter that
is at stake here, and law provides at least minimal (whoever said it was
a "guarantee?") means of enforcing abuse.
Jim m
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:841 alt.censorship:1334
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!venus.iucf.indiana.edu!graham
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: "What is Censorship?"
Message-ID: <1991Sep2.023957.6880@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
From: news@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
References: <1991Aug31.022024.24738@eff.org> <1991Sep1.021217.5169@techbook.com>
Distribution: na
Date: 1 SEP 91 21:35:46
Lines: 35
In article <1991Sep1.021217.5169@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
>
>Websters' defines "censorship" as the act of officials or a single
>authority figure exercising control over the public morals.
>Public boycotts, protests, etc., in no way qualify as "censorship"
>under Websters' definition.
One can play with words and dictionaries 'till hell freezes over.
It's the _principle_ that is significant here.
It doesn't matter whether it's "officials", "a single authority", or
a special interest group. The _principle_ is exactly the same....
The removal from public and individual access of an item considered
morally or politically offensive to _some_ but not _all_.
>
>None of the actions listed, except the last, constitute either
>the Webster definition or the colliqual usage of censorship.
Again, mere words.
>szabo@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Jim Graham
-> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
Neither do they speak for me.
______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu |
| UUCP: dolmen!graham@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu |
| BBS: The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
| (812) 334-0418, 24hrs. |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.233219.25957@mp.cs.niu.edu>
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References:
Date: 1 Sep 91 23:32:19 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 248
>I agree that the language is very clear, unfortunately, JIM, you have NOT read
>it. It is better to quote than to interpret without quoting.
Sanjay, because you quote the ECPA does not mean you understand it.
Because I chose not to quote it (to save space--I offered it via private
mail to any who want it) does not mean I have not read it. Continually
asserting your claims does not make them true, and your assertion is
quite false.
>>This means that private mail that I send or receive (including mail that
>>arrives from a "public" hotline) is inviolable. This means that the files
>>on my system in which I store data are inviolable. This means that
>>papers I write and store on my system are inviolable. Neither sysops
>>nor users *may* access, copy, or make public my *private* information.
>You must be joking, right?
No, Sanjay, I am not joking. If you think I am, I would challenge you to
access the contents of my files and make it public. If you are saying
that you have the authority to do this, or that you have the right and/or
authority to access and read my private e-mail, you have not understood
the ECPA, proving that citing does not lead to understanding. Please
try to understand this: I will say it slowly and carefully: We are not
talking about the technological ability to access my files, nor are we
talking about routine maintenance required to run a system. We are
talking about the constraining the behavior of indivduals. You seem to
be saying that it's your right to peruse my private files (email, data,
whatever). You do not have this right, and no interpretation of the
ECPA will give it to you.
You cite my statements and reply by saying "read the ECPA."
Your cites do not bear on what that to which you claim they respond.
>>Sanjay claims that file-snooping may be necessary when there is a problem.
>>I can think of no circumstance when this is necessary (although perhaps
>>sysads can).
>Please re-read my originial post. I gave several examples including disk
>corruption and mail loops. I can give quite a few more.
These are not examples of intentionally and purposively accessing the
contents of my private files. Under what conditions can you access, peruse,
copy, or distribute info from the contents of an individual file?
The ECPA hardly prohibits general routine functions. It does, however,
prohibit *you* as operator of a system, from mucking about in my
data sets. Try to understand, Sanjay: The issue is one of determining
what protections to give us from others, including sysads, and what
responses are appropriate when abuses occur. Are you saying that addressing
disk corruption and mail loops necessitate reading the contents of my
individual files without my permission?
>If you know the laws, quote them. Do not just say there are many.
I'd be happy to, but this is not the place for a mega-line article.
If you're sincere, you can start by re-reading the ECPA. You might also
find "Privacy Rights in State Courts: Models for Illinois?" in
U. Ill Law Rev. (1989), pp 215-296 helpful. One of the better overviews
of the ECPA appeared in BMUG (in spring '91) and was reprinted in
Cu Digest. To better understand the ECPA, the House Judicial Committee
Hearings on HR 3378 (which later became the ECPA) is useful.
You continual citing of the ECPA is laudable but non sequitor You seem
to be saying that it gives you the right to invade my privacy, a rather
odd interpretation. It clearly intends the opposite, and it is hardly
restricted to law enforcement. University officials and administrators
are considered a subset of state functionaries (in public institutions).
Nothing you cited appears to give you the right to muck about in my
files or mail. If you want to quibble over what "mucking about" means,
fine, but you seem unwilling to accept the limitations on sysad behavior
and claim carte blanche to invade my privacy by appealing to your
authority as administrator. Nothing you've cited gives you such latitude.
>University policies may be your best protection because all the rest of the
>laws will be superseded by the systems administrator immunity clause.
(jt quote omitted)
>Please quote how you got the expectation of privacy by statue.
>Please do not leave out clauses like the systems administrator immnunity clause.
Perhaps you should explain what you mean by sysad immunity, because it's
hardly clear from your rationale or your cite of the ECPA. What, precisely,
do you think you're immune from? My claim is that you *are not* immune
from sanctions for snooping in my files. You seem to claim the opposite.
At least you've spend considerable space responding to my claim that you
are constrained by law, policy, and ethics, from snooping. If you are
trying to tell us that there are some instances when somebody may
accidentally stumble into somebody's file, that's one thing. But the
issue is somewhat different: You have no right to *INTENTIONALLY SNOOP!*
Period! If you are claiming this right, since a) you do not seem to be
denying it, and b) you spend considerable energy resisting others'
concerns about it, then say so, and also announce publicly that you
claim the right to intentionally and purposively invade users' files,
read them as you wish, copy the contents of individual files for your
personal use, and distribute them. This, Sanjay, is the issue.
A system is *not* the personal fiefdom of a sysad or sysop.
>>I repeat: There are grey areas. Can somebody intercept my home-to-school
>>communications via microwave or cellular (if that's my means of
>>communication)?
>Jim, You should really read the ECPA before making such ignorant remarks.
Gosh, Sanjay, maybe I should. Or, maybe you should be aware of the ambiguity
of the wording you cite. Would you call Sen. Leahy, who this spring called
for an amendment to the ECPA calling to clarify definitions and penalties
for interception of radio signals from cordless phones ignorant as well?
I don't mind a bit of name calling, Sanjay, but your continual assertions
are wearisome. My comment about the mode of communication may be glib and
broad, but you surely know that there are discrepancies in law between
(for example) cellular and cordless phones among others.
Please understand the point rather than distorting it for your own
myopic ends: I claim that the ECPA is hardly ideal and that there are
both legal and conceptual issues regarding privacy issues. You call this
ignorant? My god, you must be brilliant! You may be the only person in the
country who has a firm grip on such issues and on the language of the ECPA.
The ECPA is an arcane, poorly worded document, and in the 5 years since
enacted technology has already outstipped the even-then ambiguous and
tortured language and created new situations that raise questions.
It is *not* limited solely to computer systems, but to COMMUNICATIONS
systems, and the increased sophistication of integrative technology
creates new problems to address. Sorry if you see recognition of these
problems as "ignorant." You seem to be a minority of one.
>Just a few points:
>1) expectation of privacy is mostly a civil contractual matter and most often
> not a criminal matter.
I oppose criminalization of "victimless crimes" in general, and fully agree
that intrusion should be a civil, not criminal matter. The definition of
"privacy" is dodgy, but you seem to take the extreme position that there
can be none. I take the position that, whatever the technological capacity
for intrusion might be, a minimal definition is that people be constrained
from using it to purposively and intentionally access the contents of
others private communication.
>2) It is not unlawful to routinely/randomly monitor stuff when the purpose is
> to do quality checks.
There is no quality check that requires you to read my private file without
my permission. You are confusing legitimate random system monitoring with
purposive snooping. Please try to understand what people are saying before
creating a straw icon to attack.
>3) Yes, you do lack privacy protection once you are on the network.
What does this mean? Are you saying that, since you are on the nets, I
am entitled to invade the privacy of your system? I repeat: try to
understand what's being said! The threat to privacy does not mean that
the means of addressing the threat should be ignored. Is there a
point to this point #3?
>4) For the purposes of the law, classroom accounts enjoy the exact same
> protection as research accounts.
Not necessarily. It depends on the class structure (and you seem to
contradict your point #1 here). I am not advocating less rights for
students than for others. I am simply saying that *some* student accounts
may be collective, others personal. A personal account should be
inviolable. A collective account has fewer restrictions on access.
>5) The ECPA mostly is meant for public service providers and really does not
> cover private restricted systems like those belonging to a University.
The scope of the ECPA is ambiguous, but it includes universities and
private restricted systems, and covers personal files and private mail.
University officials are considered agents of the state. The ECPA
wording is often decipherably broad, and it is not clear how far the
scope extents, but it would appear to extent to private BBSs where an
expectation of privacy exists, and to systems such as compuserve or GEnie.
The ECPA is quite explicit on limiting law enforcement, but it clearly
and unequivocally extends to the private sector.
>6) ECPA covers mainly communications and is more or less silent on what is
> already stored on the computer as files.
As you have said, "please read the ECPA." Chpt 121 / 2701 addresses this,
abeit not clearly,
as does the 1986 computer abuse law along with most state laws. No, Sanjay,
I'm not going to cite them. They are quite similar, and you can get them
from the CuD or EFF anonymous ftp sites. The intent, however, is clear:
You do not, as you claim, have the authority to snoop in my files even
if they are on your system. Some have even expanded this to mean that
a sysop cannot divulge the contents of a private conference even if
many people participate in it.
Sanjay, please try to understand also that many defintions are imported and
and refined from other statutes from case law. The ECPA also raises issues
and metaphors raised in other social and legal realms (theft, copyright,
trespass). The intent of the ECPA is to erect a barrier to illicit
intrusion, and you seem unwilling to accept this.
There have been few (I don't believe any) cases brought to *trial* under
the ECPA or related statutes, so there is no set of established precedents
that would clarify some of the horrendous language.
It is an imperfect law in need of substantial revision, but it is well
meaning in its own obtuse way. If you are saying that it cannot prevent
meddlers from meddling, that's a truism so obvious as to be irrelevant.
If you are saying that it cannot be applied to snoops, you are in
perilous error.
>>My problem(s) with Sanjay's posts are that 1) I don't think he's read the
>>ECPA (or if so, hasn't read it well);
>Jim, you seem to have not read it at all.
(jt quote omitted)
>Jim, you seem to not understand the motives behind my postings. I am trying
>to bring up arguments and the conditions as they exist in the real world.
>I am not hostile to the idea of academic freedom I just want to be sure that
>you are better prepared to defend academic freedom. I am just being
>presumptious in assuming that you will be better able to defend those freedoms
>becuase you debated with me. Any progress towards real academic freedom will
>not be achieved if individuals interested in academic freedom are not prepared
>to answer even my simple arguments. I hope that this debate prepares you
>better when you actually have to fight for freedom.
Sorry to disappoint you Sanjay, but I have read the ECPA and related
statutes and cases. The current ECPA may be a failure because of the
vague and outdated language, but that hardly means that it gives you
that right to snoop.
I repeat, and please, once again, try to understand: Because one has the
technological ability to snoop does not give them the right, and because
I oppose a given behavior, that of *invading* my private files, does not
mean I am ignorant or fail to have read the ECPA. If you were able to
muster some coherent argument, a "debate" might be easier. You cannot
assert that you have the right to snoop because you may have to deal with
disk corruption. That's an offensive nonsequitor. If you are saying that
people should be made aware that snoops exist, fine. If you are saying
that technology cannot guarantee privacy, big deal...we've all conceded
this. If you are saying that we should socialize new computer users into
the ethics of privacy, well, of course! However, you resist and attack
my point, which is this: My files are normatively inviolable even if
they technologically are not. Neither you, as sysad, nor anybody else
has the right to willfully access their *contents* without my permission.
Try the analogy of a suitcase.....an airport porter can carry it, send it
from place to place, clean it, spit on it, or whatever, but s/he cannot
open it to snoop, photograph the inside, or distribute the stuff to
others without violating law, most company policies, and ethical standards.
You can cavil by pointing to inadvertant exceptions, many of which I would
perhaps agree with, but you seem unwilling to even acknowledge, contrary
to demonstrable evidence, that snooping in that suitcase is illegal.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
Message-ID: <1991Sep2.012331.29200@mp.cs.niu.edu>
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: 2 Sep 91 01:23:31 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 68
In article <1991Sep1.211734.22816@mp.cs.niu.edu> tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (Jim Thomas) writes:
>>courts will get involved. As a practical matter, however, any prohibition
>>of such access is completely unenforceable unless we are willing to have
>>a KGB agent (or equivalent) constantly monitoring everyhting the sysop
>>does. And personally, I am opposed to unenforceable laws.
>Because comm privacy laws are new and untested does not mean that they are
>unenforceable. I suspect the wording of most will be rapidly revised as
It is unenforceable if it is undetectable.
>the ambiguities and problems become more obvious. Perhaps, like
>window-peeking, we cannot easily discover the lurking sysop, but when
>lurking becomes obvious it is enforceable. If, for example, a sysad
>reported to the police that I smoke marijuana on the basis of a private note
>perused from my files, I would have a cause of action that, if successful,
>is quite enforceable. .
But that is a different matter. Then the sysop didn't merely peruse your
files -- he disclosed their contents. This is a different matter entirely
under ECPA. Provided ECPA is applicable, disclosure is clearly forbidden.
>behavior. I repeat: Because you have the means to access the internal
>contents of my files (as opposed to manipulating the disk space which
>contains my file) does not mean that you are *allowed* to, and all
>some of us are saying is that "inviolable" is a value imperative not a
>technological ability. . m
On a unix system, a directory is usually considered a file. I can assure
you that on this system I run a nightly program which peruses the contents
of your directories. Also if I find a file of yours named 'core' or with
a name beginning with ',' or '#' which is more than a few days old, I
unceremoneously remove it (this is pretty standard Unix procedure).
I also from time to time scan your directories for files which are 'suid'
and might give you a way of breaking security (part of the 'cops' package),
and do other similar intrusive things in your directories.
Now I doubt that any of these routine procedures disturb you very much,
but they do point out the difficulty you would have in trying to
proscribe administrative access to the contents of your files.
>But, if you're saying that you have employees who routinely snoop in my
>files, and I'm ignorant because I'm not aware of this, then you've got me:
>I wasn't aware of this, and it's this latter issue that is at stake.
I am as opposed to routine snooping as you -- provided you don't consider
the items I mentioned above as snooping.
Perhaps I should warn you, though, that I do try to keep this system
relatively open. Anybody can find out how often you login with the 'last'
command. Anybody can find out which commands you execute with the
'ps' and 'lastcomm' commands. Anybody can find out how much email you send
and receive, and the addresses of senders and recipients, for I keep all of
my log records - with two exceptions - publically readable. The exceptions
are the file which logs unsuccessful login attempts, and the file which logs
anonymous ftp logins, since confused users will sometimes type in passwords
when user identifiers are required, and the passwords would then be logged.
This means that quite a bit of intrusion is possible with public information.
Of course this is a computer intended primarily for research and teaching
in the Computer Science program. If the computer were primarily intended
for email and for maintaining private records, a less open policy might
be appropriate.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, alt.censorship
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.)
Message-ID: <1991Aug19.215539.15837@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 21:55:39 GMT
Lines: 95
~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.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 11:58:22 1991
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA24702; Mon, 26 Aug 91 11:58:19 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA17521; Mon, 26 Aug 91 11:57:34 -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 AA17423; Mon, 26 Aug 91 11:51:25 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 15:50:57 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.155057.17353@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
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
Status: OR
>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.
>>
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?
[...]
>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.
Universities currently have two sets of rules for student
publications. One is for student newspapers and other is for student
handouts (distributed, say, on the Quad or Commons). The question is
which set of rules *will* apply to Netnews posts?
Personally, I think the rules for handouts *should* apply, but I can't
say that they *will* apply. I've enclosed what the Joint Statement on
Rights and Freedoms of Students says about student public expression
and student newspapers.
This problem is not limited to academic computers, every computer BBS
owner worries about sysop liability. Organizations such as the
Electronic Frontier Foundation are lobbying for laws that would 1)
remove the uncertainty 2) promote free speech 3) keep reasonable
accountability.
The law just isn't clear. If you would like to read the case for user-
as-publisher, I recommend the current issue of the Humanist. There
are two articles, one by Prof. Tribe and another by Willard Uncapher.
I would encourage universities to promote and use the
user-as-publisher/free forum model. While not 100% legally safe, I
think it is the better model. It is also the model that most sites
follow. The more it becomes customary practice, the more likely it is
to be law.
I would understand if a university instead choose the student
newspaper model. It might be safer. It does, however, involve more
work and does not (in my opinion) fit Netnews as well.
Note that neither model permits things like university review of notes
before they are posted.
- Carl
-------begin quote-----
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes
by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential
operation of the institution. At the same time, it should be made
clear to the academic and the larger community that in their public
expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak
only for themselves.
--------end quote----
------ begin quote ----
Whenever possible the student newspaper should be an
independent corporation financially and legally separate
from the university. Where financial and legal autonomy
is not possible, the institution, as the publisher of student
publications, may have to bear the legal responsibility for
the contents of the publications. In the delegation of
editorial responsibility to students, the institution must
provide sufficient editorial freedom and financial autonomy
for the student publications to maintain their integrity of
purpose as vehicles for free inquiry and free expression
in an academic community.
Institutional authorities, in consultation with students and
faculty, have a responsibility to provide written clarification of the
role of the student publications, the standards to be used in their
evaluation, and the limitations on external control of their
operation. At the same time, the editorial freedom of student editors
and managers entails corollary responsibilities to be governed by the
canons of responsible journalism, such as the avoidance of libel,
indecency, undocumented allegations, attacks on personal integrity,
and the techniques of harassment and innuendo. As safeguards for the
editorial freedom of student publications the following provisions are
necessary.
1. The student press should be free of censorship and advance
approval of copy, and its editors and managers should be free to
develop their own editorial policies and news coverage.
2. Editors and managers of student publications should be protected
from arbitrary suspension and removal because of student, faculty,
administrative, or public disapproval of editorial policy or content.
Only for proper and stated causes should editors and managers be
subject to removal and then by orderly and prescribed procedures. The
agency responsible for the appointment of editors and managers should
be the agency responsible for their removal.
3. All university published and financed student publications should
explicitly state on the editorial page that the opinions there
expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or
student body.
----end quote-----
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 12:41:58 1991
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA24822; Mon, 26 Aug 91 12:41:55 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA18105; Mon, 26 Aug 91 12:41:08 -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 AA18001; Mon, 26 Aug 91 12:31:01 -0400
Received: from GATEWAY by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 16:30:42 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.163042.17952@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>, <1991Aug23.233843.25066@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
Status: OR
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> And, to get back to the point, presumably at most institutions a
>student can appeal a suspension of a computer account.
Any student can appeal any university action by talking
to the Ombudsman 2) petitioning the President of the University
3) petitioning the Trustees, 4) petitioning the Governor,
5) petitioning the court.
I would like a more structured appeal process, similar to
that for appealing a professor's sanctions.
> 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.
[...]
I guess I basically agree. I note, however, that while the rules for
assigning grades leave much to the professor's discretion, the
disciplinary rules (at least at my school) are pretty clear and the
due process procedures are spelled out.
Maybe we can make a list of actions that should be at the sysadmin's
discretion (subject to the requirement that the sysadmin not act
capriciously) and another list of disciplinary actions that would be
reviewed more closely:
Here is a first cut:
Discretionary actions:
- changing disk quotas
- suspending high CPU jobs until a later time
- deleting the /tmp directory
- suspending an account for "reasons relating to his physical or
emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety
and well-being of students, faculty, or university property.
etc
Disciplinary Actions:
(- informal warning)
- formal warning
- suspending a student from the computer as a penality for an infraction
- expelling a student from the computer
- suspending a student from the university
- etc.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 12:56:50 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA24871; Mon, 26 Aug 91 12:56:47 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA18536; Mon, 26 Aug 91 12:56:08 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 16:54:22 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.165422.18472@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>, , <1991Aug26.135435.7338@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
Status: OR
Concerning so-called adult periodicals:
Some states have laws that restrict the display and sales of sexually
explicit material to minors. The laws have often been rewritten after
courts found them to interfere too much with the rights of adults
to read what they wished.
Libraries are often (for example, in Michigan) are exempt from
these laws.
It is the official position of the American Library Association that
"a person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged
because of origin, age, background, or views." This means that they
fight against requiring "a parent's permission before allowing a
customer under 18 to browse/borrow from the adult collection."
[quoting Wes Morgan].
I am not aware that such restrictions are widespread.
If such a law really applies to you, I can see that you
might feel compelled (under protest, I hope) to restrict
sexually explicit material to people over 18.
I would note that alt.sex is the most widely read newsgroup
in the world. This suggest that most sites have not
found it necessary to ban it.
~References:
The Library Bill of Rights (available via anonymous ftp from eff.org
as file pub/academic/library.us)
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 note <1991Aug15.200628.27084@eff.org>)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 14:56:48 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25263; Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:56:45 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA20823; Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:56:06 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 18:19:21 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.181921.5529@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <1991Aug26.134945.13628@eng.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
Status: OR
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
>Heard on the radio this morning that there is now a group trying to prevent
>children from borrowing "Henry and June" from the Montgomery County Public
>Library-- right now, children with an unrestricted card (which they can get
>with the permission of their parents) can borrow ANYTHING in the library.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I underscored the phrase "with the permission of their parents"; we'll refer
to that in a moment.
>The Montgomery County library not only doesn't worry about people checking out
>adult videotapes and showing them to minors,
>it doesn't prevent minors from
>checking out adult videotapes themselves. If this is the case, and is
>unpunishable, then how could allowing nonminors access to alt.sex be
>punishable, even if a minor does get access?
First of all, I salute the Montgomery County Library, wherever the heck it
is (I assume it's in Maryland, if Matthew heard it on local radio); I think
that their approach is both sensible and admirable.
However, notice one very important thing. Access to the library materials
is done with a physical piece of paper (the library card). Minors can only
receive an unlimited card WITH THE PERMISSION OF THEIR PARENTS. I have no
means of issuing "unlimited" netnews cards, nor do I have a means of securing
parents' permission. I have no means of verifying the identity of the users
logged in to my machine; all I see is a userid and a device name.
I wonder what will happen when "limited card" Johnny uses "unlimited card"
Billy's library card..........do these library cards have photos?
Again, I admire this library's approach, and I wish that there were some
feasible way to implement it in our arena. Unfortunately, worthy though it
may be, this is still an "apples and oranges" comparison.
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 Mon Aug 26 15:13:35 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25327; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:13:32 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA21370; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:12:41 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 19:03:18 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.190318.20989@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
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
Status: OR
I've just gotten a load of books from the library. Here is a
quote from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_
2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe,
published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
p. 121 "Although school boards are not obligated to support student
papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free
speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can
be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression. In
essence, school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student
publication simply because of displeasure with the content. In an
illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a
university could not change its funding policy for a student paper
based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a particular
issue {78}. The court noted, however, that a policy could be
established allowing students a refund of the portion of their
activity fee that supports a student paper they oppose. The judiciary
also has recognized that school officials have the right to stamp
copies of student publications to disclaim responsibility from the
content.
{78} Stanley v. Magrath, 719 F.2d 279, 282-283 (8th Cir. 1983).
Although holding that a refund policy can be established, the court
noted that such a policy cannot be initiated in response to public
criticism of the publication."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 15:13:51 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25332; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:13:48 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA21471; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:13:08 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 19:03:37 GMT
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Message-Id:
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <49170@netnews.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
RB> == Robert S.
RB> The problem of the distribution of pornographic material on the net
RB> is one that must be solved. Pornography, by nature, exploites
RB> woman, children and leads to a warped sense of the nature of the
RB> sexual drive resulting in higher unwanted pregnancies, sexually
RB> oriented crimes, and the greater spread of STD's. As one other
RB> article on this group pointed out, we really don't know who might
RB> be viewing this material. Also, may I point out that part of many
RB> people's money who don't want this stuff on the net is being used
RB> to support it. Finally, any respectable academic institution
RB> should not be carrying this trash anyway as it is contary to the
RB> objective of the institution; namely the education of young people
RB> in disciplines useful for the BENEFIT of society. Pornography and
RB> related uses is contrary to this objective.
The problem of the distribution of MS-DOS related material on the net is
one that must be solved. MS-DOS, by nature, exploits silicon and leads
to a warped sense of the nature of the computing drive resulting in
higher unwanted programs, copyright oriented crimes, and the greater
spread of computer viruses. As one other article on this group pointed
out, we really don't know who might be viewing this material. Also, may
I point out that part of many people's money who don't want this stuff
on the net is being used to support it. Finally, any respectable
academic institution should not be using MS-DOS anyway as it is contrary
to the objective of the institution; namely the education of young
people in disciplines useful for the BENEFIT of computer users. MS-DOS
and related programs is contrary to this objective.
[Note: I tried to preserve your grammatical errors as well as your
incredibly long paragraph.]
--
Christopher Davis | ELECTRONIC MAIL WORDS OF WISDOM #5:
System Manager & Postmaster | "Internet mail headers are
Electronic Frontier Foundation | not unlike giblets."
+1 617 864 0665 NIC: [CKD1] | -- Brian Reid
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 15:27:04 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25395; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:27:01 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA21644; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:26:15 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 19:12:34 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.191234.21330@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <49170@netnews.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Robert S.) writes:
>The problem of the distribution of pornographic material on the net is one
>that must be solved. Pornography, by nature, exploites woman, children and
>leads to a warped sense of the nature of the sexual drive resulting
>in higher unwanted pregnancies, sexually oriented crimes, and the greater
>spread of STD's. As one other article on this group pointed out, we
>really don't know who might be viewing this material. Also, may I point
>out that part of many people's money who don't want this stuff on the net is
>being used to support it. Finally, any respectable academic institution
>should not be carrying this trash anyway as it is contary to the objective of
>the institution; namely the education of young people in disciplines
>useful for the BENEFIT of society. Pornography and related uses is
>contrary to this objective.
[...]
Mr. Bond, what should university libraries do with their pornography
collections?
[According to an earlier note, the Ohio State Univeristy library
subscribes to Hustler. The Chicago Theological Seminary library
collection includes the "The Joy of Lesbian Sex". Many universities
subscribe to Playboy.]
Also, what should be don't with other dangerous books. My
university library, for example, has a copy of Hitler's
Mein Kampf.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 15:41:53 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25454; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:41:50 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA21925; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:41:08 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 19:29:51 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.192951.21811@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>, <1991Aug23.233843.25066@mp.cs.niu.edu>, <1991Aug26.163042.17952@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
Status: OR
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>Maybe we can make a list of actions that should be at the sysadmin's
>discretion (subject to the requirement that the sysadmin not act
>capriciously) and another list of disciplinary actions that would be
>reviewed more closely:
>Here is a first cut:
>Discretionary actions:
> - changing disk quotas
> - suspending high CPU jobs until a later time
> - deleting the /tmp directory
> - suspending an account for "reasons relating to his physical or
> emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety
> and well-being of students, faculty, or university property.
> etc
>Disciplinary Actions:
> (- informal warning)
> - formal warning
> - suspending a student from the computer as a penalty for an infraction
> - expelling a student from the computer
> - suspending a student from the university
> - etc.
I got a batch of library books a few hours after I wrote this.
Here is a quote from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by
Louis Fischer, et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. (The book
is aimed at K-12 teachers).
--- begin quote----
[Question:] Have due process requirements turned classrooms and schools
into courtrooms?
[Answer:] No. When the Supreme Court ruled in Goss that even short-term
suspensions require some modicum of due process, a hue and cry arose
across the land. School administrators, parents, and teachers were
upset and feared that the decision would force school officials to
consult lawyers before they could take any disciplinary measures in
schools. These fears where ill based. Careful reading of Goss and
other cases indicates that the legal requirements are not at all
excessive and that there is no need for lawyers to be at the side of
administrators or teachers. Conscientious educators used fair
procedures long before these cases ever went to court, and their
procedures amply satisfy the law.
On the other hand, oppressive, authoritarian procedures that do not
respect students' rights to know why they are being disciplined and do
not provide opportunities for students to present their defense in a
fair way are crumbling as a result of the application of the
Constitution to the schools. In sum, on may think of the right of due
process as applying to student disciplinary matters on a continuum
represented in the following diagram:
May act without due process:
Trivial or vary minor matters, or emergencies. The latter must be
followed by due process as soon as possible.
Some modicum of due process is necessary:
Disciplinary matters that may lead to short-term suspensions
or entry on the students' record.
Extensive, careful due process is required:
Disciplinary matters that may result in long-term suspension or
expulsion, or in a significant penalty such as a short suspension
during final exams.
---- end of quote ---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 15:27:29 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25401; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:27:27 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA21708; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:26:44 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 19:50:15 GMT
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Message-Id:
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <49170@netnews.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
In article <49170@netnews.upenn.edu> bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
(Robert S.) writes:
>The problem of the distribution of pornographic material on the net is one
>that must be solved.
...but first it must be proven. I see quite a bit of sexually
explicit material on the net, which is illegal in some areas, but
haven't seen much exploitation of women and children. The biggest
problem with groups such as alt.sex.pictures is copyright violation,
not "pornography" (whatever that is).
>Pornography, by nature, exploites woman, children and
>leads to a warped sense of the nature of the sexual drive resulting
>in higher unwanted pregnancies, sexually oriented crimes, and the greater
>spread of STD's.
Lack of adequate sex education in schools and at home contributes far
more than whatever you point at and label "porn". As for linking
sexually explicit material and certain violent crimes, do you have any
evidence, or is this "common knowledge"? ("warped sense of the nature
of the sexual drive", sheesh!)
>Finally, any respectable academic institution should not be carrying
>this trash anyway as it is contary to the objective of the
>institution;
Someone pointed out a while ago that the Ohio State University library
has a complete collection of Hustler, and subscribes to Playboy.
>namely the education of young people in disciplines useful for the
>BENEFIT of society.
This may be true for some private schools with specific agendas, but I
was under the impression that at most schools students *choose* their
field of study. Besides, if your statement were really true,
universities wouldn't have law schools :-).
Pornography, n: Any form of literature that
someone wishes to suppress.
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 15:57:29 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25514; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:57:26 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA22278; Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:56:46 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 15:56 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Message-Id: <45E8B35DC880119D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Envelope-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
X-Vms-To: IN%"comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org"
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
Status: OR
>From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
>
>The problem of the distribution of MS-DOS related material on the net is
>one that must be solved. MS-DOS, by nature, exploits silicon and leads
>to a warped sense of the nature of the computing drive resulting in
>higher unwanted programs, copyright oriented crimes, and the greater
>spread of computer viruses. As one other article on this group pointed
>out, we really don't know who might be viewing this material. Also, may
>I point out that part of many people's money who don't want this stuff
>on the net is being used to support it. Finally, any respectable
>academic institution should not be using MS-DOS anyway as it is contrary
>to the objective of the institution; namely the education of young
>people in disciplines useful for the BENEFIT of computer users. MS-DOS
>and related programs is contrary to this objective.
>
Thank you for enlightning us on the weaknesses of MS-DOS.
Now I know why IBM wants to push OS/2 and abandon MS-DOS :-)
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
P.S. I do not know what sort of substitution logic allows you to equate the
exploitation of human beings to the exploitation of silicon ?
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 16:07:55 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25543; Mon, 26 Aug 91 16:07:51 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA22506; Mon, 26 Aug 91 16:06:58 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 16:06 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
Message-Id: <475E3B736880119D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Envelope-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
X-Vms-To: IN%"comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org"
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
Status: OR
>p. 121 "Although school boards are not obligated to support student
>papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free
>speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can
>be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression. In
>essence, school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student
>publication simply because of displeasure with the content. In an
>illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a
>university could not change its funding policy for a student paper
>based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a particular
>issue {78}.
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
But what if the reason is any one of:
1) Fear of a libel suit
2) Anti-pornography laws
3) Running out of funds due to budget cuts
4) Not one issue but all issues cause a "hue and cry", something not addressed
in your article.
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 Mon Aug 26 17:41:52 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25848; Mon, 26 Aug 91 17:41:49 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA24205; Mon, 26 Aug 91 17:41:12 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 21:32:02 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <475E3B736880119D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
Status: OR
>> In an
>>illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a
>>university could not change its funding policy for a student paper
>>based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a particular
>>issue {78}.
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>But what if the reason is any one of:
>1) Fear of a libel suit
>2) Anti-pornography laws
>3) Running out of funds due to budget cuts
>4) Not one issue but all issues cause a "hue and cry", something not addressed
> in your article.
I've some info on the libel question (that may also
apply to "Anti-pornography" laws).
>From _Public School Law: Teachers' and Student' Rights_ by Martha
McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe:
---start quote---
[p.124]
Permissible and Impermissible Content
While courts are reluctant to endorse prior restrains on the content
of student publicaitons, they are more inclined to support
disciplinary action after distribution has begun. [High-school- Carl]
[s]tudents can be punished and publications confiscated if the
material distributed forsters a disruption of the educational process,
is libelous or obscene, or encourages others to engage in dangerous or
unlawful activity.
[...]
Courts also have ruled that the mere discussion of controversial
issues cannot be barred from student publications. The judiciary has
recognized that material dealing with war, drugs, abortion, and birth
control information is not too controversial for high school students.
[...]
--- end quote---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 18:02:21 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25915; Mon, 26 Aug 91 18:02:16 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA24847; Mon, 26 Aug 91 18:01:29 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 18:01 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Message-Id: <576115F058801A9A@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Envelope-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
X-Vms-To: IN%"comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org"
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
Status: OR
>From: consp04@bingsunq.bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The problem of the distribution of pornographic material on
>the INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM is one that must be solved.
>Pornography, by nature, exploits women and children and leads to a
>warped sense of the nature of the sexual drive resulting in higher
>unwanted pregnancies, sexually oriented crimes, the greater spread of
>STD's, and a decline in the value of short-term municipal bond
>futures. TRUCKS carrying pornography are big, heavy, and can cause
>accidents. As one other article on this group pointed out, we really
>don't know who might be viewing this material. Also, may I point out
>that part of many people's money who don't want this stuff on the
>INTERSTATES is being used to support it. Finally, any respectable
>DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION should not be carrying this trash anyway
>as it is contary to the objective of the institution; namely the
>transportation of goods for the BENEFIT of society. Pornography and
>related uses is contrary to this objective.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain kinds of pornography (child pornography) is illegal and intersate
transportation therefore is a federal felony. Your attempt at sarcasm is not
that good.
>
> The dumbest argument I ever heard. We don't need thought
>police on the Internet.
>
If we do not police ourselves, the government will. Then we will really have
thought police.
>Daniel F. Boyd
>consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
>"A lot of the world's ills could be fixed with more disk space."
I agree, unfortunately disks cost money, sometimes lots of money.
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 Mon Aug 26 18:14:14 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA25945; Mon, 26 Aug 91 18:14:11 -0400
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA25179; Mon, 26 Aug 91 18:13:30 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: rickert
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.221311.11032@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org> <1991Aug26.163042.17952@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 22:13:11 GMT
Lines: 49
Apparently-To: info-academic-freedom@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Status: OR
In article <1991Aug26.163042.17952@eff.org> kadie@eff.org writes:
>rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>I would like a more structured appeal process, similar to
>that for appealing a professor's sanctions.
>
>> 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.
>I guess I basically agree. I note, however, that while the rules for
>assigning grades leave much to the professor's discretion, the
>disciplinary rules (at least at my school) are pretty clear and the
>due process procedures are spelled out.
I believe you will find that these "due process procedures" are not used
very frequently, because most disputes about grades are settled informally
and amicably well before matters reach that stage.
My disagreement with you about sysadmin action is that you are trying
to formalize everything to the extent that the same informal methods will
not be possible. In doing so you may end up forcing the sysadmins to
set up very strict security and monitoring arrangements in their own
protection, with a net loss in access, convenience and privacy for all
users.
>Maybe we can make a list of actions that should be at the sysadmin's
>discretion (subject to the requirement that the sysadmin not act
>capriciously) and another list of disciplinary actions that would be
>reviewed more closely:
And maybe we can't make such a list. That is the whole problem. Computers
and the humans who use them are very complex, and subject to very complex
and hard-to-predict interactions. The question of whether a particular
action by a sysadmin is disciplinary, or is a necessary action to guarantee
the availability of the system to other users, can be a very complex question.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 27 02:02:23 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA26982; Tue, 27 Aug 91 02:02:17 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA08875
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 02:01:11 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 02:00 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: New models
Message-Id: <9A5CEE9258801A9A@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Envelope-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
X-Vms-To: IN%"comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org"
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
Status: OR
>
>The newspaper/magazine/printed media model is not a very good one for net
>communication. Remember that freedom of press belongs to the person who owns
>one. If you follow that logic, the medium used to publish is the mainframe
>computer. This gives the owner of that mainframe the right to determine what
>would be published on or through it if this model were to be adopted. Your
>local printed news medium does not print anything you want to submit. It has
>reporters and editors who determine what gets in and what doesn't. It is
>subject to libel laws and a host of other restrictions that don't apply here.
The above is the freedom of press model.
>
>Two models offer what I think is a good world for both users and system
>administrators. The first is the public utility. The normal public utility
>you think of in this regard is the telephone company. It takes whatever
>message you want to send and delivers it pretty much intact. If you use it to
>harass, the phone company can stop you. If you make obscene phone calls, they
>can also stop you. But for the most part, you are pretty free to say what you
>want without fear of the message not getting through. Normally, the phone
>company does not monitor what you have to say.
>
There is no constitutional guarantee with this model. The right to privacy is
the one that is most commonly invoked in phone company matters but is
irrelavant for Netnews. Also do you really want the state public service/
utility commission regulating Netnews?
>The other model is the public forum. (In a posting from Carl today one of the
>books he quoted mentioned this theory.) Once a public forum comes into
>existence, the state is hard pressed to stop it. Public forums exist in many
>places and in many forms. Generally they are places where people can speak
>their mind, kind of like the town square. They are the reasons groups can set
>up tables and hand out leaflets at airports and even on private property in
>shopping malls.
>
This is the freedom of speech/assembly model. Please note that freedom of
the press and freedom of speech are two distinct freedoms and are so noted
in the first amendment. The freedom to assemble (town square, public forum)
should now be extended to electronic assemblies like Netnews. In case people
have forgotten, let me quote the first amendment to the U.S. constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is extended to the States through the first section of the fourteenth
amendment of the U.S. constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>Seems to me that we achieve the greatest amount of freedom for users to speak
>and write and freedom from headaches for sysadmins if we say people are free
>to say what they want. That's their right and sysadmins are not responsible
>for monitoring what they say, when they say it or to whom they direct it.
>
Easy for you to say but not very practical in the real world.
>I, for one, would like to see us devote positive energy into figuring out how
>to do that rather than figuring out all the reasons why we can't or shouldn't.
>Our contry was built on freedom. I never cease to be amazed at the number of
>its citizens who seem to want to limit those freedoms. But as someone else
>once said, eternal vigilence is the price we pay for liberty.
>
Agreed.
>Finally, I'd like to drop back a few days and pick up on a question posed by
>one of our contributors. He asked what was the largest amount in damages ever
>won by someone who sued the university for limiting freedom of speech.
>(Please correct me if I have misstated the thrust of the question.) I don't
>know the answer to that question, but I suspect the amount was fairly low.
>Suits along those lines are generally directed toward reinstating the right
>rather than going after damages.
Exactly the wrong attitude if someone wants things to change in this country.
Nothing scares beaurocrats like a big monetry award in a suit.
>How much is your right to free speech worth?
>Can you put a dollar value on it?
>
Yes, I can put a dollar value to my freedom of speech. My right to free
speech is worth exactly $10,000,000,000.00 (in today's dollars) :-)
>On the other side of the coin, I do know as of about five years ago when I
>last taught a course in media law that no student newspaper in the United
>States, high school or post secondary, had been successfully sued for libel.
>NOT ONE NEWSPAPER! Remember that any fool who can persuade a lawyer can sue.
>But to be successful you first have to get past a judge who must find that you
>have a prima facie case, which means with libel that you probably have to
>prove that the publication was false and the person who published it knew it
>was false and that it somehow defamed the individual it was directed at,
>before you ever get to a jury.
>
How about publications owned by the University rather than a student
newspaper? I remember a few years back a rather large and successfull suit
against a University rather than a student newspaper.
I am all for students organizing and purchasing their own computing facility
much like the Berkeley OCF.
>The advantage of the public utility or the public forum models or some
>combination thereof is that the people who operate the method for transmitting
>the message cannot be held responsible for its content. Strong arguments can
>be made, ironically, that sysadmins who read mail for content are editors and
>liable for the liability libel creates just as much as the writer. Everyone
>who has a hand in the publication of a libel is liable for the damages. And
>those who sue go for the deep pockets, meaning those who have money to pay
>damages. The way to get sysadmins off the libel hook is to make sure that
>they are not reading--and thus not editing--messages to or from the net.
>
Again it is easy for you to suggest that but the law and the attitudes of
University administrators have to be changed to accomplish this. The current
trend (witness the Georgia law) is in the opposite direction.
>My suggestion for positive action is to Carl and others who feel the need to
>produce something that will protect the rights to speak freely on the net is
>to work for changes in the AAUP Joint Statement on student rights. I'd like
>to suggest that someone who lives in the Washington, D.C. local calling area
>get in touch with the AAUP national office there to see if they are planning
>to rework their statements on academic freedom to take into account the
>changes in technology that we have witnessed in the past 10 years.
>
An excellent idea.
>Instead of screaming and hollering about abuses (both by users and
>administrators) let's work for a national statement that we can all use to
>ensure freedom to say what you want and relieve administrators of the burden
>of having to watch what people say. That kind of thought police is going out
>of style in the Soviet Union. Wouldn't it be ironic if it reared its ugly
>head in the good ole US of A?
But thought police has always existed in the good ole US of A !!! It just
has never got a chance to be real powerful. Just try sunbathing nude on a
public beach or try to hold an anti-gay demonstration in Greenwich village in
New York or a Pro-KKK rally in Harlem, New York or try saying something anti-
Jewish while a CUNY professor or try burning the flag in a redneck town in
the South. Worst of all, try saying something politically incorrect while
teaching anything at a liberal University. Senator McCarthy of the early
1950s became famous only because he tried to go after big name entertainers.
There were a large number of people who shared his views on what to do with
Communists (there still are in the Soviet Union :-))
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 27 11:53:34 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA28494; Tue, 27 Aug 91 11:53:31 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA14005
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 11:52:16 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 15:38:24 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug27.153824.13473@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <576115F058801A9A@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>Certain kinds of pornography (child pornography) is illegal and intersate
>transportation therefore is a federal felony. Your attempt at sarcasm is not
>that good.
[...]
Just a small elaboration. Not all child pornography is illegal, only
child pornography that is produced using (abusing) real childern.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 27 11:54:10 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA28499; Tue, 27 Aug 91 11:54:07 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA14070
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 11:53:01 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 15:48:58 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug27.154858.13824@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>, <1991Aug26.221311.11032@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
Status: OR
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> I believe you will find that these "due process procedures" are not used
>very frequently, because most disputes about grades are settled informally
>and amicably well before matters reach that stage.
I think the same thing will happen if we put "computer policy in the
student handbook." 99% of the time, the matter will either be
so minor, or so straight forward that the student will not use
his or her right of appeal.
> My disagreement with you about sysadmin action is that you are trying
>to formalize everything to the extent that the same informal methods will
>not be possible. In doing so you may end up forcing the sysadmins to
>set up very strict security and monitoring arrangements in their own
>protection, with a net loss in access, convenience and privacy for all
>users.
[...]
Can you be more specific (maybe give a scenerio)?
> And maybe we can't make such a list. That is the whole problem. Computers
>and the humans who use them are very complex, and subject to very complex
>and hard-to-predict interactions. The question of whether a particular
>action by a sysadmin is disciplinary, or is a necessary action to guarantee
>the availability of the system to other users, can be a very complex question.
[...]
Computer systems are complex. But so are classrooms and so is society
and yet we are a society build on laws. Making rules clear enough that
a person can know if he or she is breaking them has worked for over
200 years in the U.S. and longer in Great Briton. I think we should at
least try it before saying that it won't work for computer
administration.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 27 14:31:54 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA28976; Tue, 27 Aug 91 14:31:47 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA16045
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Tue, 27 Aug 1991 14:30:46 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: rickert
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
Message-Id: <1991Aug27.183034.10560@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org> <1991Aug27.154858.13824@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 18:30:34 GMT
Lines: 48
Apparently-To: info-academic-freedom@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Status: OR
In article <1991Aug27.154858.13824@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>
>> And maybe we can't make such a list. That is the whole problem. Computers
>>and the humans who use them are very complex, and subject to very complex
>>and hard-to-predict interactions. The question of whether a particular
>>action by a sysadmin is disciplinary, or is a necessary action to guarantee
>>the availability of the system to other users, can be a very complex question.
>[...]
>
>Computer systems are complex. But so are classrooms and so is society
>and yet we are a society build on laws. Making rules clear enough that
>a person can know if he or she is breaking them has worked for over
>200 years in the U.S. and longer in Great Briton. I think we should at
>least try it before saying that it won't work for computer
>administration.
But the rules you set up for classrooms are mostly vague and flexible.
The rules you want to set up for sysadmins are very specific. For
example if a sysadmin suspends a student account until the student shows up
for a discussion, such actions should in most cases have very little long
term consequences for the student. Nevertheless you want to treat that
as a punitive action subject to all kinds of procedural requirements. If,
on the other hand, an instructor fails a student in a class, this will likely
have very serious long term consequences for the student, yet you accept that
this is something the instructor can do in the normal course of events,
subject only to some appeal procedure. The imbalance in the list of rules
you draw up clearly demonstrates that you are not able to make such a list.
Why would you think that anyone else is so wise as to be able to prepare
such a list?
You're correct. We have had a system of laws for well over 200 years. And
I dare say that by the time computer technology has a history of 200 years
of relative stability we will have developed some good judgement as to what
should be the standards. But at present computer technology is anything
but stable. You only have to look at the mess the patent office and the
courts are making in computer related cases to realize that we do not have
the experience necessary to prepare such a set of rules as you propose. When
you don't have the experience to understand the consequences you need to
grant a great deal of flexibility to those who make the decisions, yet you
should have an effective system of checks and balances (such as a good
appeals procedure) to guard against the possibility of abuse.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Aug 28 13:11:14 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA02294; Wed, 28 Aug 91 13:11:04 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA11762
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Wed, 28 Aug 1991 13:09:25 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 17:00:31 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug28.170031.11659@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <12714.9108281603@uk.ac.aston.uhura>
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>I seem to remember that the U.S. Supreme Court finally came up with a definition
>for porography saying words to the effect of 'we can't give a description, but
>we know it when we see it'
Just a clarification. In the United States, by default pornography is
protected by the Constitution. Only the subset of pornography that is
"obscene" is not protected.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Aug 28 14:53:20 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA02637; Wed, 28 Aug 91 14:53:17 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA15745
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Wed, 28 Aug 1991 14:52:28 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 18:45:06 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug28.184506.15269@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <9108281749.AA23399@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Subject: Re: Removal Alt.sex* from the net or local news server
Status: OR
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
[...]
>In Miller v. California, the court set out a three-prong standard
>for definitions of obscene. An article is abscene, and thus not protected by
>the First amendment if average citizen, using contempory comunnity standards,
>would find that the work in question has no serious literary, scientific,
>social, or artistic value. It was this standard which was used in Cincinnati
>last summer when the sheriff of Hamilton County brought suit to close the
>Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit. The jury found there was sufficient artistic
>value in the allegedly obscene pictures and thus was protected.
[...]
Another clarification. The Miller test of obscenity is:
1) must appeal to the prurient interest
2) must describe sexual conduct in a way that is "patently offensive"
to community standards
AND
3) when taken as a whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value"
Note that only "patently offensiveness" is decided by community
standards.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 01:56:32 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA04400; Thu, 29 Aug 91 01:56:29 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA29901
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 01:54:22 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 01:51 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-Id: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Envelope-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
X-Vms-To: IN%"comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org"
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
Status: OR
>1. "Any price for freedom is too high."
> If I carry alt.sex, someone might object, and this would be
> an inconvenience to me. I or my university might even get sued,
> and if so, the bad guys might win.
An inconvenience to me is a loss of MY freedom. I am thoroughly convinced that
people are confusing the freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Freedom
of press, the current model for Usenet, is the freedom of the owner of the
press, i.e. the owner of the hardware. Just as a magazine or newspaper
publisher publishes what they want according to their convenience, so does a
Usenet computer owner.
>
>2. "Someone else denies freedoms, so it must be ok."
> I once saw a newstand vendor refuse to sell Playboy to a
> five year old. Same thing. And what better model to follow
> for a university in a free society?
>
The United States is a free society? Do your really believe that? The court
system, the lawyers and the politicians do all they can to come up with new
and restrictive rules which they at times have the temerity to term "freedoms"
and "reforms". A truly free society would not need one cop for every 250
persons or the truly gigantic number of individuals in prison. It would also
not need Customs and Immigration police and laws. Any one who wants to come
to a truly free society or leave it should be able to do so without any
restrictions.
>3. "We had to destroy freedom in order to save it." (variant of #1)
> A reporter will notice I carry alt.sex. It will get into
> the news. Someone will write a congressman. The congressman
> will call NSF. NSF will not renew the grant that pays for
> network access. Legitimate research will be impeded, no one
> will be able to read news, and (here's the killer) the very
> people who wanted alt.sex will not have access to it!!
>
You have described a scenario that happens all to often in the way you
describe it.
Just because something is popular does not make it good. Drugs are popular,
alcohol is popular. The most basic rule of advertising is that sex sells.
>Greg Lee
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.160658.11306@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <475E3B736880119D@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org> <1991Aug29.002943.15138@wolves.uucp>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:06:58 GMT
Lines: 25
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes:
[...]
>Carl,
> so far, you have made this (or substantially similar) points
>three times. Twice, folks have pointed out that your analogy for
>applying this particular judgement do not reasonably match the situation
>being discussed.
> Simply repeating points over and over again does not augment
>their applicability. It simply starts to sound like the braying of an
>animal. (Besides, I wouldn't want to offend the jackasses I know :-)
I posted the quote because it was the first authority that I had found
that explicitly addressed how libel in student publications should be
handled. (Recall it said that the student who was responsible for the
libel could be punished and continued distribution could be halted.)
If you think that this ruling is inapplicable to Netnews, please
please make your arguments explicit.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 12:08:44 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA05693; Thu, 29 Aug 91 12:08:40 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA11377
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 12:07:38 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:06:58 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.160658.11306@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <475E3B736880119D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, <1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>, <1991Aug29.002943.15138@wolves.uucp>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship
Status: OR
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes:
[...]
>Carl,
> so far, you have made this (or substantially similar) points
>three times. Twice, folks have pointed out that your analogy for
>applying this particular judgement do not reasonably match the situation
>being discussed.
> Simply repeating points over and over again does not augment
>their applicability. It simply starts to sound like the braying of an
>animal. (Besides, I wouldn't want to offend the jackasses I know :-)
I posted the quote because it was the first authority that I had found
that explicitly addressed how libel in student publications should be
handled. (Recall it said that the student who was responsible for the
libel could be punished and continued distribution could be halted.)
If you think that this ruling is inapplicable to Netnews, please
please make your arguments explicit.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 12:39:06 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA05773; Thu, 29 Aug 91 12:39:02 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA12135
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 12:37:35 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:28:32 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.162832.11923@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Status: OR
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>>1. "Any price for freedom is too high."
>> If I carry alt.sex, someone might object, and this would be
>> an inconvenience to me. I or my university might even get sued,
>> and if so, the bad guys might win.
>An inconvenience to me is a loss of MY freedom. I am thoroughly convinced that
>people are confusing the freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Freedom
>of press, the current model for Usenet, is the freedom of the owner of the
>press, i.e. the owner of the hardware. Just as a magazine or newspaper
>publisher publishes what they want according to their convenience, so does a
>Usenet computer owner.
[...]
[From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M.
McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe:]
----- begin quote----
School Sponsorship of Student Publications
School authorities often have claimed that they exert more control
over school-sponsored publications than over nonschool material, but
the judiciary has recognized that constitutional protections apply to
both types of student literature. mere school affiliation does not
remove student literature from first amendment protection. The
judiciary has reasoned that a governmental body "is not necessarily
the unfettered master of all it creates." Thus, the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored paper.
For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals [Connecticut, New
York, Vermont - Carl] affirmed a decision in which the federal
district court held that a [high school] principle could not prohibit
the distribution of a school-sponsored newspaper in which students
placed a four-page supplement with information about contraception and
abortion. The court noted that the articles in the supplement were
intended to convey information and that the subjects were treated in a
serious manner. While recognizing that the supplement might create
some controversy, the court reasoned that it did not threaten a
disruption in the educational environment.
Although school boards are not obligated to support student papers, if
a given publication was originally created as a free speech forum,
removal of financial or other school board support can be construed as
an unlawful effort to stifle free expression. In essence, school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content. [...]
---- end of quote---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.162832.11923@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <2B4DC7B358804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:28:32 GMT
Lines: 53
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>>1. "Any price for freedom is too high."
>> If I carry alt.sex, someone might object, and this would be
>> an inconvenience to me. I or my university might even get sued,
>> and if so, the bad guys might win.
>An inconvenience to me is a loss of MY freedom. I am thoroughly convinced that
>people are confusing the freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Freedom
>of press, the current model for Usenet, is the freedom of the owner of the
>press, i.e. the owner of the hardware. Just as a magazine or newspaper
>publisher publishes what they want according to their convenience, so does a
>Usenet computer owner.
[...]
[From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M.
McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe:]
----- begin quote----
School Sponsorship of Student Publications
School authorities often have claimed that they exert more control
over school-sponsored publications than over nonschool material, but
the judiciary has recognized that constitutional protections apply to
both types of student literature. mere school affiliation does not
remove student literature from first amendment protection. The
judiciary has reasoned that a governmental body "is not necessarily
the unfettered master of all it creates." Thus, the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored paper.
For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals [Connecticut, New
York, Vermont - Carl] affirmed a decision in which the federal
district court held that a [high school] principle could not prohibit
the distribution of a school-sponsored newspaper in which students
placed a four-page supplement with information about contraception and
abortion. The court noted that the articles in the supplement were
intended to convey information and that the subjects were treated in a
serious manner. While recognizing that the supplement might create
some controversy, the court reasoned that it did not threaten a
disruption in the educational environment.
Although school boards are not obligated to support student papers, if
a given publication was originally created as a free speech forum,
removal of financial or other school board support can be construed as
an unlawful effort to stifle free expression. In essence, school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content. [...]
---- end of quote---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 13:52:32 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06015; Thu, 29 Aug 91 13:52:29 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA13499
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 13:50:12 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 13:50 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-Id: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Envelope-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
X-Vms-To: IN%"comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org"
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
Status: OR
>Although school boards are not obligated to support student papers, if
>a given publication was originally created as a free speech forum,
>removal of financial or other school board support can be construed as
>an unlawful effort to stifle free expression. In essence, school
>authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
>because of displeasure with the content. [...]
>
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
The simple solution is for all systems administrators to explicitly state at
account assignment time that the computer is not a "free speech forum".
(This is already implied if the account is for research or class use.)
Also, the argument that Netnews access is a "student publication" is not a
valid argument. (The Berkeley OCF is the only "student publication"/"free
speech forum" that I know off. I personally believe that this is the proper
and constitutionally protected approach to the free speech question.)
Both the above arguments make the case cited by Carl inapplicable in the case
of a University owned instructional computing facility.
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 Thu Aug 29 14:09:36 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06081; Thu, 29 Aug 91 14:09:33 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA13953
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 14:07:58 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 14:07 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Free Speech or Free Press Model?
Message-Id: <92373F17B8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Envelope-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
X-Vms-To: IN%"comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org"
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
Status: OR
>Question: May the owner(s) of the nodes of Usenet interfere with
>their users' First Amendment rights of free expression? It has
>already been pointed out that even on private property, owners may
>not stop dissemination of materiel by Hari Krishnas or whatever. So
>mere ownership apparently does not convey an automatic right to
>control content.
The dissemination of information on private property right was overturned
by the Supreme Court a few years back, a few months after it was established
by the same court. I guess they realized the full implications. I do not
have the citation but I do remember that the Mall Owners lobbied hard and made
good arguments at the Supreme Court. The right of the Hare Krishnas to
disseminate materiel in a public place (government owned public airport,
public square) etc. is unhindered.
>I guess my goal is to try to maximize the property and civil rights
>of the owners of the systems as well as the First Amendment rights
>of the users. Since at times these rights conflict, we have to
>delineate the extent of each.
I know this and you have already stated this in your article, but I would like
to re-emphasize:
Freedom of press is also a First Amendment right of the
owner of the press and is much more than a "property" right.
>
>
>The above opinion is, of course, my own, and does not represent any
>policy of the United States, the U.S. Dept. of Defense, the Defense
>Logistics Agency, or any subpart thereof.
>
>
>Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
>Administrative Information Branch - "We Code, You Explode!!"
>Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
>DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
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 Thu Aug 29 16:24:06 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06503; Thu, 29 Aug 91 16:24:03 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA17106
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:22:43 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 20:11:45 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <1991Aug28.210259.3773@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Status: OR
lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>
>1. "Any price for freedom is too high."
> If I carry alt.sex, someone might object, and this would be
> an inconvenience to me. I or my university might even get sued,
> and if so, the bad guys might win.
>
In a utopia, this wouldn't even be necessary. In reality, however, this
is a concern. Many news admins are NOT in a position to be a martyr to
the "freedom to post whatever the heck I want" cause. Many sites consider
news a privilege; I certainly consider it as such. I will be installing
news on one of our systems in the near future. There are many factors which
could cause its removal. This factor may not be philosophically valid,
but it must certainly be considered.
>2. "Someone else denies freedoms, so it must be ok."
> I once saw a newstand vendor refuse to sell Playboy to a
> five year old. Same thing. And what better model to follow
> for a university in a free society?
Now hold on a second. Many people have compared NetNews to newsstands
and libraries, for purposes of determining its status as an information
source. Are you trying to say that I can't make that comparison?
For that matter, many universities refuse to allow minors to access adult
materials without parental consent (according to posters in this forum; I
don't have firsthand knowledge of this). Why shouldn't my access policies
be the same as the library's?
>3. "We had to destroy freedom in order to save it." (variant of #1)
> A reporter will notice I carry alt.sex. It will get into
> the news. Someone will write a congressman. The congressman
> will call NSF. NSF will not renew the grant that pays for
> network access. Legitimate research will be impeded, no one
> will be able to read news, and (here's the killer) the very
> people who wanted alt.sex will not have access to it!!
What's your point? Would you care to convince me
that this is not a valid concern?
Actually, my concern is not reporters; I'm concerned about parents.
What happens when that father calls the University Administration
about that "nasty pornography" little Biily is getting from "those
computers" that his big brother uses? There won't *be* any letters,
nor will there be any legal hoohah at all. There will simply be an
"administrative" decision made by some faceless bureaucrat, eliminating
news on university systems. They'll find some pretext like "network
congestion" or "large phone bills" or "disk space considerations" or
"academic use only".
Sarcasm is fine, but let's concern ourselves with the reality of our
situation. We're all discussing methods of changing our academic (and
computing) environments, and that's great. However, until we have
effected those changes, we must deal with the current environment, and
that means that we must make compromises.
--
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!wupost!ukma!morgan
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
References: <1991Aug28.210259.3773@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 20:11:45 GMT
Lines: 62
lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>
>1. "Any price for freedom is too high."
> If I carry alt.sex, someone might object, and this would be
> an inconvenience to me. I or my university might even get sued,
> and if so, the bad guys might win.
>
In a utopia, this wouldn't even be necessary. In reality, however, this
is a concern. Many news admins are NOT in a position to be a martyr to
the "freedom to post whatever the heck I want" cause. Many sites consider
news a privilege; I certainly consider it as such. I will be installing
news on one of our systems in the near future. There are many factors which
could cause its removal. This factor may not be philosophically valid,
but it must certainly be considered.
>2. "Someone else denies freedoms, so it must be ok."
> I once saw a newstand vendor refuse to sell Playboy to a
> five year old. Same thing. And what better model to follow
> for a university in a free society?
Now hold on a second. Many people have compared NetNews to newsstands
and libraries, for purposes of determining its status as an information
source. Are you trying to say that I can't make that comparison?
For that matter, many universities refuse to allow minors to access adult
materials without parental consent (according to posters in this forum; I
don't have firsthand knowledge of this). Why shouldn't my access policies
be the same as the library's?
>3. "We had to destroy freedom in order to save it." (variant of #1)
> A reporter will notice I carry alt.sex. It will get into
> the news. Someone will write a congressman. The congressman
> will call NSF. NSF will not renew the grant that pays for
> network access. Legitimate research will be impeded, no one
> will be able to read news, and (here's the killer) the very
> people who wanted alt.sex will not have access to it!!
What's your point? Would you care to convince me
that this is not a valid concern?
Actually, my concern is not reporters; I'm concerned about parents.
What happens when that father calls the University Administration
about that "nasty pornography" little Biily is getting from "those
computers" that his big brother uses? There won't *be* any letters,
nor will there be any legal hoohah at all. There will simply be an
"administrative" decision made by some faceless bureaucrat, eliminating
news on university systems. They'll find some pretext like "network
congestion" or "large phone bills" or "disk space considerations" or
"academic use only".
Sarcasm is fine, but let's concern ourselves with the reality of our
situation. We're all discussing methods of changing our academic (and
computing) environments, and that's great. However, until we have
effected those changes, we must deal with the current environment, and
that means that we must make compromises.
--
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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 20:26:09 GMT
Lines: 212
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>The simple solution is for all systems administrators to explicitly state at
>account assignment time that the computer is not a "free speech forum".
>(This is already implied if the account is for research or class use.)
>Also, the argument that Netnews access is a "student publication" is not a
>valid argument. (The Berkeley OCF is the only "student publication"/"free
>speech forum" that I know off. I personally believe that this is the proper
>and constitutionally protected approach to the free speech question.)
>Both the above arguments make the case cited by Carl inapplicable in the case
>of a University owned instructional computing facility.
[...]
Here is some info about to free speech forums at public universities.
It outlines the different types of forums and the rules for each one.
This is from _The Freedom to Publish_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian.
Published by Neal-Schuman Publishers 1989. It is part of the First
Amendment in the Classroom series. All the books in the series are
edited by Bosmajian. Each book is just a collection of court
decisions. Other books in the series include _The Freedom to Read
books, Films, and Plays_, _Freedom of Religion_, _Freedom of
Expression_, _Academic Freedom_, _Freedom to Publish_.
In San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986),
a high school board rejected an anti-draft advertisement that the
San Diego Committee Against Registration and the Draft (CARD)
wanted to place in student newspapers. The Court said:
--- begin quote--
CARD's advertisement comes within the boundaries of the limited public
forum the Board has created. Having established a limited public forum
the Board cannot, absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude
speech otherwise within the boundaries of the forum.... In particular,
the Board cannot allow the presentation of one side of an issue, but
prohibit the presentation of the other side ... Here, the board
permitted mixed political and commercial speech advocating military
service, but attempted to bar the same type of speech opposing
interest justifying its conduct. Accordingly, the Board violated the
First Amendment when it excluded CARD's advertisements from the
newspapers.
[...]
The Board has failed to advance any reasonable grounds for excluding
CARD's advertisement from the newspapers. Accordingly, even if we
assume that the newspapers are a nonpublic forum, that is, the type of
forum which receives the least protection under the First Amendment,
we must conclude that the Board violated the guarantees of that
amendment when it prevented the publication of CARD's advertisement.
-end quote---
Here is some more about the different kinds of forums. (This
is from the same decision).
-- begin quote ---
III. THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRINE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
[...]
The values embodied in the First Amendment require the state, under
certain circumstances, to provide members of the public with access to
its facilities for purpose of speech. Certain state facilities, which
may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special
constitution status as "public forums." [...references...] In these
public forums, the First Amendment narrowly circumscribes the
government's power to exclude or regulate speech. Of course, a state's
mere ownership or control of a facility does not, in itself, guarantee
access under the First Amendment. [... references ...] Similarly,
merely permitting public access to a government facility does not
necessarily open it for use as a public forum. [... references ...]
However, even with respect to nonpublic forums, the state may not act
unreasonably. _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct at 3448.
In _Perry_ and _Cornelius_, the Supreme Court identified three types of
forums to which the public's right to access varies, as does the type
of limitations the state may impose upon the right. The Court first
focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have
been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, where
"the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply
circumscribed. [...references...] The Court stated that
"{i}n these quintessential public forums, the government may not
prohibit all communicative activity. For the state to enforce a
content-based exclusion it mush show that its regulation is necessary
to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to
achieve that end. The state may also enforce regulations of the time,
place and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly
tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open
amble alternative channels for communcations. _Perry_
[...reference...]"
The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call
this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum
by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state
to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the
public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first
place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the
groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
forum is quite restricted:
"{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
compelling state interest." [refs]
"Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and
second types of public forums, [ref]although in the latter type of
forums those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries
of the specific forum that has been established.
The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by
tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref]
such as a military base or jail. The Court recognized that this type of forum is governed by standard different from those applicable to the first two. The
Court stated that
"{i}n addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may
reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or
otherwise, as long as that regulation on speech is _reasonable_". [ref]
"The existence of reasonable grounds for limiting access to a
nonpublic forum, however, will not save a regulation that is in
reality a facade for viewpoint-based discrimination." _Cornelius_,
105 S.Ct. at 3454.
IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the
third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that
the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums.
In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government
intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by
"{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property
and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref]
In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to
create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are
devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a
newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some
other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that
is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted
policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the
students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to
certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under
the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most
other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of
the type found in _Widmar_. [ref]
[...]
Thus, the Board has allowed certain members of the public -- various
military recruiters -- to use its newspapers to engage in speech that
is not essentially commercial in nature but that combines elements of
political and commercial speech. As a result, the Board's _actual_
policy and practice leads, under _Cornelius_, to the conclusion that
the Board has established the school newspapers as a limited public
forum in which students can discuss any topic, and in which
non-students can engage in commercial speech generally and in speech
which is both political and commercial with respect to at least on
important and highly controversial topic -- military service. Because
the Board on a number of occasions permitted the publication of
advertisements advocating military service, there can be no question
by that the Board intended to open the newspapers for advertisements
on this topic -- at least by one side to the debate.
[...]
B. Viewpoint-Based Discrimination
Furthermore, it appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based
discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military
recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one
side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to
those who advocated military service. The Board then refused, without
a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the
same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was
engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated,
"{t}o permit one side of a debatable public question to have a
monopoly in expressing its views ... is the antithesis of
constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_ [refs] In other words,
"the First Amendment means that the government has no power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
matter, or its content. _Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref].
Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public
forum. _Cornelius_ [ref]. Accordingly, the Board's viewpoint
discrimination provides a second ground for holding that even if the
school newspapers do not constitute a public forum, the Board violated
the First Amendment in excluding CARD's advertisement.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 16:43:55 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06657; Thu, 29 Aug 91 16:43:50 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA17461
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:37:43 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 20:26:09 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Status: OR
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>The simple solution is for all systems administrators to explicitly state at
>account assignment time that the computer is not a "free speech forum".
>(This is already implied if the account is for research or class use.)
>Also, the argument that Netnews access is a "student publication" is not a
>valid argument. (The Berkeley OCF is the only "student publication"/"free
>speech forum" that I know off. I personally believe that this is the proper
>and constitutionally protected approach to the free speech question.)
>Both the above arguments make the case cited by Carl inapplicable in the case
>of a University owned instructional computing facility.
[...]
Here is some info about to free speech forums at public universities.
It outlines the different types of forums and the rules for each one.
This is from _The Freedom to Publish_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian.
Published by Neal-Schuman Publishers 1989. It is part of the First
Amendment in the Classroom series. All the books in the series are
edited by Bosmajian. Each book is just a collection of court
decisions. Other books in the series include _The Freedom to Read
books, Films, and Plays_, _Freedom of Religion_, _Freedom of
Expression_, _Academic Freedom_, _Freedom to Publish_.
In San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986),
a high school board rejected an anti-draft advertisement that the
San Diego Committee Against Registration and the Draft (CARD)
wanted to place in student newspapers. The Court said:
--- begin quote--
CARD's advertisement comes within the boundaries of the limited public
forum the Board has created. Having established a limited public forum
the Board cannot, absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude
speech otherwise within the boundaries of the forum.... In particular,
the Board cannot allow the presentation of one side of an issue, but
prohibit the presentation of the other side ... Here, the board
permitted mixed political and commercial speech advocating military
service, but attempted to bar the same type of speech opposing
interest justifying its conduct. Accordingly, the Board violated the
First Amendment when it excluded CARD's advertisements from the
newspapers.
[...]
The Board has failed to advance any reasonable grounds for excluding
CARD's advertisement from the newspapers. Accordingly, even if we
assume that the newspapers are a nonpublic forum, that is, the type of
forum which receives the least protection under the First Amendment,
we must conclude that the Board violated the guarantees of that
amendment when it prevented the publication of CARD's advertisement.
-end quote---
Here is some more about the different kinds of forums. (This
is from the same decision).
-- begin quote ---
III. THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRINE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
[...]
The values embodied in the First Amendment require the state, under
certain circumstances, to provide members of the public with access to
its facilities for purpose of speech. Certain state facilities, which
may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special
constitution status as "public forums." [...references...] In these
public forums, the First Amendment narrowly circumscribes the
government's power to exclude or regulate speech. Of course, a state's
mere ownership or control of a facility does not, in itself, guarantee
access under the First Amendment. [... references ...] Similarly,
merely permitting public access to a government facility does not
necessarily open it for use as a public forum. [... references ...]
However, even with respect to nonpublic forums, the state may not act
unreasonably. _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct at 3448.
In _Perry_ and _Cornelius_, the Supreme Court identified three types of
forums to which the public's right to access varies, as does the type
of limitations the state may impose upon the right. The Court first
focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have
been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, where
"the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply
circumscribed. [...references...] The Court stated that
"{i}n these quintessential public forums, the government may not
prohibit all communicative activity. For the state to enforce a
content-based exclusion it mush show that its regulation is necessary
to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to
achieve that end. The state may also enforce regulations of the time,
place and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly
tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open
amble alternative channels for communcations. _Perry_
[...reference...]"
The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call
this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum
by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state
to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the
public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first
place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the
groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
forum is quite restricted:
"{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
compelling state interest." [refs]
"Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and
second types of public forums, [ref]although in the latter type of
forums those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries
of the specific forum that has been established.
The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by
tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref]
such as a military base or jail. The Court recognized that this type of forum is governed by standard different from those applicable to the first two. The
Court stated that
"{i}n addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may
reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or
otherwise, as long as that regulation on speech is _reasonable_". [ref]
"The existence of reasonable grounds for limiting access to a
nonpublic forum, however, will not save a regulation that is in
reality a facade for viewpoint-based discrimination." _Cornelius_,
105 S.Ct. at 3454.
IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the
third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that
the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums.
In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government
intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by
"{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property
and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref]
In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to
create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are
devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a
newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some
other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that
is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted
policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the
students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to
certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under
the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most
other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of
the type found in _Widmar_. [ref]
[...]
Thus, the Board has allowed certain members of the public -- various
military recruiters -- to use its newspapers to engage in speech that
is not essentially commercial in nature but that combines elements of
political and commercial speech. As a result, the Board's _actual_
policy and practice leads, under _Cornelius_, to the conclusion that
the Board has established the school newspapers as a limited public
forum in which students can discuss any topic, and in which
non-students can engage in commercial speech generally and in speech
which is both political and commercial with respect to at least on
important and highly controversial topic -- military service. Because
the Board on a number of occasions permitted the publication of
advertisements advocating military service, there can be no question
by that the Board intended to open the newspapers for advertisements
on this topic -- at least by one side to the debate.
[...]
B. Viewpoint-Based Discrimination
Furthermore, it appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based
discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military
recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one
side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to
those who advocated military service. The Board then refused, without
a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the
same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was
engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated,
"{t}o permit one side of a debatable public question to have a
monopoly in expressing its views ... is the antithesis of
constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_ [refs] In other words,
"the First Amendment means that the government has no power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
matter, or its content. _Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref].
Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public
forum. _Cornelius_ [ref]. Accordingly, the Board's viewpoint
discrimination provides a second ground for holding that even if the
school newspapers do not constitute a public forum, the Board violated
the First Amendment in excluding CARD's advertisement.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 16:54:56 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06713; Thu, 29 Aug 91 16:54:53 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA17909
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:52:43 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 20:44:01 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.204401.17635@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <1991Aug28.210259.3773@news.Hawaii.Edu>, <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Status: OR
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>For that matter, many universities refuse to allow minors to access adult
>materials without parental consent (according to posters in this forum; I
>don't have firsthand knowledge of this).
I don't think this true. I have never heard of *any* university
library that denied or abridged a person's right to use the library
because of age.
> Why shouldn't my access policies be the same as the library's?
[...]
I think your acess policies should be the same as the library's. I
suggest you contact the University of Kentucky library and find out
what its access polices are.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.204401.17635@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <1991Aug28.210259.3773@news.Hawaii.Edu> <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 20:44:01 GMT
Lines: 22
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>For that matter, many universities refuse to allow minors to access adult
>materials without parental consent (according to posters in this forum; I
>don't have firsthand knowledge of this).
I don't think this true. I have never heard of *any* university
library that denied or abridged a person's right to use the library
because of age.
> Why shouldn't my access policies be the same as the library's?
[...]
I think your acess policies should be the same as the library's. I
suggest you contact the University of Kentucky library and find out
what its access polices are.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!wupost!psuvax1!ukma!morgan
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.210543.14057@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
References: <1991Aug28.210259.3773@news.Hawaii.Edu> <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu> <1991Aug29.204401.17635@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 21:05:43 GMT
Lines: 23
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>[...]
>>For that matter, many universities refuse to allow minors to access adult
>>materials without parental consent (according to posters in this forum; I
>>don't have firsthand knowledge of this).
>
>I don't think this true. I have never heard of *any* university
>library that denied or abridged a person's right to use the library
>because of age.
>
This was a mistake on my part; I intended to say "many *public* libraries".
Matthew Russotto recently posted an article detailing the Montgomery County
(Maryland) Library's use of special cards that, with the parents' consent,
allowed minors to access adult materials.
--
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 Thu Aug 29 18:27:43 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06977; Thu, 29 Aug 91 18:27:40 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA20189
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 18:22:42 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 21:05:43 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.210543.14057@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <1991Aug28.210259.3773@news.Hawaii.Edu>, <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug29.204401.17635@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Status: OR
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>[...]
>>For that matter, many universities refuse to allow minors to access adult
>>materials without parental consent (according to posters in this forum; I
>>don't have firsthand knowledge of this).
>
>I don't think this true. I have never heard of *any* university
>library that denied or abridged a person's right to use the library
>because of age.
>
This was a mistake on my part; I intended to say "many *public* libraries".
Matthew Russotto recently posted an article detailing the Montgomery County
(Maryland) Library's use of special cards that, with the parents' consent,
allowed minors to access adult materials.
--
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 Thu Aug 29 18:26:02 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06963; Thu, 29 Aug 91 18:25:56 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA20300
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 18:23:39 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 21:13:27 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.211327.18443@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Status: OR
Here are the conclusions I make when I apply the public forum doctrine
to Netnews:
[Based on San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986)]
Having established a limited public forum a public university cannot,
absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude speech otherwise
within the boundaries of the forum. In particular, a public university
cannot allow the presentation of one side of an issue, but prohibit
the presentation of the other side.
Most university Netnews facilities are limited public forums. Their
use is limited to authorized users. The topics that may discussed can
be limited, but usually are not.
Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
compelling state interest.
Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and
second types of public forums, although in the latter type of forums
those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries of the
specific forum that has been established.
Some computer forums may be nonpublic forums. In addition to time,
place, and manner regulations, the University may reserve the forum
for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as that
regulation on speech is _reasonable_. The existence of reasonable
grounds for limiting access to a nonpublic forum, however, will not
save a regulation that is in reality a facade for viewpoint-based
discrimination." _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct. at 3454.
In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the school
intended to created. The schools's intent is evidenced by "{its}
policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property and
its compatibility with expressive activity."
Netnews, including a public university's, is devoted entirely to
expressive activity. Everything that appears in netnews is speech,
whether commercial, political, artistic, or some other type. It is
difficult to think of any other kind of property that is more
compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted policy
and practice of many public university is to allow a particular group
-- the students -- to discuss any topic in the netnews, subject only
to certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus,
under the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, a public university's
netnews is usually a limited public forum of the type found in
_Widmar_.
Regardless of policy, a university's actual practice may make
Netnews a limited public forum.
The Supreme Court has stated, "{t}o permit one side of a debatable
public question to have a monopoly in expressing its views ... is the
antithesis of constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_. In other
words, "the First Amendment means that the government has no power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
matter, or its content. _Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_.
Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a nonpublic
forum. _Cornelius_.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.211327.18443@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 21:13:27 GMT
Lines: 67
Here are the conclusions I make when I apply the public forum doctrine
to Netnews:
[Based on San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986)]
Having established a limited public forum a public university cannot,
absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude speech otherwise
within the boundaries of the forum. In particular, a public university
cannot allow the presentation of one side of an issue, but prohibit
the presentation of the other side.
Most university Netnews facilities are limited public forums. Their
use is limited to authorized users. The topics that may discussed can
be limited, but usually are not.
Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
compelling state interest.
Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and
second types of public forums, although in the latter type of forums
those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries of the
specific forum that has been established.
Some computer forums may be nonpublic forums. In addition to time,
place, and manner regulations, the University may reserve the forum
for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as that
regulation on speech is _reasonable_. The existence of reasonable
grounds for limiting access to a nonpublic forum, however, will not
save a regulation that is in reality a facade for viewpoint-based
discrimination." _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct. at 3454.
In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the school
intended to created. The schools's intent is evidenced by "{its}
policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property and
its compatibility with expressive activity."
Netnews, including a public university's, is devoted entirely to
expressive activity. Everything that appears in netnews is speech,
whether commercial, political, artistic, or some other type. It is
difficult to think of any other kind of property that is more
compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted policy
and practice of many public university is to allow a particular group
-- the students -- to discuss any topic in the netnews, subject only
to certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus,
under the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, a public university's
netnews is usually a limited public forum of the type found in
_Widmar_.
Regardless of policy, a university's actual practice may make
Netnews a limited public forum.
The Supreme Court has stated, "{t}o permit one side of a debatable
public question to have a monopoly in expressing its views ... is the
antithesis of constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_. In other
words, "the First Amendment means that the government has no power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
matter, or its content. _Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_.
Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a nonpublic
forum. _Cornelius_.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!wupost!ukma!morgan
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
References: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 21:52:50 GMT
Lines: 109
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Certain state facilities, which
>may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special
>constitution status as "public forums." [...references...]
I could argue that, since many computer systems were purchased for
"academic use only", they do not enjoy "public forum" status.
>The Court first
>focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have
>been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks,
I don't think that a computer system would enjoy this status, regardless
of the growth of Usenet, IRC, email, and the like. Access to many systems
is granted on the basis of *individual* services. Can we consider a com-
puter system, in and of itself, to be "devoted to assembly and debate"?
>The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
>"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
>place for expressive activity."
Again, computing services are often provided for academic use, i.e. study
and/or research. I don't know of a case where a computer system has been
opened by the State specifically for "expressive activity". Some systems
may have evolved into such a beast, but I don't know of any which enjoyed
such a status since its inception.
I would agree that the addition of a usenet feed to a given com-
puter system might confer upon that system the status of a "limited public
forum". In anticipation of such a status, let's look at the next paragraph:
>A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
>the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
>the discussion of all topics,
I would suggest that this grants the state, as represented by the individual
systems' administrators, to start a Usenet feed.
>or there may be limitations on the
>groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
Surprise!! Am I correct in interpreting this as a license to "tailor"
my Usenet feed? Doesn't this imply that I could, at the outset, decide
which newsgroups would or would not be available in the "limited public
forum" that is the computer system?
>Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
>discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
>discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
Let's embark on another logical chain:
- We have determined in previous discussions that access
to computer systems may be limited to a particular sec-
tion of the public (i.e., students/faculty/staff, mem-
bers of a particular part of the University (Engineering,
Computer Science, whatever), and the like).
- I have argued, using this ruling, that a given computer
system does not qualify as a "quintessential public forum".
This interpretation, as always, is subject to debate.
- However, I have argued, from this ruling, that the addition
of Usenet to a computer system may grant it status as a "limited
public forum", according to the decision cited above.
- The paragraph quoted above grants the state the right to
determine the topics that will be subject to discussion in
the "limited public forum".
To me, it seems that this ruling explicitly gives me the right, as an
agent of the State, to determine the content of the "limited public
forum" (i.e., Usenet) which I wish to make available to the public.
>Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
>impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
>forum is quite restricted:
As well it should be. Of course, if I choose not to offer a particular
newsgroup FROM THE OUTSET, it would seem that I am protected in that
choice by this precedent.
>The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by
>tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref]
>such as a military base or jail.
I could make the argument that a computer system is not "by tradition
or designation a forum for public communications". It is primarily
designated as a computational service. Any public communcation tools,
such as email or Usenet, might be considered secondary to the computing
mission.
>Because
>the Board on a number of occasions permitted the publication of
>advertisements advocating military service, there can be no question
>by that the Board intended to open the newspapers for advertisements
>on this topic -- at least by one side to the debate.
If I do not provide a particular newsgroup FROM THE OUTSET of news
service, this wouldn't apply to my news feed. Netiher side of a
particular newsgroup discussion would enjoy access to my system.
I think I'm covered.
--
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 Thu Aug 29 18:26:35 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA06969; Thu, 29 Aug 91 18:26:28 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA20409
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 18:24:44 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 21:52:50 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Status: OR
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Certain state facilities, which
>may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special
>constitution status as "public forums." [...references...]
I could argue that, since many computer systems were purchased for
"academic use only", they do not enjoy "public forum" status.
>The Court first
>focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have
>been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks,
I don't think that a computer system would enjoy this status, regardless
of the growth of Usenet, IRC, email, and the like. Access to many systems
is granted on the basis of *individual* services. Can we consider a com-
puter system, in and of itself, to be "devoted to assembly and debate"?
>The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
>"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
>place for expressive activity."
Again, computing services are often provided for academic use, i.e. study
and/or research. I don't know of a case where a computer system has been
opened by the State specifically for "expressive activity". Some systems
may have evolved into such a beast, but I don't know of any which enjoyed
such a status since its inception.
I would agree that the addition of a usenet feed to a given com-
puter system might confer upon that system the status of a "limited public
forum". In anticipation of such a status, let's look at the next paragraph:
>A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
>the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
>the discussion of all topics,
I would suggest that this grants the state, as represented by the individual
systems' administrators, to start a Usenet feed.
>or there may be limitations on the
>groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
Surprise!! Am I correct in interpreting this as a license to "tailor"
my Usenet feed? Doesn't this imply that I could, at the outset, decide
which newsgroups would or would not be available in the "limited public
forum" that is the computer system?
>Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
>discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
>discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
Let's embark on another logical chain:
- We have determined in previous discussions that access
to computer systems may be limited to a particular sec-
tion of the public (i.e., students/faculty/staff, mem-
bers of a particular part of the University (Engineering,
Computer Science, whatever), and the like).
- I have argued, using this ruling, that a given computer
system does not qualify as a "quintessential public forum".
This interpretation, as always, is subject to debate.
- However, I have argued, from this ruling, that the addition
of Usenet to a computer system may grant it status as a "limited
public forum", according to the decision cited above.
- The paragraph quoted above grants the state the right to
determine the topics that will be subject to discussion in
the "limited public forum".
To me, it seems that this ruling explicitly gives me the right, as an
agent of the State, to determine the content of the "limited public
forum" (i.e., Usenet) which I wish to make available to the public.
>Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
>impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
>forum is quite restricted:
As well it should be. Of course, if I choose not to offer a particular
newsgroup FROM THE OUTSET, it would seem that I am protected in that
choice by this precedent.
>The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by
>tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref]
>such as a military base or jail.
I could make the argument that a computer system is not "by tradition
or designation a forum for public communications". It is primarily
designated as a computational service. Any public communcation tools,
such as email or Usenet, might be considered secondary to the computing
mission.
>Because
>the Board on a number of occasions permitted the publication of
>advertisements advocating military service, there can be no question
>by that the Board intended to open the newspapers for advertisements
>on this topic -- at least by one side to the debate.
If I do not provide a particular newsgroup FROM THE OUTSET of news
service, this wouldn't apply to my news feed. Netiher side of a
particular newsgroup discussion would enjoy access to my system.
I think I'm covered.
--
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 Thu Aug 29 19:20:16 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA07092; Thu, 29 Aug 91 19:20:10 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA21789
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 19:18:23 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 19:18 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Envelope-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
X-Vms-To: IN%"comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org"
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
Status: OR
>[...]
>
>Here is some info about to free speech forums at public universities.
>It outlines the different types of forums and the rules for each one.
>
>In San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986),
>a high school board rejected an anti-draft advertisement that the
>San Diego Committee Against Registration and the Draft (CARD)
>wanted to place in student newspapers. The Court said:
Is this a 2nd Circuit court of Appeals decision or a Supreme Court Decision?
>
>--- begin quote--
>
>CARD's advertisement comes within the boundaries of the limited public
>forum the Board has created. Having established a limited public forum
>the Board cannot, absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude
>speech otherwise within the boundaries of the forum.... In particular,
>the Board cannot allow the presentation of one side of an issue, but
>prohibit the presentation of the other side ... Here, the board
>permitted mixed political and commercial speech advocating military
>service, but attempted to bar the same type of speech opposing
>interest justifying its conduct. Accordingly, the Board violated the
>First Amendment when it excluded CARD's advertisements from the
>newspapers.
>
>[...]
But Newsnet is not a Newspaper.
>The values embodied in the First Amendment require the state, under
>certain circumstances, to provide members of the public with access to
>its facilities for purpose of speech. Certain state facilities, which
>may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special
>constitution status as "public forums." [...references...] In these
>public forums, the First Amendment narrowly circumscribes the
>government's power to exclude or regulate speech. Of course, a state's
>mere ownership or control of a facility does not, in itself, guarantee
>access under the First Amendment. [... references ...] Similarly,
>merely permitting public access to a government facility does not
>necessarily open it for use as a public forum. [... references ...]
>However, even with respect to nonpublic forums, the state may not act
>unreasonably. _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct at 3448.
>
I am still not convinced that Newsnet is a public forum. What about private
Universities?
>In _Perry_ and _Cornelius_, the Supreme Court identified three types of
>forums to which the public's right to access varies, as does the type
>of limitations the state may impose upon the right. The Court first
>focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have
>been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, where
>"the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply
>circumscribed. [...references...] The Court stated that
>
Newsnet is not that long in tradition and a Government Fiat definitely does
not apply.
>
>The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
>"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
>place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call
>this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum
>by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state
>to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the
>public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first
>place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
>the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
>the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the
>groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
>Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
>discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
>discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
>
I will accept that alt.sex.* is a valid newsgroups, the day Nude sunbathing is
legal in front of the White House or the Supreme Court.
>Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
>impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
>forum is quite restricted:
>
>"{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
>character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
>same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
>time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
>content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
>compelling state interest." [refs]
>
If prohibiting Nude sunbathing is a compelling state interest, banning alt.
sex.* can easility shown to be also.
>"Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and
>second types of public forums, [ref]although in the latter type of
>forums those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries
>of the specific forum that has been established.
>
>The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by
>tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref]
>such as a military base or jail. The Court recognized that this type of forum is governed by standard different from those applicable to the first two. The
>Court stated that
>
>"{i}n addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may
>reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or
>otherwise, as long as that regulation on speech is _reasonable_". [ref]
>
Who define "reasonable"?
>"The existence of reasonable grounds for limiting access to a
>nonpublic forum, however, will not save a regulation that is in
>reality a facade for viewpoint-based discrimination." _Cornelius_,
>105 S.Ct. at 3454.
>
Just like nude sunbathing?
>IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
>
>The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the
>third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that
>the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums.
>In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
>nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government
>intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by
>"{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property
>and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref]
>
>In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to
>create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are
>devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a
>newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some
>other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that
>is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted
>policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the
>students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to
>certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under
>the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most
>other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of
>the type found in _Widmar_. [ref]
Except for computers dedicated to Usenet news, most computers are rarely
"devoted entirely to expressive activity". The admitted policy and practice
of a computing facility may in fact prohibit some of the discussion.
>
>[...]
>
>
>B. Viewpoint-Based Discrimination
>
>Furthermore, it appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based
>discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military
>recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one
>side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to
>those who advocated military service. The Board then refused, without
>a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the
>same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was
>engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated,
>"{t}o permit one side of a debatable public question to have a
>monopoly in expressing its views ... is the antithesis of
>constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_ [refs] In other words,
>"the First Amendment means that the government has no power to
>restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
>matter, or its content.
But is Usenet a Public Forum as defined by that court?
>_Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref].
>Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public
>forum.
Can you please expand on this? This may be a more interesting point for
private Universities.
> _Cornelius_ [ref]. Accordingly, the Board's viewpoint
>discrimination provides a second ground for holding that even if the
>school newspapers do not constitute a public forum, the Board violated
>the First Amendment in excluding CARD's advertisement.
>
>--
>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
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 19:23:47 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA07101; Thu, 29 Aug 91 19:23:43 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA21975
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 19:22:39 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 23:18:46 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.231846.21867@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug29.204401.17635@eff.org>, <1991Aug29.210543.14057@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Status: OR
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>This was a mistake on my part; I intended to say "many *public* libraries".
>Matthew Russotto recently posted an article detailing the Montgomery County
>(Maryland) Library's use of special cards that, with the parents' consent,
>allowed minors to access adult materials.
I think that access restrictions are rare even at public libraries.
It is the policy of the American Library Association to fight against
age-based access restrictions.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.231846.21867@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <1991Aug28.210259.3773@news.Hawaii.Edu> <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu> <1991Aug29.204401.17635@eff.org> <1991Aug29.210543.14057@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 23:18:46 GMT
Lines: 16
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>This was a mistake on my part; I intended to say "many *public* libraries".
>Matthew Russotto recently posted an article detailing the Montgomery County
>(Maryland) Library's use of special cards that, with the parents' consent,
>allowed minors to access adult materials.
I think that access restrictions are rare even at public libraries.
It is the policy of the American Library Association to fight against
age-based access restrictions.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 19:54:30 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA07179; Thu, 29 Aug 91 19:54:26 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA22686
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 19:52:47 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 23:45:38 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug29.234538.22350@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org>, <1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Status: OR
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>I would agree that the addition of a usenet feed to a given com-
>puter system might confer upon that system the status of a "limited public
>forum". In anticipation of such a status, let's look at the next paragraph:
[...]
Just to add to what you are saying. A computer system be include
several forums, for example, an email forum and a Netnews forum.
Individual Netnews newsgroups might each be considered a distinct
forums. Each forum might be limited in different ways. For example,
any topic might be allowed in email, while the "uiuc.hazards"
newsgroup might be restricted to official notes (as approved by a
newsgroup moderator) related to toxic hazards on campus.
>>A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
>>the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
>>the discussion of all topics,
>>or there may be limitations on the
>>groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
[...]
>Surprise!! Am I correct in interpreting this as a license to "tailor"
>my Usenet feed? Doesn't this imply that I could, at the outset, decide
>which newsgroups would or would not be available in the "limited public
>forum" that is the computer system?
[...]
Basically, I think you are right. I think public universities legally
can and do pick and choose which topics they want in their Netnews
forums.
Given that legally you *can* make this selection, how *should* you
make this selection? I advocate library selection rules.
Likewise, you might be able to legally restrict all email to the topic
of discrete mathematics. But for most systems, I advocate opening
email to all topics. [For one thing, it would be very hard to enforce
the discrete-math only rule without violating your users' privacy.]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <1991Aug29.234538.22350@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <8FC1B522C8807487@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> <1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 23:45:38 GMT
Lines: 45
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>I would agree that the addition of a usenet feed to a given com-
>puter system might confer upon that system the status of a "limited public
>forum". In anticipation of such a status, let's look at the next paragraph:
[...]
Just to add to what you are saying. A computer system be include
several forums, for example, an email forum and a Netnews forum.
Individual Netnews newsgroups might each be considered a distinct
forums. Each forum might be limited in different ways. For example,
any topic might be allowed in email, while the "uiuc.hazards"
newsgroup might be restricted to official notes (as approved by a
newsgroup moderator) related to toxic hazards on campus.
>>A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
>>the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
>>the discussion of all topics,
>>or there may be limitations on the
>>groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
[...]
>Surprise!! Am I correct in interpreting this as a license to "tailor"
>my Usenet feed? Doesn't this imply that I could, at the outset, decide
>which newsgroups would or would not be available in the "limited public
>forum" that is the computer system?
[...]
Basically, I think you are right. I think public universities legally
can and do pick and choose which topics they want in their Netnews
forums.
Given that legally you *can* make this selection, how *should* you
make this selection? I advocate library selection rules.
Likewise, you might be able to legally restrict all email to the topic
of discrete mathematics. But for most systems, I advocate opening
email to all topics. [For one thing, it would be very hard to enforce
the discrete-math only rule without violating your users' privacy.]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <1991Aug30.000103.22898@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References:
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 00:01:03 GMT
Lines: 74
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>I am still not convinced that Newsnet is a public forum. What about private
>Universities?
[...]
None of this applies to private universities.
>I will accept that alt.sex.* is a valid newsgroups, the day Nude
>sunbathing is
>legal in front of the White House or the Supreme Court.
I think the recent Supreme Court decision about Indiana's nude dancing
law said that nudity is not expression but rather action. You
can certainly talk about nude sunbathing in front of the
White House.
>>IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
>>
>>The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the
>>third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that
>>the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums.
>>In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
>>nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government
>>intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by
>>"{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property
>>and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref]
>>
>>In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to
>>create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are
>>devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a
>>newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some
>>other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that
>>is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted
>>policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the
>>students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to
>>certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under
>>the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most
>>other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of
>>the type found in _Widmar_. [ref]
>Except for computers dedicated to Usenet news, most computers are rarely
>"devoted entirely to expressive activity". The admitted policy and practice
>of a computing facility may in fact prohibit some of the discussion.
A computer system may include several forums or none. Examples
of possible forums include Netnews, email, IRC.
>But is Usenet a Public Forum as defined by that court?
I think that at most sites email is a limited public forum (limited to
authorized users). Likewise, sites that allow users to post to Netnews
have probably established a series of limited public forums (limited
to users, some newsgroups may have limited topics).
>>_Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref].
>>Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public
>>forum.
>Can you please expand on this? This may be a more interesting point for
>private Universities.
"Nonpublic forum" here does not mean privately owned. It means means
not opened for expressive use (i.e. a prison, a computer with no
Netnews, IRC, or email).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 20:12:06 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA07264; Thu, 29 Aug 91 20:12:01 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA23017
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 20:07:46 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 00:01:03 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug30.000103.22898@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References:
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Status: OR
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>I am still not convinced that Newsnet is a public forum. What about private
>Universities?
[...]
None of this applies to private universities.
>I will accept that alt.sex.* is a valid newsgroups, the day Nude
>sunbathing is
>legal in front of the White House or the Supreme Court.
I think the recent Supreme Court decision about Indiana's nude dancing
law said that nudity is not expression but rather action. You
can certainly talk about nude sunbathing in front of the
White House.
>>IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
>>
>>The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the
>>third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that
>>the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums.
>>In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
>>nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government
>>intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by
>>"{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property
>>and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref]
>>
>>In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to
>>create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are
>>devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a
>>newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some
>>other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that
>>is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted
>>policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the
>>students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to
>>certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under
>>the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most
>>other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of
>>the type found in _Widmar_. [ref]
>Except for computers dedicated to Usenet news, most computers are rarely
>"devoted entirely to expressive activity". The admitted policy and practice
>of a computing facility may in fact prohibit some of the discussion.
A computer system may include several forums or none. Examples
of possible forums include Netnews, email, IRC.
>But is Usenet a Public Forum as defined by that court?
I think that at most sites email is a limited public forum (limited to
authorized users). Likewise, sites that allow users to post to Netnews
have probably established a series of limited public forums (limited
to users, some newsgroups may have limited topics).
>>_Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref].
>>Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public
>>forum.
>Can you please expand on this? This may be a more interesting point for
>private Universities.
"Nonpublic forum" here does not mean privately owned. It means means
not opened for expressive use (i.e. a prison, a computer with no
Netnews, IRC, or email).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 21:16:01 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA07442; Thu, 29 Aug 91 21:15:59 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA23945
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 21:14:42 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 21:14 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Envelope-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
X-Vms-To: IN%"comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org"
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
Status: OR
>
>Netnews, including a public university's, is devoted entirely to
>expressive activity. Everything that appears in netnews is speech,
>whether commercial, political, artistic, or some other type.
What about software that comes over Netnews.
Netnews may be devoted to some expressive activity but the computer it runs on
may not be. The best policy would be to have dedicated student owned
computing systems for this purpose.
>Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a nonpublic
>forum.
As I said earlier, I am very interested in this. Can you please expand on it?
>--
>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
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Message-ID: <1991Aug30.020328.25653@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References:
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 02:03:28 GMT
Lines: 20
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>Netnews may be devoted to some expressive activity but the computer
>it runs on may not be.
[...]
Then only netnews is a limited-public forum.
In few situtation would a whole computer system be considered a forum
(Likewise, a whole university is usually not considered a forum). In
most situtations, the forums (if any) exist within a computer. These
might include email, IRC, newsgroups, etc. (Likewise, forums exist
within the University e.g. newspapers, the Quad, bulletin boards,
campus cable channels etc.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Thu Aug 29 22:08:44 1991
Return-Path:
Received: from eff.org by alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (5.64+/ane.07.08.91.01)
id AA07541; Thu, 29 Aug 91 22:08:41 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA25816
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for caft-list@eff.org); Thu, 29 Aug 1991 22:07:38 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 02:03:28 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug30.020328.25653@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
References:
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Status: OR
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>Netnews may be devoted to some expressive activity but the computer
>it runs on may not be.
[...]
Then only netnews is a limited-public forum.
In few situtation would a whole computer system be considered a forum
(Likewise, a whole university is usually not considered a forum). In
most situtations, the forums (if any) exist within a computer. These
might include email, IRC, newsgroups, etc. (Likewise, forums exist
within the University e.g. newspapers, the Quad, bulletin boards,
campus cable channels etc.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!world!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!ames!news.hawaii.edu!uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu!lee
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
Message-ID: <1991Aug30.043711.2081@news.Hawaii.Edu>
From: root@news.Hawaii.Edu (News Service)
Nntp-Posting-Host: uhunix1.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Organization: University of Hawaii
References: <1991Aug28.210259.3773@news.Hawaii.Edu> <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 04:37:11 GMT
In article <1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
}lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
}>...
}
}>3. "We had to destroy freedom in order to save it." ...
}
}What's your point? ...
I see that I should have been more direct. My point was that you cannot
save a thing by destroying it.
}Would you care to convince me that this is not a valid concern? ...
Which? Preserving liberty, or arranging for the employees and students
of the university to pursue their affairs for the next grant cycle?
They're both valid concerns. The first is more important.
--
Greg Lee
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com!uunet!midway!midway.uchicago.edu!covin
From: covin@tartarus.uchicago.edu (David Covin)
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
In-Reply-To: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu's message of 30 Aug 91 14: 13:00 GMT
Message-ID:
From: news@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago Computer Science
References: <3AB7D6ED58804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 18:38:23 GMT
In article <3AB7D6ED58804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu> SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>The recent Supreme Court decision which I have cited several times and is
>applicable in a non-University setting is the abortion clinic decision. The
>U.S. government is allowed to force doctors at government supported familiy
>planning clinics to not even mention abortion.
Um. This might not be an ideal decision on which to base your argument.
It was a very controversial decision, and there are many people who disagree
with both the decision and the principles on which it is based...
I.e. just because the government (in the form of the Supreme Court, in this
case) says something, doesn't necessarily mean it's right. The fact that
Supreme Court decisions are sometimes overturned by later courts, implies
that just because the goverment says something that doesn't necessarily
mean it's the *law*, either; just the current dogma...
> 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
--
David Covin covin@despair.uchicago.edu
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:808 alt.sex:18202 alt.censorship:1313
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of Computers and Academic Freedom 1.23
Message-ID: <1991Aug30.210311.19614@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 21:03:11 GMT
Lines: 67
This is an abstract for the most recent Computers and Academic Freedom
News (CAF-news). There is more info about CAF-news following the
abstract.
--- begin abstract 1.23 ---
[This week's note continues the discussion on freedom of expression on
(public) university computers. The first five notes discuss issues in
the abstract. In the first note, a sys admin argues that sys admins
and computers cannot be expected to follow library procedures unless
computers are funded like libraries and sys admins are given academic
status like academic librarians <2F0D768BFC00965B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>.
In the second note a student says that Netnews is much like other
small student publications he has worked on (and so should be treated
like other student publications) .
The next note is an exchange about government funding of personally
objectionable material. The poster says that contributing a small
price to shared channels (roads, libraries, networks) is worthwhile
because it helps "to ensure freedom of communication, movement, and
other activity that ultimately benefits everybody,..."
<1991Aug18.215350.21835@mp.cs.niu.edu>. The fourth note discusses when
an sys admin would be obliged to let a user use a computer for some
expressive purpose <9108211525.AA01871@zerkalo.harvard.edu>. The fifth
note points out the need for an authorative answer to question of
"when is a university-owned computer properly regarded as an
instrument of free expression?" <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>
The next note changes the topic a bit. In it, a student (me), says
that like academic, library, and parking policy, university computer
policy should be in the main student handbook
<1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>.
The last five notes discuss the Netnews policy of the Engineering
Computing Center of the University of Kentucky. In the first note, a
sys admin explains that his site doesn't allow games and doesn't
support Netnews. He says that one reason that they dropped Netnews was
because their Dean received mail complaining about the postings of
several users. He says that when they upgrade their hardware they may
support Netnews but will not carry the alt.sex newsgroup because
minors might be able to access it.
<1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>. The next note says that cutting
off all Netnews access (in part) because of complaints amounts to
censorship by the University of Kentucky. In the third note, a sys
admin suggests that a university's safest bet may sometimes be to
improperly censor a student <26E77EDC1C200482@ccmail.sunysb.edu>. The
second-to-last note criticizes the decision deny adults access to
alt.sex and advocates use of a selection policy of the type
traditional libraries use <1991Aug19.215539.15837@eff.org>. In the
last note, the U. of Kentucky sys admin explains that their decision
not to carry alt.sex is not based on legal concerns but rather on a
desire to avoid bad publicity and "complaints up and down the
administrative hierarchy" <1991Aug23.152139.15501@ms.uky.edu>.
- Carl]
-----end abstract 1.23----
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
subscribe. 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.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
Message-ID: <1991Aug30.221014.20654@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org> <1991Aug27.183034.10560@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 22:10:14 GMT
Lines: 89
I wrote:
>>Computer systems are complex. But so are classrooms and so is society
>>and yet we are a society build on laws. Making rules clear enough that
>>a person can know if he or she is breaking them has worked for over
>>200 years in the U.S. and longer in Great Briton. I think we should at
>>least try it before saying that it won't work for computer
>>administration.
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> But the rules you set up for classrooms are mostly vague and flexible.
>The rules you want to set up for sysadmins are very specific.
I would settle for computer policy with the same vagueness/clarity and
degree of flexibility as other university policies.
> For
>example if a sysadmin suspends a student account until the student shows up
>for a discussion, such actions should in most cases have very little long
>term consequences for the student. Nevertheless you want to treat that
>as a punitive action subject to all kinds of procedural requirements.
How about a compromise? Maybe a user (student, faculty, etc) could be
given 24 or 48 hours after being contacted to make an appointment for
a meeting. After that their account would be suspended until they made
an appointment. (This is kind of like not being able to register for
classes if you owe the University money.)
> If,
>on the other hand, an instructor fails a student in a class, this will likely
>have very serious long term consequences for the student, yet you accept that
>this is something the instructor can do in the normal course of events,
>subject only to some appeal procedure.
I can't think of any better alternative than to have faculty assign
grades. Note that even faculty can't punish a student for cheating
without at least an informal hearing.
> The imbalance in the list of rules
>you draw up clearly demonstrates that you are not able to make such a list.
>Why would you think that anyone else is so wise as to be able to prepare
>such a list?
I thought the list was wonderful! Can you be more specific
in your criticism?
> You're correct. We have had a system of laws for well over 200 years. And
>I dare say that by the time computer technology has a history of 200 years
>of relative stability we will have developed some good judgment as to what
>should be the standards. But at present computer technology is anything
>but stable.
As computer technology changes, our computer policy will change with
it. This not unusual; polices must often be modified to keep up with
the times. I think that university computer administration is mature
enough that it is possible to create a pretty good policy. I think we
should at least give it a try.
> You only have to look at the mess the patent office and the
>courts are making in computer related cases to realize that we do not have
>the experience necessary to prepare such a set of rules as you propose.
I agree with your assessment, but draw the opposite conclusion. I
would say that the patent office and the courts are messed up because
they don't have computer-specific laws to guide them.
> When
>you don't have the experience to understand the consequences you need to
>grant a great deal of flexibility to those who make the decisions,
Can you give examples of situations in which a sys admin needs a great
deal of flexibility? Perhaps we can propose some rules that are clear
enough to satisfy me and flexible enough to satisfy you.
>yet you
>should have an effective system of checks and balances (such as a good
>appeals procedure) to guard against the possibility of abuse.
Checks and balances don't work well in the absence of rules. As Steven
Brack has found, it is very hard to defend yourself if you accused of
"doing bad stuff" [that's not an actually quote; but it is the gist of
the charges against him] but not of breaking specific rules.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:813 alt.censorship:1316
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: "What is Censorship?"
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.022024.24738@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1991 02:20:24 GMT
Lines: 41
[From page 1 of _50 Ways to Fight Censorship & Important Facts to Know
about Censors_ by Dave Marsh. Published by Thunder's Mouth Press in
1991.]
--- begin quote ----
What is Censorship?
In 1984, the American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom
Committee adopted the following definitions for terms "frequently used
to describe the various levels of incidents which may or may not lead
to censorship," which is defined as "the actual removal of materials
from open access." None of these conditions is desirable; all infringe
upon First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press.
Inquiry -- An informational request, usually informal, which seeks to
determine the rationale behind the presence of a particular item in a
collection.
Expression of Concern -- An inquiry that has judgmental overtones. The
inquirer has already made a value judgment on the materials in
question.
Complaint -- A formal written complaint filed with the library,
questioning the presence of and/or the appropriateness of specific
material.
Attack -- A publicly worded statement questioning the value of the
material, presented to the media and/or others outside the library
organization, in order to gain public support for further action.
Censorship -- The removal of material from open access by government
authority.
In this books, the word "censorship" is used in its colloquial sense,
encompassing all of these definitions.
--- end quote --
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:822 alt.censorship:1319
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: High School Freedom of Expression (was Re: Netnews censorship ...)
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.172639.10397@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <1991Aug26.190318.20989@eff.org> <52gi82w164w@infopls.chi.il.us>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1991 17:26:39 GMT
Lines: 41
I quoted _Public School Law_:
"In an illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that a university could not change its funding policy for a student
paper based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a
particular issue {78}."
zane@infopls.chi.il.us (Sameer Parekh) writes:
> Why is it that this doesn't apply to public high schools?
It probably applies to the high schools, too. The particular case,
however, concerned a university.
For a while there was almost no difference in the freedom of
expression of high school students and of college students. As of
1988, however, in _Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier_, the
Supreme Court decided that high school administrators can censor
stories in the student newspaper as long as "their actions are
reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." (The old
standard, and the standard that apparently still applies to public
universities is that admins can censor only if a story threatened to
substantially or materially disrupt the educational process.)
"Nothing that the Supreme Court said in the Kuhlmeier decision gives a
principle the right to censor an article because of a disagreement
with its point of view."
"...Kuhlmeier gives school officials no greater power to control
either the content or form of [unofficial speech such as leaflets,
buttons, and unofficial newspapers] than they had previously [in
_Tinker_].
[Source ACLU Handbook "The Rights of Students"]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.180819.11114@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org> <1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1991 18:08:19 GMT
Lines: 83
I wrote:
>>I can't think of any better alternative than to have faculty assign
>>grades. Note that even faculty can't punish a student for cheating
>>without at least an informal hearing.
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> The faculty member can assign a grade of FAIL for cheating. Unless the
>students appeals, there will be no hearing.
[...]
At my school, the University of Illinois, for a faculty member to
assign a grade of fail for cheating he or she:
Notifies the student of the allegation.
Gives the student a reasonable amount of time to respond.
[Decides if guilty. if so, decides on penalty, say, grade of FAIL]
Consults with the department's executive officer (DEO).
Notifies student and DEO of the penalty in writing.
Refers the student to the "Code on Campus Affairs" and the right of appeal.
[Assume student does not appeal.]
The DEO notifies the dean of the penalty.
The DEO and instructor prepare a public notice
of the case (without the student's or instructor's names).
Here is the long version of that procedure:
------- Begin quote from the "Code on Campus Affairs" ---
A. An instructor who believes a student guilty of one or more
infractions of academic integrity listed in this rule shall notify the
student of the basis for the belief and then allow the student a
reasonable time to respond to the allegation. After notification, the
student may not drop the course. [This is what I meant by an
"informal hearing".]
B. If the instructor concludes that the student is guilty of such an
infraction, the instructor shall decide which of the penalties list in
Section II is warranted. If the penalty to be recommend by the
instructor is a failing grad for the course, there must be
consultation with the department's executive officer (DEO) or designee
prior to written notification to the student.
[C. Suspensions and expulsions]
D. The instructor shall impose the penalty and promptly notify the
student in writing and the DEO of the penalty imposed. The instructor
shall refer the student to the "Code on Campus Affairs" and the right
to appeal. Appeal for the penalty of a grad of E [i.e. failing] for
the course shall be heard at the college (or equivalent academic unit)
level [e.g. Engineering College, College of Fine and Applied Arts, etc]
in accordance with Section III.H below. [...]
E. The student may appeal the allegation and/or the penalty by indicating
this desire in writing to the DEO within fifteen day of
notification of the right to appeal.
F. If the student does not appeal, the matter shall be closed unless
Section III.I below applies. In a case in which the penalty is
a failure for the course, the DEO shall notify the dean, and
the dean will forward a request to record a grade of E for the course
to the Office of Admissions and Records.
[....]
K. If a penalty has been imposed and all appeal procedures have been
completed (or the time for appeal has expired, the DEO (in
consultation with the instructor and, if involved, the dean and the
appellate hearing committee) shall prepare a public notice of the
violation and the penalty finally imposed. This notice shall not
identify the student or the instructor by name or other personal
detail, but shall describe: (a) the nature of the alleged breaches of
academic integrity; (b) if applicable, the appeal procedures followed
and the recommendation of any hearing committee; and (c) the ultimate
penalties imposed. The DEO shall post the notice in the instructor's
college or unit for the information of students, faculty, and
administrators. The DEO shall send a copy of this notice to the
executive director of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline.
--- end of quote ---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.001021.3065@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 00:10:21 GMT
Lines: 14
I think the word "privacy" is being used to mean different things.
I suggest that Sanjay and Jim (and anyone else who wants to) explain
what they mean when they say that email is private? confidential? Are
there degrees of privacy and confidentiality? If so, what are some of
those degrees?
[I apologize for asking a questions and not suggesting possible
answers. I hope Sanjay and Jim will take up the challenge.]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:840 alt.censorship:1333
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "What is Censorship?"
Message-ID: <1991Sep2.024406.10126@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <1991Aug31.022024.24738@eff.org> <1991Sep1.021217.5169@techbook.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1991 02:44:06 GMT
Lines: 25
szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>...[long list of actions librarians consider related to censorship]
>>Censorship -- The removal of material from open access by government
>>authority.
>>
>>In this books, the word "censorship" is used in its colloquial sense,
>>encompassing all of these definitions.
Let me clarify.
First, the phrase "In this books" should be "In this book".
Second, only the definitions of "inquiry", "expression of concern",
"complaint", "attack", and "censorship" were from the American
Library Association.
The first paragraph and the last were the comments of Dave Marsh, the
author of the book I was quoting. The book is _50 Ways to Fight
Censorship_. He was speaking as the author of the book about the use
of the word "censorship" in the book. He is not a spokesperson for the
ALA and the book is not an ALA publication.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>From helen@eff.org Fri Sep 6 18:57:48 1991
Received: from c.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA10686; Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:57:43 -0500
Received: from eff.org by c.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA12252
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:56:38 -0500
Received: by eff.org id AA23661
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:38 -0400
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: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:27 -0400
From: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199109062354.AA23645@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Sun, 1 Sep 91 Volume 1 : Issue 2
Today's Topics:
What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums) (2 msgs)
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
>From helen@eff.org Fri Sep 6 18:58:05 1991
Received: from c.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA10707; Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:58:03 -0500
Received: from eff.org by c.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA12250
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:56:38 -0500
Received: by eff.org id AA23652
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:37 -0400
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: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:23 -0400
From: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199109062354.AA23641@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Sun, 1 Sep 91 Volume 1 : Issue 1
Today's Topics:
What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums) (5 msgs)
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
[ Volume 1, Issue 1? Yes! Prior issues can be considered
Volume 0. The changeover to Volume 1 is effective
September 1, with the switch to new digesting software.
-- Helen ]
>From helen@eff.org Fri Sep 6 18:58:26 1991
Received: from c.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA10718; Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:58:23 -0500
Received: from eff.org by c.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA12256
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:56:42 -0500
Received: by eff.org id AA23628
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:11 -0400
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: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:06 -0400
From: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199109062354.AA23621@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Sat, 31 Aug 91
Today's Topics:
"What is Censorship?"
Computer Policy in the Student Handbook (3 msgs)
High School Freedom of Expression (was Re: Netnews censorship ...)
Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
Rights of Adjuncts
Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex) (6 msgs)
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 ONE.
Also, new digest creation software is being tried out.
-- Helen ]
>From helen@eff.org Fri Sep 6 18:57:38 1991
Received: from c.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA10677; Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:57:34 -0500
Received: from eff.org by c.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA12244
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:56:29 -0500
Received: by eff.org id AA23636
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:15 -0400
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: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:12 -0400
From: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199109062354.AA23631@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Sat, 31 Aug 91
Today's Topics:
The New York Newsday on RELCOM and the putsch
Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex (2 msgs)
Why does alt.sex exist? (3 msgs)
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.
Also, new digest creation software is being tried out.
-- Helen ]
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 13:23:28 -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 12:31:09 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 12:31:10 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
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 13:26:59 -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 12:34:52 EDT 1991
In this issue:
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: I don't get it.
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: I don't get it.
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
-------------------
Date: 26 Aug 91 12:51:26 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.125126.23058@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Aug22.184036.20080@eff.org>, <1991Aug23.150637.11652@ms.uky.edu>,
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
pmoloney@unix1.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>>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.
Ah, but how many issues have you put together and distributed in five
minutes? I'm willing to bet that, even though you might be the sole
editor of a campus magazine, you spend a large amount of time developing
articles and editing them. Usenet, on the other hand, can be "dumped on"
in fewer than five minutes. There's the difference.
>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)
Interesting; why was their access to news removed?
>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.
Oh, I agree completely. There is also a large misunderstanding on the
part of many University personnel. Until people, both in and out of the
computational loop, understand the function of Usenet member sites, admini-
strators will have to deal with the ignorance. An ignorant bureaucrat is
far more dangerous than an ignorant user.
>Opinions? Or an I talking bullshit (it _is_ quite late here)?
Makes sense to me.
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
-------------------
Date: 26 Aug 91 13:38:12 GMT
Sender: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.133812.13541@eng.umd.edu>
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>, <1991Aug23.181444.12021@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
In article <1991Aug23.181444.12021@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>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.
I don't know about Northern Illinois, but if an instructor capriciously assigns
a failing grade, there IS a process for a student to challenge it.
--
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: 26 Aug 91 13:54:35 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.135435.7338@ms.uky.edu>
References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca>, <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>,
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) 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.
>
>Adult periodicals are restricted?
They certainly are. I've seen vendors ask "young-looking" customers
for identification before selling them a copy of Playboy. Why do you
think so many stores hide the adult periodicals under the counter?
>Certainly not in the way you're
>restricting alt.sex. Can you imagine the person at the register
>saying, "I'm sorry, I cannot sell you this issue of Playboy magazine.
>I do not have access to your personal data, such as your birthdate.
As I said, I have witnessed customers being asked to provide proof of
age before purchasing adult literature.
>I have no way of ascertaining that you will not show this magazine to
>your younger friends or relatives, or leave it out in the street where
>anyone can see it. This material is oriented towards adults, and
>should be restricted."
Here's the difference. In your scenario, you are *purchasing* a piece
of adult literature; once you walk out the door with it, it is no longer
a concern of the vendor. With alt.sex (and netnews in general), the
situation is different; you will continue to use my facilities to access
this adult material, so it is still my concern.
That newsstand vendor doesn't care if you give a Playboy to your kid
brother; you BOUGHT it, so it's yours to do with as you see fit. There
are no further ramifications to him. On the other hand, you do not pur-
chase netnews from me; there is no transfer of ownership/responsibility.
Therefore, there are possible ramifications for me that do not apply to
the newsstand vendor.
>Also, last I heard, there are absolutely no restrictions on what books
>a young person can buy at a bookstore, or borrow from the library.
Gee, I guess that's why so many libraries require a parent's permission
before allowing a customer under 18 to browse/borrow from the adult
collection. This was the subject of several discussions in the early
days of alt.censorship, and I think that these policies are in place at
many libraries.
>True, most people under the age of 12 or 13 may have a hard time
>borrowing books from the adult section of the library, but this is
>mostly to protect the books from people who may not return them or pay
>the fines than to protect the children from 'dangerous' knowledge.
Oh, really? It all depends on your location. In many rural areas, there
is a definite "protect the children" attitude.
>And
>you're talking about college students here, not 12 year olds.
No, I'm not. I specifically mentioned concern about the "12-year-old
kid brother".
>Are you going to try to protect your account holders'
>younger siblings from comp.acad-freedom.* ?
This is an apple. That is an orange. 'Nuff said.
>Alt.sex is one of Usenet's most popular newsgroups; if you're going to
>block it you ought to have a better reason than the one you stated
>above.
Would you prefer that I come up with some spurious argument that allows
me to trash every hierarchy except comp.*, rec.*, and biz.*? It would
be ridiculously easy, you know; all I would have to do is claim "disk
space", and alt.* would be out the window. Instead, I would like to
offer as much news as possible. However, that requires the implementa-
tion of finer control measures. It's almost along the lines of "kill
alt.sex so that alt.sources can live." Is this such a terrible thing?
Every library has the same problem; they can only fund a given number
of subscriptions, and some of the decisions there are every bit as arbi-
trary as those of news admins. Do you protest the subscriptions (or lack
thereof) of your local library?
--
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: 26 Aug 91 13:49:45 GMT
Sender: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Message-Id: <1991Aug26.134945.13628@eng.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
Status: O
In article , cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>Adult periodicals are restricted? Certainly not in the way you're
>restricting alt.sex. Can you imagine the person at the register
>saying, "I'm sorry, I cannot sell you this issue of Playboy magazine.
>I do not have access to your personal data, such as your birthdate. I
>have no way of ascertaining that you will not show this magazine to
>your younger friends or relatives, or leave it out in the street where
>anyone can see it. This material is oriented towards adults, and
>should be restricted."
>
>Also, last I heard, there are absolutely no restrictions on what books
>a young person can buy at a bookstore, or borrow from the library.
>True, most people under the age of 12 or 13 may have a hard time
>borrowing books from the adult section of the library, but this is
>mostly to protect the books from people who may not return them or pay
>the fines than to protect the children from 'dangerous' knowledge. And
>you're talking about college students here, not 12 year olds.
Heard on the radio this morning that there is now a group trying to prevent
children from borrowing "Henry and June" from the Montgomery County Public
Library-- right now, children with an unrestricted card (which they can get
with the permission of their parents) can borrow ANYTHING in the library.
The Montgomery County library not only doesn't worry about people checking out
adult videotapes and showing them to minors, it doesn't prevent minors from
checking out adult videotapes themselves. If this is the case, and is
unpunishable, then how could allowing nonminors access to alt.sex be
punishable, even if a minor does get access?
--
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)
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 13:26:58 -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 12:33:17 EDT 1991
In this issue:
cos@chaos.cs.brand : Re: I don't get it.
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
-------------------
Date: 23 Aug 91 20:12:58 GMT
Sender: cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar)
Message-Id:
References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca>, <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>OK, let me explain the rationale behind my site's policies:
Overall, sounds pretty reasonable. But there's one exception...
>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.
Adult periodicals are restricted? Certainly not in the way you're
restricting alt.sex. Can you imagine the person at the register
saying, "I'm sorry, I cannot sell you this issue of Playboy magazine.
I do not have access to your personal data, such as your birthdate. I
have no way of ascertaining that you will not show this magazine to
your younger friends or relatives, or leave it out in the street where
anyone can see it. This material is oriented towards adults, and
should be restricted."
Also, last I heard, there are absolutely no restrictions on what books
a young person can buy at a bookstore, or borrow from the library.
True, most people under the age of 12 or 13 may have a hard time
borrowing books from the adult section of the library, but this is
mostly to protect the books from people who may not return them or pay
the fines than to protect the children from 'dangerous' knowledge. And
you're talking about college students here, not 12 year olds.
Besides, I've been known to use quotations from alt.sex in my
signatures when I post to other groups. As a matter of fact, I'll use
one here. Are you going to try to protect your account holders'
younger siblings from comp.acad-freedom.* ? There really is no way of
restricting this stuff in a free society, nor should there be.
Alt.sex is one of Usenet's most popular newsgroups; if you're going to
block it you ought to have a better reason than the one you stated
above.
>Best,
>Wes
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
US/Western repression of sexual knowledge and expression has
left our twelve year olds less capable to deal with sex, and
this justifies repression of sexual knowledge and expression
to our twelve year olds.
-- Kent, the man from xanth.
From helen@eff.org Fri Sep 6 18:58:26 1991
Received: from c.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA10718; Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:58:23 -0500
Received: from eff.org by c.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA12256
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:56:42 -0500
Received: by eff.org id AA23628
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:11 -0400
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: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:06 -0400
Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199109062354.AA23621@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Sat, 31 Aug 91
Today's Topics:
"What is Censorship?"
Computer Policy in the Student Handbook (3 msgs)
High School Freedom of Expression (was Re: Netnews censorship ...)
Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
Rights of Adjuncts
Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex) (6 msgs)
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 ONE.
Also, new digest creation software is being tried out.
-- Helen ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1991 02:20:24 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.022024.24738@eff.org>
Subject: "What is Censorship?"
[From page 1 of _50 Ways to Fight Censorship & Important Facts to Know
about Censors_ by Dave Marsh. Published by Thunder's Mouth Press in
1991.]
--- begin quote ----
What is Censorship?
In 1984, the American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom
Committee adopted the following definitions for terms "frequently used
to describe the various levels of incidents which may or may not lead
to censorship," which is defined as "the actual removal of materials
from open access." None of these conditions is desirable; all infringe
upon First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press.
Inquiry -- An informational request, usually informal, which seeks to
determine the rationale behind the presence of a particular item in a
collection.
Expression of Concern -- An inquiry that has judgmental overtones. The
inquirer has already made a value judgment on the materials in
question.
Complaint -- A formal written complaint filed with the library,
questioning the presence of and/or the appropriateness of specific
material.
Attack -- A publicly worded statement questioning the value of the
material, presented to the media and/or others outside the library
organization, in order to gain public support for further action.
Censorship -- The removal of material from open access by government
authority.
In this books, the word "censorship" is used in its colloquial sense,
encompassing all of these definitions.
--- end quote --
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 91 16:25:38 GMT
Sender: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>
Subject: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
In article <1991Aug30.221014.20654@eff.org> kadie@eff.ORG (Carl Kadie) writes:
>How about a compromise? Maybe a user (student, faculty, etc) could be
>given 24 or 48 hours after being contacted to make an appointment for
>a meeting. After that their account would be suspended until they made
>an appointment. (This is kind of like not being able to register for
>classes if you owe the University money.)
I have no problem with this provided:
(a) There is provision for immediate suspension where needed to protect
the system - I would expect use of this to be very rare.
(b) The 48 hours notice can be given by email. If the user doesn't bother
to read his email, too bad. That is his problem. This is somewhat
comparable to the idea that certain types of legal notices can be
published in appropriate newspapers/journals, and that publication is
deemed adequate notification.
>> If,
>>on the other hand, an instructor fails a student in a class, this will likely
>>have very serious long term consequences for the student, yet you accept that
>>this is something the instructor can do in the normal course of events,
>>subject only to some appeal procedure.
>
>I can't think of any better alternative than to have faculty assign
>grades. Note that even faculty can't punish a student for cheating
>without at least an informal hearing.
The faculty member can assign a grade of FAIL for cheating. Unless the
students appeals, there will be no hearing.
>> You only have to look at the mess the patent office and the
>>courts are making in computer related cases to realize that we do not have
>>the experience necessary to prepare such a set of rules as you propose.
>
>I agree with your assessment, but draw the opposite conclusion. I
>would say that the patent office and the courts are messed up because
>they don't have computer-specific laws to guide them.
The don't have the computer-specific laws to guide them because we do not
have enough experience to know how to design such laws. There have been
various attempts, largely unsuccessful, to draw up such laws.
>> When
>>you don't have the experience to understand the consequences you need to
>>grant a great deal of flexibility to those who make the decisions,
>
>Can you give examples of situations in which a sys admin needs a great
>deal of flexibility? Perhaps we can propose some rules that are clear
>enough to satisfy me and flexible enough to satisfy you.
I see a student has 50 processes running wild (our current per-user limit),
and I see a faculty member has 3 processes very carefully 'nice'd.
I need the flexibility to decide that the student problem is
inconsequential, probably caused by a shell script named 'test' which does
an 'if test ...', and I need the flexibility to kill two of the professor's
processes because, in spite of the 'nice', they are memory hogs and are
thrashing so severely as to cause severe interference with other users.
--
I see student A has started a daemon which watches for new logins, and
does 'write's to them. I see student B has started a daemon which watches
for new processes and attempts to 'kill' them.
I need the flexibility to determine that student A has done something
abusive and anti-social, while student B has merely seen a neat looking
program named 'init', tried it to see what it does, then attempted to kill
it after realizing his mistake. (Naturally I removed the world execute
permissions of 'init' after this happened).
--
I need the flexibility to decide that a student who is 'telnet'ing to port
2000 as some place halfway across the country is violating our rules
against playing games in the middle of the day. I need the flexibility to
decide that another student who is running a program called 'hangman' is
just working on an assignment in his programming class.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 91 17:39:00 GMT
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Message-ID: <20AD49FF8880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
>>> You only have to look at the mess the patent office and the
>>>courts are making in computer related cases to realize that we do not have
>>>the experience necessary to prepare such a set of rules as you propose.
>>
>>I agree with your assessment, but draw the opposite conclusion. I
>>would say that the patent office and the courts are messed up because
>>they don't have computer-specific laws to guide them.
>
> The don't have the computer-specific laws to guide them because we do not
>have enough experience to know how to design such laws. There have been
>various attempts, largely unsuccessful, to draw up such laws.
>
I have another theory: Computer users etc. are normally very law abiding and
normally do not cause what society calls "real" problems. If society does not
see real problems, it sees no reason to come up with laws to solve them. It
is indeed very rare that us Computer types can not solve problems amicabily
amd informally. Also only very rarely is money involved and so most lawyers
are not interested. Computer types tend to be more educated and to some
extent more libertarian and so most of the time resist the formation of any
law regulating their activities and limiting their freedoms.
> Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
> Northern Illinois Univ.
> DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
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, 31 Aug 1991 18:08:19 GMT
Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.180819.11114@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org> <1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
I wrote:
>>I can't think of any better alternative than to have faculty assign
>>grades. Note that even faculty can't punish a student for cheating
>>without at least an informal hearing.
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> The faculty member can assign a grade of FAIL for cheating. Unless the
>students appeals, there will be no hearing.
[...]
At my school, the University of Illinois, for a faculty member to
assign a grade of fail for cheating he or she:
Notifies the student of the allegation.
Gives the student a reasonable amount of time to respond.
[Decides if guilty. if so, decides on penalty, say, grade of FAIL]
Consults with the department's executive officer (DEO).
Notifies student and DEO of the penalty in writing.
Refers the student to the "Code on Campus Affairs" and the right of appeal.
[Assume student does not appeal.]
The DEO notifies the dean of the penalty.
The DEO and instructor prepare a public notice
of the case (without the student's or instructor's names).
Here is the long version of that procedure:
------- Begin quote from the "Code on Campus Affairs" ---
A. An instructor who believes a student guilty of one or more
infractions of academic integrity listed in this rule shall notify the
student of the basis for the belief and then allow the student a
reasonable time to respond to the allegation. After notification, the
student may not drop the course. [This is what I meant by an
"informal hearing".]
B. If the instructor concludes that the student is guilty of such an
infraction, the instructor shall decide which of the penalties list in
Section II is warranted. If the penalty to be recommend by the
instructor is a failing grad for the course, there must be
consultation with the department's executive officer (DEO) or designee
prior to written notification to the student.
[C. Suspensions and expulsions]
D. The instructor shall impose the penalty and promptly notify the
student in writing and the DEO of the penalty imposed. The instructor
shall refer the student to the "Code on Campus Affairs" and the right
to appeal. Appeal for the penalty of a grad of E [i.e. failing] for
the course shall be heard at the college (or equivalent academic unit)
level [e.g. Engineering College, College of Fine and Applied Arts, etc]
in accordance with Section III.H below. [...]
E. The student may appeal the allegation and/or the penalty by indicating
this desire in writing to the DEO within fifteen day of
notification of the right to appeal.
F. If the student does not appeal, the matter shall be closed unless
Section III.I below applies. In a case in which the penalty is
a failure for the course, the DEO shall notify the dean, and
the dean will forward a request to record a grade of E for the course
to the Office of Admissions and Records.
[....]
K. If a penalty has been imposed and all appeal procedures have been
completed (or the time for appeal has expired, the DEO (in
consultation with the instructor and, if involved, the dean and the
appellate hearing committee) shall prepare a public notice of the
violation and the penalty finally imposed. This notice shall not
identify the student or the instructor by name or other personal
detail, but shall describe: (a) the nature of the alleged breaches of
academic integrity; (b) if applicable, the appeal procedures followed
and the recommendation of any hearing committee; and (c) the ultimate
penalties imposed. The DEO shall post the notice in the instructor's
college or unit for the information of students, faculty, and
administrators. The DEO shall send a copy of this notice to the
executive director of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline.
--- end of quote ---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1991 17:26:39 GMT
Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.172639.10397@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug26.190318.20989@eff.org> <52gi82w164w@infopls.chi.il.us>
Subject: High School Freedom of Expression (was Re: Netnews censorship ...)
I quoted _Public School Law_:
"In an illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that a university could not change its funding policy for a student
paper based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a
particular issue {78}."
zane@infopls.chi.il.us (Sameer Parekh) writes:
> Why is it that this doesn't apply to public high schools?
It probably applies to the high schools, too. The particular case,
however, concerned a university.
For a while there was almost no difference in the freedom of
expression of high school students and of college students. As of
1988, however, in _Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier_, the
Supreme Court decided that high school administrators can censor
stories in the student newspaper as long as "their actions are
reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." (The old
standard, and the standard that apparently still applies to public
universities is that admins can censor only if a story threatened to
substantially or materially disrupt the educational process.)
"Nothing that the Supreme Court said in the Kuhlmeier decision gives a
principle the right to censor an article because of a disagreement
with its point of view."
"...Kuhlmeier gives school officials no greater power to control
either the content or form of [unofficial speech such as leaflets,
buttons, and unofficial newspapers] than they had previously [in
_Tinker_].
[Source ACLU Handbook "The Rights of Students"]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 16:18:51 CDT
Sender: zane@infopls.chi.il.us (Sameer Parekh)
Message-ID: <52gi82w164w@infopls.chi.il.us>
References: <1991Aug26.190318.20989@eff.org>
Subject: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> I've just gotten a load of books from the library. Here is a
> quote from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_
> 2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe,
> published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
>
[Precedent quoted]
Why is it that this doesn't apply to public high schools?
>
> - Carl
>
>
> --
> Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
> I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
Ask me about the Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net Project!
Apple II Forever! Ask me about the GNO multitasking project!
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 91 20:34:05 GMT
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Message-ID:
Subject: Rights of Adjuncts
I have some questions but I'm not sure if this is the right place
to ask them since the emphasis in this newsgroup seems to be on
academic freedom in connection with computers and networks. Perhaps
someone will direct me to a better newsgroup. Having said that, let me
pose my questions.
Many schools hire or adopt "adjuncts". The terminology may vary from
school to school, e.g. they may be called Other (Specify). Sometimes
these are people hired directly by departments using some discretionary
autonomous authority granted by the administration. The same authority
also lets these departments extend use of facilities to certain
individuals.
Discussions with friends at other universities suggests to me that in
many cases, adjuncts have no official status at the universities where
they work or hang on. In one case I know of, there are adjuncts who teach
large lecture courses and are paid by the university but have no official
way of communicating with the administration because strictly speaking
their status does not exist. In that same case, the adjuncts would like
to form some kind of union or other negotiating body but have no
one to negotiate with because the administration does not recognize their
status. In other cases, individuals classified as adjuncts are wandering
scholars adopted by departments, receive no remuneration, may or may
not be asked to perform some services for the department and in general
have no formal redress for grievances.
I think the implications for academic freedom of an underclass in universities
without any formal status or definable rights are serious. I would like
to inquire into this matter further but I need to know what the situation
is at various schools.
If you have information about this please let me know. I would be glad to have
local information at individual schools as well as general studies that have
been made of this question.
Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 91 01:37:00 GMT
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Message-ID: <9A31BD8B6880841F@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
>From: Mark Evans
>
>Looking at usenet with an airline analogy, there is the obvious point that
>a customer can always choose another airline.
>With academic computing facilities this is less easy.
In the United States, there are commercial compaines that will sell you (an
individual or private company):
1) usenet access for $15/month to $75/month. The only other charge is a
local phone call which is almost zero if you have flat rate or untimed
message rate service.
2) full usenet feed for $75/month to $200/month so you can establish your own
site.
There ARE alternatives and compared to the cost of tuition in this country,
they cost negligible amounts.
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: 31 Aug 91 03:22:03 GMT
Sender: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.032203.32371@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <3AB7D6ED58804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
In article <3AB7D6ED58804D3E@ccmail.sunysb.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>I would like to make a few exceptions to the privacy of e-mail:
>1) properly executed search warrant.
>2) Security Investigation: When reasonable grounds exist for such an
> investigation and the confidentiality of e-mail is preserved.
>3) Problem investigation: When an emergency exists (e.g. looping mail filling
> up spool, a corrupted disk etc.) and it is not possible to contact the user.
> The confidentiality of e-mail should be preserved.
>4) Misdirected mail. When the sender sends to a non-existent username. The
> confidentiality of e-mail should be preserved.
>
>I believe that the U.S. Post Office makes the same types of exceptions to
>paper mail privacy.
>
One problem with this list is:
1) "Reasonable grounds" are ambiguous when investigators do not understand
the technology involved. The vacuum in current law is sufficiently
broad to allow investigators to seize SK's system and files from users
and browse private E-mail. There appears to be a discrepancy between
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and provisions of such fed
statutes as USC 18 %%2709 Sect 743 ("Counterintelligence Access to
Telephone Records") in which the former protects the privacy of
private email to some extent and the latter authorizes access to it.
Consider the following scenario: If Suzie is a suspected terrorist, and I,
not knowing this, exchange numerous, but innocent, private e-mail notes
with her, and it's on SK's system, the feds can raid SK's system and seize
and peruse all my email even though I am not the target of the investigation.
Steve Jackson Games was raided for far less. There are other scenarios that
give LE agents lattitude to justify e-mail snatches. Hence, a "properly
executed" warrant may be based on improper procedures. The demonstrable
actions of federal agents who "hack" the Constitution for their own
purposes should make us wary of such platitudes.
2) SK (it seems) is correctly saying that in security, administrative,
or technical situations, there is no need to peruse e-mail.
Postal investigations are quite circumscribed in what is allowed, and
these same principles should be extended to *private* email.
>If you want privacy protection from all the sites through which your message
>transits, you will have to change the very nature of Usenet. Currently, as I
>understand it, every Usenet site sets its own privacy policy.
If I send a steamy note from my university mainframe to a relationship
partner in Calif, and if that note for some reason is routed through a
private system, are you suggesting that the sysad/sysop has the right to
read it? Your point is unclear. There are numerous ways to set policies
that protect privacy at state-funded locales that do not require significant
changes in usenet structure. This is a separate topic, but the point is that
there seems to be an unhealthy fatalism in the above cite that ultimately
leads to a rationale suggesting that, because we can't *guarantee* privacy,
why bother with trying to protect it.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 91 04:47:00 GMT
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Message-ID:
Subject: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
>Perhaps. And that is unfortunate. From a _moral_ standpoint, given the lack
>of alternatives that often exist, owners/sysadmins _should_ make an affort to
>carry requested newsgroups. After all, it's certainly a lot easier to do a
>newgroup than it is to set up a new airline route. But I think the point of
>the analogy remains: owners/sysadmins are under no obligation to provide the
>fullest possible newsgroup feed. They must only respect the First Amendment
>rights in those groups that are carried.
>
>Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
>Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
>DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
>
But as I have mentioned several times now, commerical alternatives do exist
and are not very expensive. When Usenet started out, alternatives were
expensive and not easy to find, but times have changed.
A system administrator who turns off users by being restrictive will soon lose
users and be out of a job.
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: 31 Aug 91 05:44:00 GMT
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Message-ID:
Subject: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
>One problem with this list is:
>
>1) "Reasonable grounds" are ambiguous when investigators do not understand
> the technology involved. The vacuum in current law is sufficiently
> broad to allow investigators to seize SK's system and files from users
> and browse private E-mail. There appears to be a discrepancy between
> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and provisions of such fed
> statutes as USC 18 %%2709 Sect 743 ("Counterintelligence Access to
> Telephone Records") in which the former protects the privacy of
> private email to some extent and the latter authorizes access to it.
>Consider the following scenario: If Suzie is a suspected terrorist, and I,
>not knowing this, exchange numerous, but innocent, private e-mail notes
>with her, and it's on SK's system, the feds can raid SK's system and seize
>and peruse all my email even though I am not the target of the investigation.
>Steve Jackson Games was raided for far less. There are other scenarios that
>give LE agents lattitude to justify e-mail snatches. Hence, a "properly
>executed" warrant may be based on improper procedures. The demonstrable
>actions of federal agents who "hack" the Constitution for their own
>purposes should make us wary of such platitudes.
>
This kind of problem exists in nearly all fields of human endeveaour and is
the reason for the existence of "expert witnesses"
>2) SK (it seems) is correctly saying that in security, administrative,
> or technical situations, there is no need to peruse e-mail.
> Postal investigations are quite circumscribed in what is allowed, and
> these same principles should be extended to *private* email.
>
What I am saying is that the perusal of e-mail should be strictly limited for
the purposes of solving a real problem. The confidentiality of e-mail should
be preserved even though the required perusal of e-mail may violate privacy.
The limits of this perusal shoul be similar to the time-tried procedures of
the postal service.
>>If you want privacy protection from all the sites through which your message
>>transits, you will have to change the very nature of Usenet. Currently, as I
>>understand it, every Usenet site sets its own privacy policy.
>
>If I send a steamy note from my university mainframe to a relationship
>partner in Calif, and if that note for some reason is routed through a
>private system, are you suggesting that the sysad/sysop has the right to
>read it?
As Usenet currently works and is organized, the system administrator/operator
has every right to read whatever is in the system spool.
>Your point is unclear. There are numerous ways to set policies
>that protect privacy at state-funded locales that do not require significant
>changes in usenet structure. This is a separate topic, but the point is that
>there seems to be an unhealthy fatalism in the above cite that ultimately
>leads to a rationale suggesting that, because we can't *guarantee* privacy,
>why bother with trying to protect it.
>
No, the rationale is that since the network and the systems administrators can
not guarantee privacy, the user should recognize this fact and suitably
encrypt their e-mail. It is immoral for systems administrators to not inform
users of this "fact of life". Currently e-mail is more like a postcard rather
than a piece of paper mail in a paper envelope. Encryption is the "paper
envelope".
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: 31 Aug 91 20:08:27 GMT
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.200827.32317@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References:
Subject: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
Sanjay writes:
>(description of potential for abusing search & seizure omitted)
>This kind of problem exists in nearly all fields of human endeveaour and is
>the reason for the existence of "expert witnesses"
Expert witnesses generally come during the trial. In many of last year's
computer raids, the "experts" providing guidance to justify reasonable
grounds for obtaining the search warrant were from the teleco company
who initiated the investigation, which was something less than "expert"
and hardly detached. Privacy should be a policy, not a decision made at
the discretion of experts in any field.
x
>What I am saying is that the perusal of e-mail should be strictly limited for
>the purposes of solving a real problem. The confidentiality of e-mail should
>be preserved even though the required perusal of e-mail may violate privacy.
>The limits of this perusal shoul be similar to the time-tried procedures of
>the postal service.
Agreed. What I'm having difficulty understanding is what seems to be a
contradiction between your ideal (with which most of us agree) and the
policies you suggest, which seem to subvert that ideal.
>No, the rationale is that since the network and the systems administrators can
>not guarantee privacy, the user should recognize this fact and suitably
>encrypt their e-mail. It is immoral for systems administrators to not inform
>users of this "fact of life". Currently e-mail is more like a postcard rather
>than a piece of paper mail in a paper envelope. Encryption is the "paper
>envelope".
This depends on the system. Public systems, such as those at universities,
are bound by laws that private systems are not. E-mail is *not* like a
postcard. Like a letter in an evelope, one generally must take intrusive
actions to intercept the e-mail of another. Federal laws (eg, ECPA) and
corresponding universities policies can set sanctionable standards against
intrusion. Dolts can intrude on e-mail just as they can mug or steal
cars, and the lexicological difference between "can" and "may" should not
be forgotten. You *can* steal my car or intrude into my e-mail, but you
*may not*. At our school, our e-mail is inviolate (as are the contents of
our files), and for a sysad to rummage around in them without our
permission or without some prior formal authorization is not only against
our policy but illegal. Note that there is a difference between accessing
somebody's account to solve a systemic problem and rummaging around in their
files. To my knowledge, we've never had a problem here (Northern Ill. Univ),
and our computer crowd is highly professional, ethical, and does everything
possible (far beyond what is required) to help *all* users. But during a
rather uncomfortable period a year ago, I sought legal counsel and the
explicit law (and policy) not only prohibits the U from mucking about in
our files, but prohibits them from assisting LE without a warrant and,
unless legally constained by that warrant, they must notify the user.
(according to our school atty).
My point is E-mail not only *should* be private as an ethical matter, but
that it is quite possible to strengthen protections using existing laws and
policies, and by making these policies known to others (usually users,
because, here at least, our sysads are generally on the forefront of
protecting rights).
Jim Thomas
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 91 21:37:00 GMT
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Message-ID: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Taxonomy of forums (was Re: Toward a taxonomy ... of alt.sex)
>Expert witnesses generally come during the trial. In many of last year's
>computer raids, the "experts" providing guidance to justify reasonable
>grounds for obtaining the search warrant were from the teleco company
>who initiated the investigation, which was something less than "expert"
>and hardly detached. Privacy should be a policy, not a decision made at
>the discretion of experts in any field.
The telephone company should be convinced then to get experts in the area of
privacy.
>Agreed. What I'm having difficulty understanding is what seems to be a
>contradiction between your ideal (with which most of us agree) and the
>policies you suggest, which seem to subvert that ideal.
I am just being realistic. An ideal is a good thing to have but may not be
implementable. The ideal is unenforceable, the policies I suggest would be.
>
>>No, the rationale is that since the network and the systems administrators can
>>not guarantee privacy, the user should recognize this fact and suitably
>>encrypt their e-mail. It is immoral for systems administrators to not inform
>>users of this "fact of life". Currently e-mail is more like a postcard rather
>>than a piece of paper mail in a paper envelope. Encryption is the "paper
>>envelope".
>
>This depends on the system. Public systems, such as those at universities,
>are bound by laws that private systems are not. E-mail is *not* like a
>postcard.
I was talking about Usenet. The EPCA and similar laws allow the system
administrator to "rummage".
Also I would very much like the exact wording of the law that "binds" public
systems. Are you writing about public as in "open to the public" or public as
in "owned by the government"? I do not know of any law currently on the books
that would really restrict the system administrator of a government owned
system. In any case such a law would be totally unenforceable for the very
simple reason that in all commercial operating systems of today, a system
administrator can "rummage" without any trace of such "rummaging".
>Like a letter in an evelope, one generally must take intrusive
>actions to intercept the e-mail of another. Federal laws (eg, ECPA) and
>corresponding universities policies can set sanctionable standards against
>intrusion.
EPCA sets limit on other users but no real limit on the system administrator.
A University policy that does put such a limit will be unenforceable for tha
reason given above. Such a policy therefore is a bad policy since it can not
be enforced and thus devalues all other policies.
>Dolts can intrude on e-mail just as they can mug or steal
>cars, and the lexicological difference between "can" and "may" should not
>be forgotten. You *can* steal my car or intrude into my e-mail, but you
>*may not*. At our school, our e-mail is inviolate (as are the contents of
>our files), and for a sysad to rummage around in them without our
>permission or without some prior formal authorization is not only against
>our policy but illegal. Note that there is a difference between accessing
>somebody's account to solve a systemic problem and rummaging around in their
>files.
My problem is this:
What if the system administrator declares that you are a "systemic
problem"?
>To my knowledge, we've never had a problem here (Northern Ill. Univ),
>and our computer crowd is highly professional, ethical, and does everything
>possible (far beyond what is required) to help *all* users. But during a
>rather uncomfortable period a year ago, I sought legal counsel and the
>explicit law (and policy) not only prohibits the U from mucking about in
>our files, but prohibits them from assisting LE without a warrant and,
>unless legally constained by that warrant, they must notify the user.
>(according to our school atty).
>
I can just say the Northern Ill. University has a decent school atty. Most
schools, both public and private, have a policy of cooperating with law
enforcement authoritities in their investigations.
>My point is E-mail not only *should* be private as an ethical matter, but
>that it is quite possible to strengthen protections using existing laws and
>policies, and by making these policies known to others (usually users,
>because, here at least, our sysads are generally on the forefront of
>protecting rights).
>
Your sysads may be generally on the forefront of protecting rights,
But did they inform you that anything going out over usenet as e-mail (as
opposed to Netnews) is not private. Also did they inform you that they can
rummage through your files without any trace whatsoever. I am not saying
that they will, but what if they are all fired next month and a new batch of
systems administrators is hired who are not that ethical?
Do they provide encryption facilities?
>Jim Thomas
>
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
------------------------------
End of caf-talk Digest
******************************
From helen@eff.org Fri Sep 6 18:57:38 1991
Received: from c.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA10677; Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:57:34 -0500
Received: from eff.org by c.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA12244
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:56:29 -0500
Received: by eff.org id AA23636
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:15 -0400
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: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:12 -0400
Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199109062354.AA23631@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Sat, 31 Aug 91
Today's Topics:
The New York Newsday on RELCOM and the putsch
Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex (2 msgs)
Why does alt.sex exist? (3 msgs)
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.
Also, new digest creation software is being tried out.
-- Helen ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 Aug 91 02:21:00 GMT
Sender: dlv@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU (Dimitri Vulis)
Message-ID: <199108310615.AA04985@eff.org>
Subject: The New York Newsday on RELCOM and the putsch
We talk about freedom in the abstract. Here is an example of real freedom
threatened and freedom regained and the role played by computing networks.
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
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
[This is a submission to the SUEARN-L digest; I'm sending a cc:, since I figure
this is of interest. SUEARN-L archives can be FTP'd from impaqt1.mem.drexel.edu
[129.25.10.1], directory pub/suearn/back-issues.]
The following is reproduced without permission
from the New York Nesday, August 28th, 1991.
Tales of the Net That Said Nyet
by Joshua Quittner
It was the computer message seen 'round the world:
``Please stop flooding the only narrow channel with bogus messages [and] with
silly questions,'' Vadim Antonov [avg@hq.demos.hq] wrote to westerners
attempting to send electronic mail to Russia during the early hours of the
coup.
``Note that it's neither a toy nor a means to reach your relatives or friends.
We need the bandwidth to help organize the resistance. Please, do not (even
unintentionally) help those fascists!''
The message, sent from Antonov's computer in Moscow late on the night of Aug.
19, was copied and posted dozens of times across the United States and abroad,
on electronic bulletin boards, databses where users can log in and swap
messages publicly. Antonov, one of the builders of the Soviet Union's
two-year-old computer communications network, known as Relcom, knew its severe
limitations---and its awesome potential to spread information---as well as
anyone.
And no one cared more about keeping the system alive and well: The lanky,
long-haired programming wizard, described by friends as ``the first among
equals'' at a Moscow-based software cooperative aptly named DEMOS, and his
peers, were working to keep communications channels open to hundreds of
pro-democracy activists at 70 cities around the Soiet Union.
``At the beginning, we had no idea what was happening. We were preparing for
long-term underground activity,'' Antonov said by telephone from moscow in his
first interview yesterday. [+7 095 231 2129].
He said the network reached as high as Gen. Konstantin Kobets, head of Russian
President Boris Yeltsin's defence committee, who was ready to rely on the
network should the crisis worsen. An information bucket-brigade of sorts, it
extended to personal computer users in remote republics, who would print out
directives and news updates, posting them in public. And it included computer
correspondents in the United States and Europe, who provided timely news feeds.
``Computer communications are more democrati by nature than mass media like TV
or newspapers, simply because they don't belong to a single entity. There;s no
central authority over the network,'' Antonov said. ``We all realized it was
the only chance for us to survive.''
[Pseudo-technical nonsense omitted :) ]
While television stations and major media were muzzled, and while radio
reception was jammed in some parts of the country, the computer network stayed
intact, Antonov and others said. ``Transcripts of Yeltsin's speeches were sent.
News went back and forth,'' said Ray Davis, a programmer in Frankfurt, Germany,
who corresponded with the DEMOS workers throughout the coup. ``If the coup
hadn't failed, they might all be in jail right now.''
``I sat here sending them news from the U.S.,'' said Larry Press, a computer
scientist at California State University. ``There were people around the world
sending them news.''
The DEMOS group had its setbacks, however. One member attempted to bring a
laptop computer, outfitted with a high-speed modem and network-compatible
communications software, into the White House, as the bouilding that houses
Russian parliament is known, but coulnd't get through, Antonov said. The
machine would have made communcation easier for the correspondents inside.
And KGB agents undoubtedly knew about the underground network, Antonov said.
``During the last night of the coup we got a strane phone call to our
headquarters,'' he said. ``The caller said, `We are your users. Please give us
your modem phone number.' ''
This was an absurd statement, since anyone who knew about the network knew how
to interconnect to it. The DEMOS people gave the caller different instructions:
``We said to them rude words,'' he said.
Some notes from the computer underground
Here are some electronic messages sent from Soviet computer users who helped
mobilize resistance by sending out information. Most of these messages are from
people in the United States and Europe. They were compiled by Larry Press, a
California State University computer science professor. Senders sometimes used
punctuation marks to create ``sideways smiley faces,'' such as :-) to denote
irony, sarcasm or happiness.
Monday Aug. 19
From: Vadim Antonov, DEMOS Software Cooperative
...I've seen the tanks with my own eyes. I hope we'll be able to communicate
during the next few days. Communists cannot rape the Mother Russia once again!
Sender: Polina Antonova, a DEMOS programmer
...Thanks Heaven, these cretins don't consider us mass media!
Tuesday, Aug. 20
Sender: Polina Antonova
Hi! Don't worry, we're OK though frightened and angry. Moscow is full of tanks
and military machines, I hate them. They try to close all mass media, they
shutted up CNN an hour ago, Soviet TV transmits opera and old movies. But,
thanks Heaven, they don't consider RELCOM mass media or they simply forgot
about it. Now we transmit information enough to put us in prison for the rest
of our life :-). Hope all will turn out well at long last. -Polina
From: Anonymous
If these dogs win, for certain they'll throw us in prison---we distributed the
proclamation from Yeltsin and the Moscow and Leningrad Soviets throughout the
entire Soviet Union, together with the forbidden communiques from Interfa [an
independent News aganecy -DV]...
Greetings from the underground
Sender: Enn Tyugu
Estonia has survived until this hour. The troops are neat Tallinn and more are
coming, but they have not yet got to the TV and radio centers. latvia and
Lithuanian mass media are already in the hands of the troops. many people are
around our vulnerable buildings protecting them and building barricades. Mostly
heavy trucks are being used as barricades. -Thanks for your support.
Sender: Anonymous
To all people of good will! We want you to know that the democracy of the USSR
is in great danger... Right now the center of Moscow is surrounded by tanks and
soldiers... We need your moral support! ... Down with the Communist tyranny!
Wednesday, Aug. 21
Sender: Polina Antonova
Don't worry, the only danger for us is if they catch and arrest us, as we're
sitting at home...and distributing all inf. we have. I can only hear these
tanks, and, it seems, aircraft. But I have to know, what's happening near White
house! ... -Polina
From: Polina Antonova
Really good news. Right now we're listening to the Radio Russia (without any
jamming!) they told that the Eight left Moscow, no one knows where...Hard to
believe...May be, they really run away? Radio asks for information about their
location.
Sender: Polina Antonova
Thank you, Larry!
Now all information media are on, CNN transmits our ``Time'' TV program, and I
can watch them both! [They've got a sat dish -DV]
I've heard (maybe it was CNN) that they withdraw armed forces from Baltic
cities. I'm not near the parliament, I'm still at the computer, but the
situation on the net became lighter now and I hope to sleep a little, it was my
dream during last two days. :-) You can't even imagine, how grateful we are for
your help and support in this terrible time! The best thing is to know, that we
aren't alone. -Cheers, Polina
Thursday, Aug. 22
Sender: George Tereshko
When the dark night fell upon Moscow, Relcom was one source of light for us.
Thanks to all these brave people we could get information and hope. I would
also like to thank the people running Soviet BBSs who provided another net for
information flow.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 05:01:40 GMT
Sender: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.050140.22391@visix.com>
References: <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Subject: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
> But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
Nope. The students are the *customers*. The owners are the Trustees in
the case of a private university, or a state government in the case of
a public one. For many private universities, this is quite agressively
expressed.
> Not the faculty. Not the administrators.
These people are employees, and designated agents of the owners.
> The people who pay tuition
> to attend the school are your employers,
No, they are your customers.
> and if they weren't there, you wouldn't be there either.
True enough, but irrelevant. No business can exist without
customers, either.
Amanda Walker
Visix Software Inc.
--
"Breakfast is the most important meal of the afternoon." --Amelia T. Smith
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 91 13:53:08 GMT
Sender: cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Message-ID: <1991Aug31.075308.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
References: <1991Aug29.095336.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> <1991Aug31.050140.22391@visix.com>
Subject: Toward a taxonomy of arguments for censorship of alt.sex
In article <1991Aug31.050140.22391@visix.com>, amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
> cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>> But in the case of universities, the owners are the *students.*
>
> Nope. The students are the *customers*. The owners are the Trustees in
> the case of a private university, or a state government in the case of
> a public one. For many private universities, this is quite agressively
> expressed.
Nope. In the case of a private university, I might buy this, but we need
to reclaim what we (as taxpayers) *do* own.
It's *our* government. It's *our* university. If they tell you otherwise,
they're lying. And it's that whole attitude of the government as an
independent creature that feeds many of the problems we have today.
| C Irby cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu cirby@untvax |
| Between the politicians, the lawyers, the bureaucrats, the insurance |
| salesmen, and the TV commentators- not to mention the fools, lovers, |
| and idiots- we may be the only two honest people left in the world. |
| And I can see that card you have up your sleeve... |
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 91 18:11:17 GMT
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi)
Message-ID:
Subject: Why does alt.sex exist?
A point that many seem to have overlooked is why
alt.sex is here in the first place? The folklore I've
heard was given when rec.pyrotechnics was created: to
keep the inevitable alt.sex type discussions out of "serious"
groups like sci.med. To create a ghetto for the perverts, in
a sense.
What's being inadvertently risked when a site blocks
receiving alt.sex.* is that anything that a user would post which
would ordinarily post to say, alt.sex.bestiality, would go to
rec.pets.*. I can guarantee that the newsadmin would get
hate mail if that started happening.
Funstuff...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)
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 91 20:40:47 GMT
From: sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting)
Message-ID:
References:
Subject: Why does alt.sex exist?
Excerpts from alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk: 31-Aug-91 Why does alt.sex
exist? Ranjan Bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (924)
> A point that many seem to have overlooked is why
> alt.sex is here in the first place? The folklore I've
> heard was given when rec.pyrotechnics was created: to
> keep the inevitable alt.sex type discussions out of "serious"
> groups like sci.med. To create a ghetto for the perverts, in
> a sense.
Hmmm... possibly to provide an open (unmoderated) forum to express views
and questions about sex?
Stop laughing, people. Underneath all the bandwidth (I read it for
about a month each semester - then it starts repeating), there is some
serious, informative discussion.
Why ban that?
Why does rec.humor exist? Only to keep jokes out of serious newsgroups?
What would a system lose if it didn't carry rec.humor?
Somehow, I think less sites carry alt.sex than rec.humor.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 91 22:49:00 GMT
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Message-ID: <4BE653D6E840CB70@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Why does alt.sex exist?
>From: sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting)
>Why does rec.humor exist? Only to keep jokes out of serious newsgroups?
> What would a system lose if it didn't carry rec.humor?
>
>Somehow, I think less sites carry alt.sex than rec.humor.
Humor increases the morale of a group, sex decreases the morals of a group :-)
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
------------------------------
End of caf-talk Digest
******************************
From helen@eff.org Fri Sep 6 18:58:05 1991
Received: from c.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA10707; Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:58:03 -0500
Received: from eff.org by c.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA12250
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:56:38 -0500
Received: by eff.org id AA23652
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:37 -0400
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: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:23 -0400
Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199109062354.AA23641@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Sun, 1 Sep 91 Volume 1 : Issue 1
Today's Topics:
What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums) (5 msgs)
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
[ Volume 1, Issue 1? Yes! Prior issues can be considered
Volume 0. The changeover to Volume 1 is effective
September 1, with the switch to new digesting software.
-- Helen ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 00:10:21 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.001021.3065@eff.org>
References: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
I think the word "privacy" is being used to mean different things.
I suggest that Sanjay and Jim (and anyone else who wants to) explain
what they mean when they say that email is private? confidential? Are
there degrees of privacy and confidentiality? If so, what are some of
those degrees?
[I apologize for asking a questions and not suggesting possible
answers. I hope Sanjay and Jim will take up the challenge.]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Sep 91 05:49:04 GMT
Sender: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.054904.2909@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
In article <1991Sep1.001021.3065@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>I think the word "privacy" is being used to mean different things.
>
>I suggest that Sanjay and Jim (and anyone else who wants to) explain
>what they mean when they say that email is private? confidential? Are
>there degrees of privacy and confidentiality? If so, what are some of
>those degrees?
Sorry Carl. Thought we'd gone through it all before so I cut a few corners.
Sanjay is in error in his interpretation of the ECPA. There have been few
criminal or civil cases testing its limits, but the language is clear:
Sanjay claims that the ECPA does not prohibit sysads from accessing
documents when there exists an expectation of privacy. The wording of
the ECPA seems quite at odds with his claim (the full text is available
on the ftp sites of EFF and CuD (eff.org and ftp.cs.widener.edu). For those
lacking access, I'll be happy to provide a copy via private email.
By "private" I mean those files that I receive, send, or store, that
are a) not intended for public access and b) accessible to persons
other than those intended only through intrusive means.
This means that private mail that I send or receive (including mail that
arrives from a "public" hotline) is inviolable. This means that the files
on my system in which I store data are inviolable. This means that
papers I write and store on my system are inviolable. Neither sysops
nor users *may* access, copy, or make public my *private* information.
That fact that one *can* access my files does not grant them authorization,
and if they access my files when (key point coming) I have an *expectation of
privacy*, they have violated both law and policy. If Keith Hensen is reading
any of this, he can fill us in on his succcessful litigation against
California prosecutors invoking ECPA. Although LE folk were the defendants,
the premises of the plaintiff's case were not limited to LE. The point
is simply that if one has the means to access, or abuses authority to
access, the files of others, the the person owning the accessed files
has a legal option. There are exceptions, nuances, and grey areas, but the
general thrust is clear: *NO SYSOP OR SYSAD* has the right so muck about
in my data.
Sanjay claims that file-snooping may be necessary when there is a problem.
I can think of no circumstance when this is necessary (although perhaps
sysads can). If I am running a rogue program, it can be cut. If I am abusing
the system, my account can be frozen until an explanation is forthcoming.
If the sysad suspects that I have illegal info in my files, there is
*nothing* s/he can do *to my files.* S/he can notify authorities of their
suspicions, call me in for discussions, but they are prohibited from
entering my files, both by law and by privacy. Sanjay asks for specific
laws--there are many. Starting with the ECPA and other federal laws defining
improper access (most of which are untested and vague). In Illinois,
state laws that could be applied (successfully or not) included the
anti-computer abuse laws, copyright law, and similar statutes that,
although not written for cyberspace could be invoked. And, we have
University policies.
As a criminologist, one crucial component of my research includes
"problem populations" (crooks, etc). Much of my data are sensitive.
If I suspected somebody of rummaging about in my data, I would invoke
any and all laws in response because of its potentially damaging
potential. Yes, I could encrypt it. And I do. But that's not the point....
whether encrypted or not, this info is *private*! I have an expectation
of privacy both by statute and by policy.
The fact that we have laws against murder does not prevent me from picking
up an Uzi and blowing Sanjay away. Laws don't "prevent" in the same sense
that locked doors prevent. Laws establish the normative boundaries,
provide guidelines for which behaviors are sanctionable and which are not.
When I say that law "protects" my privacy, I hardly mean (and it is
absurd to assume otherwise, as Sanjay does) that a statute or a policy will
automatically bar somebody from behaving in a contrary manner. I simply
mean that it provides recourse when I can demonstrate that somebody
so-acted, and for those who lack the ethical means to constrain themselves,
the deterrent effect may hopefully constrain them.
I repeat: There are grey areas. Can somebody intercept my home-to-school
communications via microwave or cellular (if that's my means of
communication)? If my posts are routed through a *private* system where
the sysad as made it explicit that there is no expectation of privacy and that
all missives will be routinely/randomly monitored, do I lack privacy
protection even though I have it on the initiating and receiving end?
Certain types of accounts (eg, classroom accounts) may or may not have
protection. But, as it currently stands, as researcher, my private
files are *my* files. If our sysad has a problem with me or with what I am
doing, s/he has numerous options available. Accessing my private files is
not one of the licit options.
I'm not sure why Sanjay thinks it's so immoral for our sysad not to
advise all users that their files *might* be accessed without authorization
by others. Does a university tell students that they might be mugged, raped,
or murdered on campus, even though we have laws against such behavior?
My problem(s) with Sanjay's posts are that 1) I don't think he's read the
ECPA (or if so, hasn't read it well); 2) Seems to contradict himself in
supporting privacy on one hand while on the other saying we shouldn't
expect those bound to uphold it to do so; 3) He doesn't seem to read the
posts he responds to.
To Sanjay, I ask: You seem to claim that you have right to muck about in
my files. Under what circumstances and by what justification do you claim
this right?
------------------------------
Date: 1 Sep 91 16:13:00 GMT
Sender: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.161300.26079@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
In article <1991Sep1.054904.2909@mp.cs.niu.edu> tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (Jim Thomas) writes:
>[...]
>This means that private mail that I send or receive (including mail that
>arrives from a "public" hotline) is inviolable. This means that the files
>on my system in which I store data are inviolable. This means that
>papers I write and store on my system are inviolable. Neither sysops
>nor users *may* access, copy, or make public my *private* information.
Sorry to disagree Jim, but this can't be correct. I admit to not having
read ECPA very closely. I agree it almost certainly prohibits making
your information public or disclosing it to others. But it cannot prohibit
copying or accessing, since that is often needed for such matters as
backing up disks, moving files around in a reconfiguration, etc.
[Of course if by "my system" you mean a system that you personally own,
and the sysops are your employees, this is a different question - then as
owner, you set the rules and can decide not to have backups if you wish].
The more difficult question is whether the sysop can allow his human eyes
to see the contents of your files. I suspect there is sufficient ambiguity
in rules which allow backups but prevent disclosure, that eventually the
courts will get involved. As a practical matter, however, any prohibition
of such access is completely unenforceable unless we are willing to have
a KGB agent (or equivalent) constantly monitoring everyhting the sysop
does. And personally, I am opposed to unenforceable laws.
Your real protection, and in fact your only real protection, lies in
encrypting your files.
Are you aware that in most operating systems, when a file is removed, or
moved to a different location in a disk reorganization, the old data remains
on disk until overwritten? In some systems, including one that you use,
it is quite possible for a user to create a new file and have disk space
allocated, then read the pre-existing contents of that disk space before
writing anything new.
>As a criminologist, one crucial component of my research includes
>"problem populations" (crooks, etc). Much of my data are sensitive.
>If I suspected somebody of rummaging about in my data, I would invoke
>any and all laws in response because of its potentially damaging
>potential. Yes, I could encrypt it. And I do. But that's not the point....
>whether encrypted or not, this info is *private*! I have an expectation
>of privacy both by statute and by policy.
Unfortunately, your expectation of privacy is not compatible with our
current technology.
>I'm not sure why Sanjay thinks it's so immoral for our sysad not to
>advise all users that their files *might* be accessed without authorization
>by others. Does a university tell students that they might be mugged, raped,
>or murdered on campus, even though we have laws against such behavior?
I think Sanjay's point is that the risks of rape, murder, etc are well
known. The risk that data you consider private might leak out to be seen
by others is much less well known, and you are apparently unaware of it
yourself. I believe this is why Sanjay believes that warnings should
be provided.
I have occasionally given such warnings. I usually don't bother. I
find that most users do not believe the warnings anyway, or at least
don't seem to care. I also send email warnings to users who have left
their accounts wide open for anybody to access and write to their files,
but most users blithely ignore such warnings. Fortunately most computer
users are responsible intelligent people, and this is what provides much
of the privacy you expect.
You will probably find that the biggest disbelievers in technology are
the technologists themselves, for they know how unreliable their technology
really is.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
------------------------------
Date: 1 Sep 91 17:37:00 GMT
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Message-ID:
Subject: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
>
>I think the word "privacy" is being used to mean different things.
>
>I suggest that Sanjay and Jim (and anyone else who wants to) explain
>what they mean when they say that email is private? confidential? Are
>there degrees of privacy and confidentiality? If so, what are some of
>those degrees?
>
>[I apologize for asking a questions and not suggesting possible
>answers. I hope Sanjay and Jim will take up the challenge.]
>
>- Carl
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
In that particular instance, I was trying to explain by context:
If no one reads the piece of mail except the intended recepient, the mail is
private.
If someone (a system administrator) reads the piece of mail but does not use
or divulge the contents to anyone, the mail is confidential. In the process
of solving a problem, the system administrator may be required to look at the
contents and so breach privacy. My reading of the ECPA seems to permit this.
I admit I was not clear by what I wrote.
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: 1 Sep 91 18:53:00 GMT
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Message-ID:
Subject: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
Jim Thomas, tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu, writes:
>Sorry Carl. Thought we'd gone through it all before so I cut a few corners.
>Sanjay is in error in his interpretation of the ECPA. There have been few
>criminal or civil cases testing its limits, but the language is clear:
>
I agree that the language is very clear, unfortunately, JIM, you have NOT read
it. It is better to quote than to interpret without quoting.
I will quote the relevant section of the ECPA
_ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic
communications prohibited
(2) (a) (i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an
operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or
agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication
service, whose facilities are used in the transmission
of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use
that communication in the normal course of his
employment while engaged in any activity which is a
necessary incident to the rendition of his service or
to the protection of the rights or property of the
provider of that service, except that a provider of
wire communication service to the public shall not
utilize service observing or random monitoring except
for mechanical or service quality control checks.
Let us call the above paragraph the "systems administrator immunity clause" for
reference.
>Sanjay claims that the ECPA does not prohibit sysads from accessing
>documents when there exists an expectation of privacy. The wording of
>the ECPA seems quite at odds with his claim (the full text is available
>on the ftp sites of EFF and CuD (eff.org and ftp.cs.widener.edu). For those
>lacking access, I'll be happy to provide a copy via private email.
>
See my above quote. Jim, you have obviously not read the ECPA.
>By "private" I mean those files that I receive, send, or store, that
>are a) not intended for public access and b) accessible to persons
>other than those intended only through intrusive means.
>
>This means that private mail that I send or receive (including mail that
>arrives from a "public" hotline) is inviolable. This means that the files
>on my system in which I store data are inviolable. This means that
>papers I write and store on my system are inviolable. Neither sysops
>nor users *may* access, copy, or make public my *private* information.
>
You must be joking, right?
>That fact that one *can* access my files does not grant them authorization,
>and if they access my files when (key point coming) I have an *expectation of
>privacy*, they have violated both law and policy. If Keith Hensen is reading
>any of this, he can fill us in on his succcessful litigation against
>California prosecutors invoking ECPA. Although LE folk were the defendants,
>the premises of the plaintiff's case were not limited to LE.
You are again off-base. If you look at the portion of the ECPA, it would be
awfully hard for the systems administrators to be the defendents!!!! It is
quite easy for Law Enforcement to be defendents because the ECPA does limit
them quite a bit.
> The point
>is simply that if one has the means to access, or abuses authority to
>access, the files of others, the the person owning the accessed files
>has a legal option. There are exceptions, nuances, and grey areas, but the
>general thrust is clear: *NO SYSOP OR SYSAD* has the right so muck about
>in my data.
>
Please read the ECPA.
>Sanjay claims that file-snooping may be necessary when there is a problem.
>I can think of no circumstance when this is necessary (although perhaps
>sysads can).
Please re-read my originial post. I gave several examples including disk
corruption and mail loops. I can give quite a few more.
>If I am running a rogue program, it can be cut. If I am abusing
>the system, my account can be frozen until an explanation is forthcoming.
>If the sysad suspects that I have illegal info in my files, there is
>*nothing* s/he can do *to my files.* S/he can notify authorities of their
>suspicions, call me in for discussions, but they are prohibited from
>entering my files, both by law and by privacy. Sanjay asks for specific
>laws--there are many.
If you know the laws, quote them. Do not just say there are many.
I will again quote the ECPA to counter your argument:
(3) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a
person or entity providing an electronic communication
service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the
contents of any communication (other than one to such person
or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on
that service to any person or entity other than an addressee
or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of
such addressee or intended recipient.
(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication
service to the public may divulge the contents of any such
communication --
(i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511(2)(a) or 2517
of this title;
(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any
addressee or intended recipient of such communication;
(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose
facilities are used, to forward such communication to
its destination; or
(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service
provider and which appear to pertain to the commission
of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law
enforcement agency.
Looking at the last paragraph and the last sentence of the system
administrator immunity clause quoted above, you are incorrect in your
assumptions.
>Starting with the ECPA and other federal laws defining
>improper access (most of which are untested and vague). In Illinois,
>state laws that could be applied (successfully or not) included the
>anti-computer abuse laws, copyright law, and similar statutes that,
>although not written for cyberspace could be invoked. And, we have
>University policies.
>
University policies may be your best protection because all the rest of the
laws will be superseded by the systems administrator immunity clause.
>As a criminologist, one crucial component of my research includes
>"problem populations" (crooks, etc). Much of my data are sensitive.
>If I suspected somebody of rummaging about in my data, I would invoke
>any and all laws in response because of its potentially damaging
>potential. Yes, I could encrypt it. And I do. But that's not the point....
>whether encrypted or not, this info is *private*! I have an expectation
>of privacy both by statute and by policy.
>
Please quote how you got the expectation of privacy by statue.
Please do not leave out clauses like the systems administrator immnunity clause.
>The fact that we have laws against murder does not prevent me from picking
>up an Uzi and blowing Sanjay away. Laws don't "prevent" in the same sense
>that locked doors prevent. Laws establish the normative boundaries,
>provide guidelines for which behaviors are sanctionable and which are not.
>When I say that law "protects" my privacy, I hardly mean (and it is
>absurd to assume otherwise, as Sanjay does) that a statute or a policy will
>automatically bar somebody from behaving in a contrary manner. I simply
>mean that it provides recourse when I can demonstrate that somebody
>so-acted, and for those who lack the ethical means to constrain themselves,
>the deterrent effect may hopefully constrain them.
>
I agree that laws are not everything. But if you live your life assuming that
you are safe, you are not living in this world but somewhere else.
Current law does not protect your privacy from the systems administrator.
It does protect you from Law Enforcement.
>I repeat: There are grey areas. Can somebody intercept my home-to-school
>communications via microwave or cellular (if that's my means of
>communication)?
Jim, You should really read the ECPA before making such ignorant remarks.
The ECPA clearly spells this out. Again I quote the punishment for this from
the ECPA:
(b) If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) of
this subsection and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose
or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage
or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic
communication with respect to which the offense under
paragraph (a) is a radio communication that is not scrambled
or encrypted, then --
(i) If the communication is not the radio portion of a
cellular telephone communication, a public land mobile
radio service communication or a paging service
communication, and the conduct is not that described in
subsection (5), the offender shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both,
and
(ii) if the communication is the radio portion of a cellular
telephone communication, a public land mobile radio
service communication or a paging service
communication, the offender shall be fined not more
than $500.
>If my posts are routed through a *private* system where
>the sysad as made it explicit that there is no expectation of privacy and that
>all missives will be routinely/randomly monitored, do I lack privacy
>protection even though I have it on the initiating and receiving end?
>Certain types of accounts (eg, classroom accounts) may or may not have
>protection. But, as it currently stands, as researcher, my private
>files are *my* files. If our sysad has a problem with me or with what I am
>doing, s/he has numerous options available. Accessing my private files is
>not one of the licit options.
>
Just a few points:
1) expectation of privacy is mostly a civil contractual matter and most often
not a criminal matter.
2) It is not unlawful to routinely/randomly monitor stuff when the purpose is
to do quality checks.
3) Yes, you do lack privacy protection once you are on the network.
4) For the purposes of the law, classroom accounts enjoy the exact same
protection as research accounts.
5) The ECPA mostly is meant for public service providers and really does not
cover private restricted systems like those belonging to a University.
6) ECPA covers mainly communications and is more or less silent on what is
already stored on the computer as files.
>I'm not sure why Sanjay thinks it's so immoral for our sysad not to
>advise all users that their files *might* be accessed without authorization
>by others. Does a university tell students that they might be mugged, raped,
>or murdered on campus, even though we have laws against such behavior?
Yes, most campuses do tell their students to be careful about being mugged,
raped or murdered. Our campus has a "walk service" in the evenings wherein a
student will walk with you across campus if you do not feel safe walking
alone. The campus newspaper publishes cases of muggings, rape or murder. No
one ever talks about files being accessed withouth authorization.
>My problem(s) with Sanjay's posts are that 1) I don't think he's read the
>ECPA (or if so, hasn't read it well);
Jim, you seem to have not read it at all.
>2) Seems to contradict himself in
>supporting privacy on one hand while on the other saying we shouldn't
>expect those bound to uphold it to do so;
I see nothing contradictory in that. I am just warning that people who have
an interest in their privacy should be fully informed and not live in
delusion. I support real privacy, not the illusion of privacy. Unless, the
illusion of privacy is removed, we can not make any progress towards real
privacy.
3) He doesn't seem to read the
>posts he responds to.
>
>To Sanjay, I ask: You seem to claim that you have right to muck about in
>my files. Under what circumstances and by what justification do you claim
>this right?
>
I have already quoted the ECPA above which underline those circumstances.
Jim, you seem to not understand the motives behind my postings. I am trying
to bring up arguments and the conditions as they exist in the real world.
I am not hostile to the idea of academic freedom I just want to be sure that
you are better prepared to defend academic freedom. I am just being
presumptious in assuming that you will be better able to defend those freedoms
becuase you debated with me. Any progress towards real academic freedom will
not be achieved if individuals interested in academic freedom are not prepared
to answer even my simple arguments. I hope that this debate prepares you
better when you actually have to fight for freedom.
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
------------------------------
End of caf-talk Digest
******************************
From helen@eff.org Fri Sep 6 18:57:48 1991
Received: from c.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA10686; Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:57:43 -0500
Received: from eff.org by c.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA12252
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:56:38 -0500
Received: by eff.org id AA23661
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:38 -0400
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: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 19:54:27 -0400
Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199109062354.AA23645@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Sun, 1 Sep 91 Volume 1 : Issue 2
Today's Topics:
What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums) (2 msgs)
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 Sep 91 21:17:34 GMT
Sender: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.211734.22816@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <41E7F6E41880B081@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
In article <1991Sep1.161300.26079@mp.cs.niu.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
> Sorry to disagree Jim, but this can't be correct. I admit to not having
>read ECPA very closely. I agree it almost certainly prohibits making
>your information public or disclosing it to others. But it cannot prohibit
>copying or accessing, since that is often needed for such matters as
>backing up disks, moving files around in a reconfiguration, etc.
>[Of course if by "my system" you mean a system that you personally own,
>and the sysops are your employees, this is a different question - then as
>owner, you set the rules and can decide not to have backups if you wish].
The wording of the ECPA is somewhat flawed, but there is a distinction
between routine system maintenance (backups, etc) and accessing the contents
of my file that says dont.read.me that you then peruse, or worse, copy and
distribute to others. The former is clearly protected. The latter is *not*!
By "my system," I'm referring primarily to a state system, such as that at
a university. Private systems are a bit dodgier, but they, to, are
covered by may provisions of ECPA.
>
>courts will get involved. As a practical matter, however, any prohibition
>of such access is completely unenforceable unless we are willing to have
>a KGB agent (or equivalent) constantly monitoring everyhting the sysop
>does. And personally, I am opposed to unenforceable laws.
>
Because comm privacy laws are new and untested does not mean that they are
unenforceable. I suspect the wording of most will be rapidly revised as
the ambiguities and problems become more obvious. Perhaps, like
window-peeking, we cannot easily discover the lurking sysop, but when
lurking becomes obvious it is enforceable. If, for example, a sysad
reported to the police that I smoke marijuana on the basis of a private note
perused from my files, I would have a cause of action that, if successful,
is quite enforceable. .
>
> Unfortunately, your expectation of privacy is not compatible with our
>current technology.
>
Yes, I'm aware that "erased" files may exist until written over, and I'm
aware of the technological processes of copying/backup/etc. This isn't
the point, nor is it what the concerns here address. My "expectation of
privacy" lies in the fact that there are standards that limit the
extent and circumstances of accessing the *contents* of my file. This is
not a limitation (or an ignorance) of technology. It is a proscription of
behavior. I repeat: Because you have the means to access the internal
contents of my files (as opposed to manipulating the disk space which
contains my file) does not mean that you are *allowed* to, and all
some of us are saying is that "inviolable" is a value imperative not a
technological ability. . m
> I think Sanjay's point is that the risks of rape, murder, etc are well
>known. The risk that data you consider private might leak out to be seen
>by others is much less well known, and you are apparently unaware of it
>yourself. I believe this is why Sanjay believes that warnings should
>be provided.
I'm not sure what it is I'm unaware of, Neil. I fully understand the
technological risks and the ease of data intrusion. But so what? This
isn't the point. At stake is to what degree does electronic communication
have the expectation of privacy from snooping eyes, and what recourse does
one have when this expectation is violated? If you're saying that
technological data leaks can occur, or that somebody can access my files
(as they could private letters from my home mail box), no disagreement.
But, if you're saying that you have employees who routinely snoop in my
files, and I'm ignorant because I'm not aware of this, then you've got me:
I wasn't aware of this, and it's this latter issue that is at stake.
If it is this latter problem that is your point, the correct response isn't
to assume *my* ignorance, but to terminate those people immediately.
> You will probably find that the biggest disbelievers in technology are
>the technologists themselves, for they know how unreliable their technology
>really is.
>
To reiterate: We are not talking about a naive belief in the reliability
of technology, but about the intentional, purposive accessing of the
*contents of a file* when there is the expectation--by policy, law, and
ethics--that people will not be doing this.
There is a difference between utilizing technology (encryption, security
tech on the system, etc) and constraining behavior. It is the latter that
is at stake here, and law provides at least minimal (whoever said it was
a "guarantee?") means of enforcing abuse.
Jim m
------------------------------
Date: 1 Sep 91 23:32:19 GMT
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Message-ID: <1991Sep1.233219.25957@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References:
Subject: What is e-mail privacy? (was Re: Taxonomy of forums)
>I agree that the language is very clear, unfortunately, JIM, you have NOT read
>it. It is better to quote than to interpret without quoting.
Sanjay, because you quote the ECPA does not mean you understand it.
Because I chose not to quote it (to save space--I offered it via private
mail to any who want it) does not mean I have not read it. Continually
asserting your claims does not make them true, and your assertion is
quite false.
>>This means that private mail that I send or receive (including mail that
>>arrives from a "public" hotline) is inviolable. This means that the files
>>on my system in which I store data are inviolable. This means that
>>papers I write and store on my system are inviolable. Neither sysops
>>nor users *may* access, copy, or make public my *private* information.
>You must be joking, right?
No, Sanjay, I am not joking. If you think I am, I would challenge you to
access the contents of my files and make it public. If you are saying
that you have the authority to do this, or that you have the right and/or
authority to access and read my private e-mail, you have not understood
the ECPA, proving that citing does not lead to understanding. Please
try to understand this: I will say it slowly and carefully: We are not
talking about the technological ability to access my files, nor are we
talking about routine maintenance required to run a system. We are
talking about the constraining the behavior of indivduals. You seem to
be saying that it's your right to peruse my private files (email, data,
whatever). You do not have this right, and no interpretation of the
ECPA will give it to you.
You cite my statements and reply by saying "read the ECPA."
Your cites do not bear on what that to which you claim they respond.
>>Sanjay claims that file-snooping may be necessary when there is a problem.
>>I can think of no circumstance when this is necessary (although perhaps
>>sysads can).
>Please re-read my originial post. I gave several examples including disk
>corruption and mail loops. I can give quite a few more.
These are not examples of intentionally and purposively accessing the
contents of my private files. Under what conditions can you access, peruse,
copy, or distribute info from the contents of an individual file?
The ECPA hardly prohibits general routine functions. It does, however,
prohibit *you* as operator of a system, from mucking about in my
data sets. Try to understand, Sanjay: The issue is one of determining
what protections to give us from others, including sysads, and what
responses are appropriate when abuses occur. Are you saying that addressing
disk corruption and mail loops necessitate reading the contents of my
individual files without my permission?
>If you know the laws, quote them. Do not just say there are many.
I'd be happy to, but this is not the place for a mega-line article.
If you're sincere, you can start by re-reading the ECPA. You might also
find "Privacy Rights in State Courts: Models for Illinois?" in
U. Ill Law Rev. (1989), pp 215-296 helpful. One of the better overviews
of the ECPA appeared in BMUG (in spring '91) and was reprinted in
Cu Digest. To better understand the ECPA, the House Judicial Committee
Hearings on HR 3378 (which later became the ECPA) is useful.
You continual citing of the ECPA is laudable but non sequitor You seem
to be saying that it gives you the right to invade my privacy, a rather
odd interpretation. It clearly intends the opposite, and it is hardly
restricted to law enforcement. University officials and administrators
are considered a subset of state functionaries (in public institutions).
Nothing you cited appears to give you the right to muck about in my
files or mail. If you want to quibble over what "mucking about" means,
fine, but you seem unwilling to accept the limitations on sysad behavior
and claim carte blanche to invade my privacy by appealing to your
authority as administrator. Nothing you've cited gives you such latitude.
>University policies may be your best protection because all the rest of the
>laws will be superseded by the systems administrator immunity clause.
(jt quote omitted)
>Please quote how you got the expectation of privacy by statue.
>Please do not leave out clauses like the systems administrator immnunity clause.
Perhaps you should explain what you mean by sysad immunity, because it's
hardly clear from your rationale or your cite of the ECPA. What, precisely,
do you think you're immune from? My claim is that you *are not* immune
from sanctions for snooping in my files. You seem to claim the opposite.
At least you've spend considerable space responding to my claim that you
are constrained by law, policy, and ethics, from snooping. If you are
trying to tell us that there are some instances when somebody may
accidentally stumble into somebody's file, that's one thing. But the
issue is somewhat different: You have no right to *INTENTIONALLY SNOOP!*
Period! If you are claiming this right, since a) you do not seem to be
denying it, and b) you spend considerable energy resisting others'
concerns about it, then say so, and also announce publicly that you
claim the right to intentionally and purposively invade users' files,
read them as you wish, copy the contents of individual files for your
personal use, and distribute them. This, Sanjay, is the issue.
A system is *not* the personal fiefdom of a sysad or sysop.
>>I repeat: There are grey areas. Can somebody intercept my home-to-school
>>communications via microwave or cellular (if that's my means of
>>communication)?
>Jim, You should really read the ECPA before making such ignorant remarks.
Gosh, Sanjay, maybe I should. Or, maybe you should be aware of the ambiguity
of the wording you cite. Would you call Sen. Leahy, who this spring called
for an amendment to the ECPA calling to clarify definitions and penalties
for interception of radio signals from cordless phones ignorant as well?
I don't mind a bit of name calling, Sanjay, but your continual assertions
are wearisome. My comment about the mode of communication may be glib and
broad, but you surely know that there are discrepancies in law between
(for example) cellular and cordless phones among others.
Please understand the point rather than distorting it for your own
myopic ends: I claim that the ECPA is hardly ideal and that there are
both legal and conceptual issues regarding privacy issues. You call this
ignorant? My god, you must be brilliant! You may be the only person in the
country who has a firm grip on such issues and on the language of the ECPA.
The ECPA is an arcane, poorly worded document, and in the 5 years since
enacted technology has already outstipped the even-then ambiguous and
tortured language and created new situations that raise questions.
It is *not* limited solely to computer systems, but to COMMUNICATIONS
systems, and the increased sophistication of integrative technology
creates new problems to address. Sorry if you see recognition of these
problems as "ignorant." You seem to be a minority of one.
>Just a few points:
>1) expectation of privacy is mostly a civil contractual matter and most often
> not a criminal matter.
I oppose criminalization of "victimless crimes" in general, and fully agree
that intrusion should be a civil, not criminal matter. The definition of
"privacy" is dodgy, but you seem to take the extreme position that there
can be none. I take the position that, whatever the technological capacity
for intrusion might be, a minimal definition is that people be constrained
from using it to purposively and intentionally access the contents of
others private communication.
>2) It is not unlawful to routinely/randomly monitor stuff when the purpose is
> to do quality checks.
There is no quality check that requires you to read my private file without
my permission. You are confusing legitimate random system monitoring with
purposive snooping. Please try to understand what people are saying before
creating a straw icon to attack.
>3) Yes, you do lack privacy protection once you are on the network.
What does this mean? Are you saying that, since you are on the nets, I
am entitled to invade the privacy of your system? I repeat: try to
understand what's being said! The threat to privacy does not mean that
the means of addressing the threat should be ignored. Is there a
point to this point #3?
>4) For the purposes of the law, classroom accounts enjoy the exact same
> protection as research accounts.
Not necessarily. It depends on the class structure (and you seem to
contradict your point #1 here). I am not advocating less rights for
students than for others. I am simply saying that *some* student accounts
may be collective, others personal. A personal account should be
inviolable. A collective account has fewer restrictions on access.
>5) The ECPA mostly is meant for public service providers and really does not
> cover private restricted systems like those belonging to a University.
The scope of the ECPA is ambiguous, but it includes universities and
private restricted systems, and covers personal files and private mail.
University officials are considered agents of the state. The ECPA
wording is often decipherably broad, and it is not clear how far the
scope extents, but it would appear to extent to private BBSs where an
expectation of privacy exists, and to systems such as compuserve or GEnie.
The ECPA is quite explicit on limiting law enforcement, but it clearly
and unequivocally extends to the private sector.
>6) ECPA covers mainly communications and is more or less silent on what is
> already stored on the computer as files.
As you have said, "please read the ECPA." Chpt 121 / 2701 addresses this,
abeit not clearly,
as does the 1986 computer abuse law along with most state laws. No, Sanjay,
I'm not going to cite them. They are quite similar, and you can get them
from the CuD or EFF anonymous ftp sites. The intent, however, is clear:
You do not, as you claim, have the authority to snoop in my files even
if they are on your system. Some have even expanded this to mean that
a sysop cannot divulge the contents of a private conference even if
many people participate in it.
Sanjay, please try to understand also that many defintions are imported and
and refined from other statutes from case law. The ECPA also raises issues
and metaphors raised in other social and legal realms (theft, copyright,
trespass). The intent of the ECPA is to erect a barrier to illicit
intrusion, and you seem unwilling to accept this.
There have been few (I don't believe any) cases brought to *trial* under
the ECPA or related statutes, so there is no set of established precedents
that would clarify some of the horrendous language.
It is an imperfect law in need of substantial revision, but it is well
meaning in its own obtuse way. If you are saying that it cannot prevent
meddlers from meddling, that's a truism so obvious as to be irrelevant.
If you are saying that it cannot be applied to snoops, you are in
perilous error.
>>My problem(s) with Sanjay's posts are that 1) I don't think he's read the
>>ECPA (or if so, hasn't read it well);
>Jim, you seem to have not read it at all.
(jt quote omitted)
>Jim, you seem to not understand the motives behind my postings. I am trying
>to bring up arguments and the conditions as they exist in the real world.
>I am not hostile to the idea of academic freedom I just want to be sure that
>you are better prepared to defend academic freedom. I am just being
>presumptious in assuming that you will be better able to defend those freedoms
>becuase you debated with me. Any progress towards real academic freedom will
>not be achieved if individuals interested in academic freedom are not prepared
>to answer even my simple arguments. I hope that this debate prepares you
>better when you actually have to fight for freedom.
Sorry to disappoint you Sanjay, but I have read the ECPA and related
statutes and cases. The current ECPA may be a failure because of the
vague and outdated language, but that hardly means that it gives you
that right to snoop.
I repeat, and please, once again, try to understand: Because one has the
technological ability to snoop does not give them the right, and because
I oppose a given behavior, that of *invading* my private files, does not
mean I am ignorant or fail to have read the ECPA. If you were able to
muster some coherent argument, a "debate" might be easier. You cannot
assert that you have the right to snoop because you may have to deal with
disk corruption. That's an offensive nonsequitor. If you are saying that
people should be made aware that snoops exist, fine. If you are saying
that technology cannot guarantee privacy, big deal...we've all conceded
this. If you are saying that we should socialize new computer users into
the ethics of privacy, well, of course! However, you resist and attack
my point, which is this: My files are normatively inviolable even if
they technologically are not. Neither you, as sysad, nor anybody else
has the right to willfully access their *contents* without my permission.
Try the analogy of a suitcase.....an airport porter can carry it, send it
from place to place, clean it, spit on it, or whatever, but s/he cannot
open it to snoop, photograph the inside, or distribute the stuff to
others without violating law, most company policies, and ethical standards.
You can cavil by pointing to inadvertant exceptions, many of which I would
perhaps agree with, but you seem unwilling to even acknowledge, contrary
to demonstrable evidence, that snooping in that suitcase is illegal.
------------------------------
End of caf-talk Digest
******************************
