From helen@eff.org Tue Sep 10 08:16:13 1991
Received: from a.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA20805; Tue, 10 Sep 91 08:16:10 -0500
Received: from eff.org by a.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA10983
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Tue, 10 Sep 91 08:15:25 -0500
Received: by eff.org id AA20332
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Tue, 10 Sep 1991 09:13:55 -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
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 09:13:42 -0400
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199109101313.AA20327@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Mon, 9 Sep 91 Volume 1 : Issue 11
Today's Topics:
Academic Privacy Question (8 msgs)
Computer policies collections
Fundamentalists vs. Academic Freedom
History of Usenet and Implications for Academic Freedom
Re: Academic Privacy Question (2 msgs)
Re: Re: Academic Privacy Question
Restricting access to newsgroups (was: Re: Academic Privacy
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: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Date: 9 Sep 91 12:17:22 GMT
Message-ID: <9109091217.AA10627@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
References: <1991Sep7.092741.33334@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Academic Privacy Question
>
> In article <9109062034.AA01590@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
> > In reply to the mail from ...
> > The primary purpose
> > of Usenet is not that of education. Based on Usenet readership and arbitron
> > statistics, the most polular newsgroups are in the rec.* and alt* hierarchies,
> > indicating a purpose not essentially educational in nature.
>
> This is a Borkism and if adopted as policy would lead to censorship
> _per se_. What sort of content-based imprimatur is necessary for
> something to qualify as 'education'? Don't people reading
> rec.handball [or whatever...] learn something about handball?
>
> 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
>
I'm sorry, but you'll have to be more specific. What exactly is a
"Borkism"? Why would such a policy lead to censorship per se?
Where did I advocate censorship in the common sense, which is review
of material for the purposes of determining some level of
correctness? I'm simply saying that sysadins have a right to
determine on a prior basis (not not review of material after it has
been produced) what newsgroups will be carried at their sites. This
is not censorship. This is economic/technical/whatever necessity.
Simply attempting to reduce an argument to a misnomer associated
with someone whom most in the academic community do not like, simply
does not refute the argument itself.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
DSAC-BCC - "We Code, You explode!!"
------------------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Date: 9 Sep 91 14:12:00 GMT
Message-ID: <1631971F0E812E9F@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Academic Privacy Question
>Where did I advocate censorship in the common sense, which is review
>of material for the purposes of determining some level of
>correctness? I'm simply saying that sysadins have a right to
>determine on a prior basis (not not review of material after it has
>been produced) what newsgroups will be carried at their sites. This
>is not censorship.
I am not denying the right of sytstem administrators or anything, I just have
a question:
I was always under the impressions that prior restraint was how censorship was
defined. A government official called a "censor" sits at a newspaper office
and approves or disapproves of what is printed. In the case of Television
Networks, a network official, unofficially called a "censor" also approves
every script that is sent to production so as to remove material that the
network finds objectionable. Television networks also "edit" a movie for
Television before broadcasting it.
> This is economic/technical/whatever necessity.
>Simply attempting to reduce an argument to a misnomer associated
>with someone whom most in the academic community do not like, simply
>does not refute the argument itself.
>
The ALA and others are doing something similar by lumping lobbying and
pressure groups tactics under the onerous term of "censorship" rather than the
group's free speech rights.
>
>Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
>
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: 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 9 Sep 91 08:28:23 CDT
Message-ID: <1991Sep9.082823.33360@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
References: <199109090141.AA03354@eff.org> <9109091207.AA10327@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Subject: Academic Privacy Question
In article <9109091207.AA10327@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
> And I'm
> not sure what a "Borkism" is, since the user of that phrase didn't
> seem to define it.
Borkism, borkishness, etc.: pertaining to the views expressed by
the unlamented former Judge Bork at his Supreme Court confirmation
hearings to the effect that the Bill of Rights is narrowly
enumerative with respect to the Constitution to which it is attached,
e.g., that the First Amendment grants freedom of speech & press
only to discussions of the political issues raised by the Constitution
itself, and that all other censorship is permissible. By implication
in an academic context, the belief that academic freedom pertains
only to those subjects and topics of courses and research officially
authorized by the institution, e.g.: computers must be used for
classwork only; education is learning what WE want, not what YOU
want....
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
------------------------------
From: 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 9 Sep 91 08:50:26 CDT
Message-ID: <1991Sep9.085026.33361@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
References: <1991Sep7.092741.33334@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <9109091217.AA10627@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Subject: Academic Privacy Question
In article <9109091217.AA10627@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
> I'm sorry, but you'll have to be more specific. What exactly is a
> "Borkism"? Why would such a policy lead to censorship per se?
> Where did I advocate censorship in the common sense, which is review
> of material for the purposes of determining some level of
> correctness? I'm simply saying that sysadins have a right to
> determine on a prior basis (not not review of material after it has
> been produced) what newsgroups will be carried at their sites. This
> is not censorship. This is economic/technical/whatever necessity.
> Simply attempting to reduce an argument to a misnomer associated
> with someone whom most in the academic community do not like, simply
> does not refute the argument itself.
Bork suitably excoriated in previous post.
I can't legitimately object to selective availability of newsgroups
on the grounds of limited resources, although I think this is often
a bogus issue. Disks are now about $3K/gigabyte, and most installations
could therefore buy between 10 and 15 Gb/year by firing an administrative
drone whose only role is to shuffle papers and get in the users' hair.
But there are of course other issues--the VAX I'm posting this from
is maxed out on HSC ports, and a new HSC controller is ~$50K. If
$50K were to suddenly materialize, I'd prefer our friendly Comp. Center
folks buy one of the new screamer workstations rather than beef up
the old VAX....
So if a librarian has to choose between subscribing to _Nature_ or
_Hustler_, or if a sys. admin. has to choose between putting up
comp.sys.unix or alt.sex.bestiality, I won't complain too much if
they make what seems like the obvious choice. But I think it's
specious to say that one pole of the two sets of alternatives above
is 'educational' and the other isn't. Even in a university setting,
the 'wrong' pole would provide more novel information to more people.
Educational 'Borkishness' (Bloomism?) is the belief that learning
is the absorption of a narrow, prescribed canon. I don't think
you really believe this, but it's a viewpoint that just oozes out
between all the cracks at even self-styled 'liberal' and/or
'progressive' instutions. It can sneak up on you if you're not
careful.
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
------------------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Date: 9 Sep 91 17:41:11 GMT
Message-ID: <9109091741.AA23739@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
References: <1631971F0E812E9F@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Academic Privacy Question
>
> I am not denying the right of sytstem administrators or anything, I just have
> a question:
>
> I was always under the impressions that prior restraint was how censorship was
> defined. A government official called a "censor" sits at a newspaper office
> and approves or disapproves of what is printed. In the case of Television
> Networks, a network official, unofficially called a "censor" also approves
> every script that is sent to production so as to remove material that the
> network finds objectionable. Television networks also "edit" a movie for
> Television before broadcasting it.
>
I'm using censorship is the sense of "review", i.e. examining
material after is is produced. There are other definitions of
censorship. The term "prior restraint" generally refers to the
same thing (I think.) What sysadmins do isn't censorship; no
material is examined before it's transmitted to see if it passes some
test; rather, entire groups are eliminated before the system is set
up. This implies judgement that is not content-based except on a
very general level. If a sysadmin were to stop this article from
being passed on, for example, that would be censorship. The fact
that my site does not receive alt.sex is not. I think the
librarians are using censorship is a much more vague way; my
impression is that anything that tend to stifle the freedom to
inquire would be considered censorship.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
DSAC-BCC -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
------------------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Date: 9 Sep 91 17:54:33 GMT
Message-ID: <9109091754.AA24605@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
References: <1991Sep9.082823.33360@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Academic Privacy Question
>
> In article <9109091207.AA10327@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
> > And I'm
> > not sure what a "Borkism" is, since the user of that phrase didn't
> > seem to define it.
>
> Borkism, borkishness, etc.: pertaining to the views expressed by
> the unlamented former Judge Bork at his Supreme Court confirmation
> hearings to the effect that the Bill of Rights is narrowly
> enumerative with respect to the Constitution to which it is attached,
> e.g., that the First Amendment grants freedom of speech & press
> only to discussions of the political issues raised by the Constitution
> itself, and that all other censorship is permissible. By implication
> in an academic context, the belief that academic freedom pertains
> only to those subjects and topics of courses and research officially
> authorized by the institution, e.g.: computers must be used for
> classwork only; education is learning what WE want, not what YOU
> want....
>
Thanks for the definition; I'm still not sure that I'm advocating
anything of the sort. What you call "Borkism" is what many
competent legal scholars call strict constructionism and is a valid
if not particularly popular legal paradigm. My original comment was
that Usenet was not primarily academic or educational in nature; if
it were, I could more easily apply a library analogy to it. Rather,
I was comparing the primary functions of a library with the primary
functions of Usenet. Based purely on circulation, one can claim
that the primary purpose of Usenet is recreation. (I wonder what
an analysis of a major public library's cirulation trends would
discover....) In any event, claiming that Usenet is primarily
recreational in nature does not ipso facto mean that censorship
becomes valid. In fact, in almost all my postings on this subject,
I have consistently advocated absolute freedom for users in the
newsgroups that are carried by their sites. This hardly makes me a
strict constructioniost or a Borkist or a censor. I have been, and
will continue, to claim that the rights of owners must also be
taken into account when discussing newsgroup selection, an idea
which currently isn't very popular.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
DSAC-BCC -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
------------------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Date: 9 Sep 91 18:10:02 GMT
Message-ID: <9109091810.AA25374@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
References: <1991Sep9.085026.33361@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Academic Privacy Question
>
> In article <9109091217.AA10627@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
> > I'm sorry, but you'll have to be more specific. What exactly is a
> > "Borkism"? Why would such a policy lead to censorship per se?
> > Where did I advocate censorship in the common sense, which is review
> > of material for the purposes of determining some level of
> > correctness? I'm simply saying that sysadins have a right to
> > determine on a prior basis (not not review of material after it has
> > been produced) what newsgroups will be carried at their sites. This
> > is not censorship. This is economic/technical/whatever necessity.
> > Simply attempting to reduce an argument to a misnomer associated
> > with someone whom most in the academic community do not like, simply
> > does not refute the argument itself.
>
> Bork suitably excoriated in previous post.
Strict Constructionism suitably defended in another post.
(BTW, please do not assume that I am a strict constructionist. I'm
not. In fact, I'm not sure I'm not a screaming liberal where
constitutional issues are concerned, such as Fourth, Fifth,
Fourteenth, and most of First Amendment rights.)
>
> So if a librarian has to choose between subscribing to _Nature_ or
> _Hustler_, or if a sys. admin. has to choose between putting up
> comp.sys.unix or alt.sex.bestiality, I won't complain too much if
> they make what seems like the obvious choice. But I think it's
> specious to say that one pole of the two sets of alternatives above
> is 'educational' and the other isn't. Even in a university setting,
> the 'wrong' pole would provide more novel information to more people.
>
Again, I'm not claiming that Usenet isn't educational. It is. I
don't think that is it's primary purpose, however. In Gene Spafford's
article on "What is Usenet", I don't think there is a stated, formal
purpose, anyway. ( I may be wrong. The last posting has expired at
my site.)
> Educational 'Borkishness' (Bloomism?) is the belief that learning
> is the absorption of a narrow, prescribed canon. I don't think
> you really believe this, but it's a viewpoint that just oozes out
> between all the cracks at even self-styled 'liberal' and/or
> 'progressive' instutions. It can sneak up on you if you're not
> careful.
>
Be careful, you're going to get the politically correct people on your
case with statements like that :)
I'd like to reiterate my position on this issue. I'm afraid it's
gotten lost in the shuffle, a little bit. Selection of newsgroups
by sysadmins/owners is not censorship. Cancelling of articles or
e-mail is censorship. Sysadmins do not have a legal responsibility
to carry a full news feed. Wherever possible, I think that sites
should carry the fullest possible feed - remember, my site has
limited feed, so I'm speaking from experience. Once a set of
newsgroups has been selected, deselction should take place only
after a suitable waiting period, clearly announced and with plenty
of time for comment or appeal. Withing the context of the available
newsgroups, users have full and absolute rights to free speech.
This includes the entire scope of e-mail. I'm not a censor. I just
think that failure to carry a full feed is not a constitutional
crime.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
DSAC-BCC -- "We code, You explode!!"
------------------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Date: 9 Sep 91 19:10:21 GMT
Message-ID: <199109091819.AA26087@eff.org>
References:
Subject: Academic Privacy Question
On Mon, 9 Sep 91 13:41:11 EDT Robert F Solon said:
>I'm using censorship is the sense of "review", i.e. examining
>material after is is produced. There are other definitions of
Librarians would generally use "censorship" to mean review or
elimination from a collection after it was already purchased and in
the collection. For example, a parent complaining that a particular
book was dirty and should be removed so his kid can't read such "nasty
stuff" as Judy Blume novels for kids.
Librarians usually use the term "selection" for choosing which of
the innumerable books they should buy with their limited dollars.
There is no question that relating the materials to the community
is a factor here. In some communities Judy Blume is passe and would
never be an issue. In others it is.
One of the classic library censorship cases came up in the sixties when
a college library director went to the wall (and ended up losing his job)
over Evergreen Review, which was then considered "dirty" by many. Many
still would. He contended that it was basic to the small Christian college
where he worked in the middle of Bible-belt north Texas. They had all
of three hundred journals to cover the whole student body and curriculum.
I think his mistake was fighting that ER was one of the most important
300 journals for his school. I consider that stupid. I would have fought
for it in a larger college or in a university, even to the point of losing
my job. But to put it in such a high priority in such a place I consider
just plain stupid. In a 15,000 student university in the same town
would be an appropriate battle.
>up. This implies judgement that is not content-based except on a
>very general level. If a sysadmin were to stop this article from
And this is what I called "selection", looking at past content in
general and determining whether it is "good enough" or "appropriate
enough" for my students and faculty.
>that my site does not receive alt.sex is not. I think the
>librarians are using censorship is a much more vague way; my
>impression is that anything that tend to stifle the freedom to
>inquire would be considered censorship.
Some do use it that way, but to me that is abroader general issue
of intellectual freedom, of which censorship is just a part.
This is why the Amer Library Assn has an "Office of Intellectual Freedom"
that is heavily involved in such issues, and not just a "Censorship Office."
And, any of you interested in such things should read their "Intellectual
Freedom Newsletter" in your library, or subscribe yourself. It covers ALL
kinds of issues....not just strictly library related.....censoring
high school plays.....school papers.....laws passed locally to prevent the
sale of Playboy in Circle K and 7/11 stores, and so on.
dan
************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu
* Boise State University
* Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my
* 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them.
************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 01:51:28 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep10.015128.3970@eff.org>
Subject: Computer policies collections
The CAF archive contains two collections of academic computer
policies. These are available via anonymous ftp to directories
pub/academic/widener and pub/academic/policies. Within a day or so,
they are also be available via email. For more information send email
to "archive-server@eff.org". Include the line "help".
The widener directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*.
The policies directory is a collection of other policies. I'm enclosing
the README file for the policies directory.
- Carl
=================
README
-----------------
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. Also see
directory "widener".
=================
acs.ohio-state.edu
-----------------
Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks for The Office of Academic
Computing at The Ohio State University. (This policy was critiqued and
discussed in CAF-talk.)
=================
cc.columbia.edu
-----------------
The old policy for Columbia University's Center for Computing
Activities. They are working on a new policy. (This policy was
critiqued and discussed in CAF-talk.)
=================
cis.ohio-state.edu
-----------------
This is the (soon to be revised?) appropriate use, mail (and netnews),
disk, and printer policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and
Information Science Department. (This policy was critiqued and
discussed in CAF-talk.)
=================
cmich.edu
-----------------
Excerpts from "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Computing
Services At Central Michigan University (And Were Afraid To Ask)",
Computer Services Document No. CSVD0092. It is given to new users.
(The policy was critiqued and discussed in CAF-talk.)
=================
pitt.edu
-----------------
The University of Pittsburgh Guidelines for Ethical Use from "User's
Guide to Academic Computing" and Computer Access and Use policy.
=================
staff.cc.purdue.edu
-----------------
Staff policy for Purdue University's Computing Center
=================
watmath.waterloo.edu
-----------------
Policy of the University of Waterloo's Mathematics Faculty Computing Facility
=================
=================
Last update
Mon Sep 9 21:40:58 EDT 1991
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
From: nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Date: 9 Sep 91 05:07:03 GMT
Message-ID:
References: <199108070504.AA23183@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Subject: Fundamentalists vs. Academic Freedom
Mark W Wheatley writes:
> Not sure how to say this, but it's kinda nice to know that Oklahoma
> is not the only place with such narrow minded thinking and such. I am not say
> such thinking is good, but at least (unfortunately) Oklahoma is not in the
> minority on this matter.
From the e-mail I've gotten, this sort of network bullying by
sysadmins happens very often. It seems that this behavior is more the
rule than the exception.
- Steve
_________________________________________________________________________
|Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com |
|Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp |
|The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu |
|50 Curl Drive | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu |
|Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu |
|+1 614 293 7383 or 419 474 1010 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Date: 9 Sep 91 20:11:46 GMT
Message-ID: <9109092011.AA00258@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Subject: History of Usenet and Implications for Academic Freedom
We just received "What is Usenet" by Gene Spafford. It specifically
states that Usenet originally was a feed between two universities.
With that in mind, I withdraw my suggestion that Usenet's primary
purpose is not educational. Its original purpose was to exchange
ideas and information (not a quote, please see news.admin.)
Although I could not find a formal statement-of-purpose, it appears as
if education is a primary one.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
DSAC-BCC -- "We Code, You explode!"
------------------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Date: 9 Sep 91 02:30:26 GMT
Message-ID: <199109090141.AA03354@eff.org>
References:
Subject: Re: Academic Privacy Question
On Sat, 7 Sep 91 21:30:54 -0700 Jon Gorrono said:
>> Agreed. In addition, the placement of particular groups in rec.* and
>> alt.* is arbitrary and capricious at best. And for those who think that
>> all in comp.* is "serious" or "educational" or "professional", I simply
>> invite them to browse some of the multitude on comp.* groups that
>> are frivolous at best. (That is not a suugestion that they are not
>> valuable or important, or shouldn't exist....I consider that the integration
>> of work and play is vital to our survival in many areas, not just
>> computers.)
>
>Your judgement of what is frivolous is just that: your judgement. Not all
>readers of these groups are computer professionals or libarians. There
>may be a very direct application of such groups to the work of, say,
>sociologists or others. Why should we be the judge of what constitutes
>play and what constitutes work for others?
>
Exactly my point, Jon! We agree completely! Maybe I didn't state that
too clearly. Everything in every group is valuable. Just because some
person doesn't like what is in "alt.*" or "soc.*" doesn't make it bad,
useless, garbage, or anything else. I am well aware that stuff that many
would throw out of libraries is valuable to someone. For example, I have
given a paper at a professional conference on "The Image of Libraries and
Librarians in Contemporary Hard Core Pornographic Novels." I am now rewriting
it into hopefully-publishable form. Some may not think this is valuable
or useful or worthy of study. Their problem, not mine. Now if no one will
publish it because I do a bad job with it, that is one thing (though still
an opinion). If they don't publish it because of the subject matter, that
is another.
That is exactly my point on what is work and play. It is play, but it is also
"work" that may lead to promotion (well, not that in my case, as am full Prof
already), tenure (not yet tenured here), salary increase (yes, please!) or
something else. Sometimes I do "personal" things at work. But I am also there
well over 40 hours a week, and do lots of stuff at home that is definitely
work. (Every day and night a couple of "traveling disks" go back and forth
in my briefcase). Anyway, I am NOT one to judge what is right for ANYONE
to read. And I include stuff that I think is nonsense, such as "The Nazis
didn't really kill any Jews in the concentration camps" or "Pyramids will
make your plants grow better". BTW, if any readers want to argue about those,
I won't participate. Not that I wouldn't in some other forum. But not here.
Anyway, sorry if I didn't explain it clearly before. I would like EVERY
campus to have ALL of the newsgroups, including alt.* groups. However,
just as in library book selection, it may not be fiscally feasilbe to have
them all, just as the library can't have every book. In that case, someone
(individually or by a group) must make a decision on which to get. And I
believe that whatever decision is made will piss off somebody on one side
or another. That's ok....that's what they get paid for. But they SHOULD
have a written policy to assist in that determination. Most libraries do,
all should. Probably few computer centers do, all should.
End of lecture, at least for now.
dan
************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu
* Boise State University
* Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my
* 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them.
************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Date: 9 Sep 91 12:07:45 GMT
Message-ID: <9109091207.AA10327@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
References: <199109090141.AA03354@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Academic Privacy Question
>
>
> Anyway, sorry if I didn't explain it clearly before. I would like EVERY
> campus to have ALL of the newsgroups, including alt.* groups. However,
> just as in library book selection, it may not be fiscally feasilbe to have
> them all, just as the library can't have every book. In that case, someone
> (individually or by a group) must make a decision on which to get. And I
> believe that whatever decision is made will piss off somebody on one side
> or another. That's ok....that's what they get paid for. But they SHOULD
> have a written policy to assist in that determination. Most libraries do,
> all should. Probably few computer centers do, all should.
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> * Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu
> * Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu
> * Boise State University
> * Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my
> * 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them.
> ************************************************************************
>
It seems as if Dan and others and myself sort of seem to be reaching
the same conclusion: When I originally stated that owners/sysadmins
should have certain limited rights about newsgroup selection, I also
stated that there should be written policy about what's what. Carl
Kadie (in other articles) has asked about newsgroup deselections.
My original thesis stated that there should appropriate lead time,
before a newsgroup was actually rmgrouop'ed, in order for comment or
other action on the part of users.
I, too, would like every site to receive every group. My site
doesn't. As Dan says, it may not be economically feasible to carry
a full feed; in some cases it may not be technically possible (e.g.,
disk space limitations). And there may be other reasons. Perhaps
my comment that Usenet is not primarily educational in nature was
off-the-mark. Certainly the amount of commentary generated as a
result would seem to indicate a lot of disagreement. And I'm
not sure what a "Borkism" is, since the user of that phrase didn't
seem to define it. The connation seemed somewhat derogatory, which
is too bad, but be that as it may. My point was that strictly from
a freedom-to-inquire standpoint, Usenet doesn't seem to fit the
bill. There may be other aspects of Usenet that _do_ seem to
require a more rights-based approach. What I have been particularly
pleased with, however, is the quality of the discussion to date; I
hope it conitnues.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
DSAC-BCC -- "We Code, You Explode!"
------------------------------
From: ccjon@pollux.ucdavis.edu (Jon Gorrono)
Date: 9 Sep 91 07:38:44 GMT
Message-ID: <9109092138.AA11892@pollux.ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Academic Privacy Question
> On Sat, 7 Sep 91 21:30:54 -0700 Jon Gorrono said:
> >> Agreed. In addition, the placement of particular groups in rec.* and
> >> alt.* is arbitrary and capricious at best. And for those who think that
> >> all in comp.* is "serious" or "educational" or "professional", I simply
> >> invite them to browse some of the multitude on comp.* groups that
> >> are frivolous at best. (That is not a suugestion that they are not
> >> valuable or important, or shouldn't exist....I consider that the integration
> >> of work and play is vital to our survival in many areas, not just
> >> computers.)
> >
> >Your judgement of what is frivolous is just that: your judgement. Not all
> >readers of these groups are computer professionals or libarians. There
> >may be a very direct application of such groups to the work of, say,
> >sociologists or others. Why should we be the judge of what constitutes
> >play and what constitutes work for others?
> >
> Exactly my point, Jon! We agree completely! Maybe I didn't state that
[Lots of good stuff deleted- ;-) ]
> or another. That's ok....that's what they get paid for. But they SHOULD
> have a written policy to assist in that determination. Most libraries do,
> all should. Probably few computer centers do, all should.
>
> End of lecture, at least for now.
>
> dan
>
Here, here!
I hope I will be forgiven for taking up valuable bandwidth by cheerleading; but,
you are right: we do agree completely. Sorry about the misunderstanding, but
it was enlightening...
Jon Gorrono
Senior Microcomputer Consultant
Computing Services
University of California, Davis
(916)752-5950
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet jpgorrono@ucdavis.edu or ccjon@pollux.ucdavis.edu
BITNET jpgorrono@ucdavis
UUCP ucdavis!jpgorrono or
ucdavis!pollux!ccjon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Date: 9 Sep 91 03:31:08 GMT
Message-ID: <199109090239.AA04619@eff.org>
References:
Subject: Restricting access to newsgroups (was: Re: Academic Privacy
On Sun, 8 Sep 1991 11:58 EDT Sanjay Kapur said:
>>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
>>(Most) libraries restrict access to Playboy, not because it contains
>>pictures of nude women, but because experience has shown that it is
>>likely to get stolen.
>
>Do you really believe that?
He should. It's true. Another library I worked in had Playboy on
color microfilm, at the request of Home Economics (yes, really...because of
the fashion stuff, for both historical and current interest). We found
that the color film was getting mutilated by people clipping out the
nude frames. Presumably some dorms or frats were having some GREAT slide
shows at their parties.
>My opinion of the reason cited by you for restricting access to Playboy is:
>Hogwash. Librarians, like all other human beings lie when asked difficult
>questions. That does not mean you have to believe their lies.
So may some systems analysts or others. But the above is NOT a lie, nor
is the following.
>The replacement cost of Playboy is low comapared to some scientific journals,
>copies of which get stolen on a regular basis. These journals are NOT
>kept behind the counter. Why can't the library have get two subscriptions to
>Playboy? one to keep behind the counter and one to keep on the shelf if
For the same reason the library can't get two subscriptions to any ohter
journals. And that is why we get sports illustrated and others on microfilm.
Because the originals are beat to hell before three months are past, when
it is time to bind them. And the bound ones get mutilated too.
And, most librarians hate microfilm even more than the users do, as they
have to hassle with the equipment day and nite.
>interest in this magazine is high enough for it get stolen. Libraries often
>get more than one copy of an item in which interest is high.
Most libraries duplicate a few books (I am speaking of university
libraries, not public ones), but almost NO journals. There are too many
other journals that people want and we can't afford the first subscription.
In the library cited below (where I work) we put ANY material on reserve that
has disappeared (or been mutilated seriously) more than twice. In other
words, a replacement goes back to the stacks. The second replacement goes
on permanent reserve. This has included some wonderful art books (and not
all "dirty" stuff...assume some were cut to shreds to decorate rooms or
apartments), the Anarchist's Cookbook, and some heavily assigned history
and business books. And some education and PE books too. And, yes, some
that have pictures of naked people in them.
dan
************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu
* Boise State University
* Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my
* 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them.
************************************************************************
------------------------------
End of caf-talk Digest
******************************
From helen Fri Sep 13 08:36:44 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA17736
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 13 Sep 1991 08:12:57 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
From: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 08:12:55 -0400
Message-Id: <199109131212.AA17731@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Wed, 11 Sep 91 Volume 1 : Issue 12
Today's Topics:
censorship (3 msgs)
Selection Policy for Computer Conferences? (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: rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u)
Date: 10 Sep 91 17:19:57 GMT
Message-ID: <9109110119.AA08779@unix4>
Subject: censorship
hello,
i'm new to this list and looking for some information.
i'm interested in the issue of censorsip on the computer networks
in the university systems.
are there any particular jurisdictions?
do students have the right to privacy?
if anyone has any information on this i would love to hear it.
any help will be appreciated.
ruby
rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca
------------------------------
From: ffdkl@acad3.alaska.edu (LaSota Daniel K)
Date: 10 Sep 91 09:16:05 GMT
Message-ID: <10SEP91181605@acad3.alaska.edu>
References: <9109110119.AA08779@unix4>
Subject: censorship
In article <9109110119.AA08779@unix4>, rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u) writes...
>
>hello,
>i'm new to this list and looking for some information.
>i'm interested in the issue of censorsip on the computer networks
>in the university systems.
>are there any particular jurisdictions?
>do students have the right to privacy?
>if anyone has any information on this i would love to hear it.
>any help will be appreciated.
>
>ruby
>rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca
Following this idea I'd like to know what protections one has from
the eavesdropping of e-mail.
Its not a tough job to grab someone's packets off the net and read them.
But having something available does not make it ethical or legal.
Have there been any test cases involving electronic privacy?
I bet there have!
Can someone shed some light on this?
Ant Man!
Dan LaSota
ffdkl@acad3.alaska.edu
------------------------------
From: rramji4@mamut.wlu.ca (ruby ramji u)
Date: 11 Sep 91 04:07:40 GMT
Message-ID: <9109110407.AA14455@unix4>
Subject: censorship
are there any journal articles or books dealing with
censorship and right to privacy on a computer system?
ruby
rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca
------------------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Date: 10 Sep 91 20:57:07 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep10.205707.28847@ms.uky.edu>
References: <199109061901.AA15465@eff.org>
Subject: Selection Policy for Computer Conferences?
In article <199109061901.AA15465@eff.org> ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>Below the sig block are some comments on this memo. dan
>
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>rom: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
>>Subject: Wanted selection policy for NetNews
>
>>We need advice from librarians to stop censorship of a new computer
>>medium.
>
>>Selection. If a computer site cannot afford to subscribe to all the
>>Netnews newsgroups (there are thousands of newsgroups and each
>>requires some amount of disk space), how should it select which
>>newsgroups to get?
>
>>Last week a computer administer at the University of Kentucky stated
>>that his machine would be avoiding a popular newsgroups dealing with
>>sex because he feared it was too controversial. In Canada, the
Where was this originally posted? I didn't see the full posting in
any groups to which I subscribe. If I'm going to be classed as a
censor, I'd certainly appreciate an opportunity to defend my opinions
and/or actions.
Did Carl mention in his original posting that he agreed that, based on
the legal precedent he himself cited, sysadmins have the authority to
treat Usenet as a "limited public forum", determining which newsgroups
will or will not be carried?
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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Date: 10 Sep 91 21:25:23 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep10.212523.3734@ms.uky.edu>
References: <9109061947.AA00162@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> <1991Sep6.212005.20119@eff.org>
Subject: Selection Policy for Computer Conferences?
In article <1991Sep6.212005.20119@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>I concede that public universities *can* legally create a limited
>public forum (Netnews) that is restricted to a set of topics (only
>some newsgroups are carried).
>
Thank you. This is the summation of the entire "carry alt.sex?" discussion
in which Carl and I were primary debators.
>But what if a university first selects rec.humor.funny and later bans
>(or deselects) it because some people find some of the jokes
>offensive? I would call that censorship.
I would call it a different topic! The entire "limited public forum"
discussion was limited to INITIAL NEWSGROUP OFFERINGS. However, Carl
saw fit to use our discussion to classify me as a example of potential
censorship in his posting to PACS-L. He did not mention to PACS-L that
he acknowledges the right of a system administrator to select newsgroups
for a particular site. Why not?
Could it be that Carl says whatever his target audience wishes to hear?
In his posting to PACS-L, Carl writes:
>If you are interested how library policy should apply to new media
>(and especially if you might be able to offer advice) please join the
>Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) mailing list or newsgroup.
>
>These are the formative years for computer media policy. It
>is very important that we formulate a good policy.
It's also important that those individuals who are supposedly leading
or moderating the discussion (CAF-news is moderated by Carl), take care
to ensure that the FULL discussion is made available. It is almost im-
possible to "formulate a good policy" if one can't see both sides of
the discussion.
--
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
------------------------------
End of caf-talk Digest
******************************
From helen Fri Sep 13 08:43:22 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA17746
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 13 Sep 1991 08:13:08 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
From: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 08:13:04 -0400
Message-Id: <199109131213.AA17741@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Thu, 12 Sep 91 Volume 1 : Issue 13
Today's Topics:
Abstract of Computers and Academic Freedom 1.24 (2 msgs)
CAF-News Editorial Policy
censorship (3 msgs)
How to order intellectual freedom material (much for free)
Sanjay & Jim & the ECPA. (2 msgs)
Selection Policy for Computer Conferences?
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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 17:05:48 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.170548.22468@eff.org>
Subject: Abstract of Computers and Academic Freedom 1.24
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 1.24 ---
[This week we (finally) seem to get a handle on the likely legal
status of Netnews at public universities. The first note quotes a
court decision that explains and applies the Supreme Court's public
forum doctrine.<1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> Under this doctrine,
Netnews and email (but not necessarily the computer as a whole) seem
to be "limited-public forums". The second note points out that under
this analysis sys admins legally *can* select which Netnews newsgroups
their site will acquire.<1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu> The third
says that Netnews newsgroups *should* be selected much the way that
librarians select material. Also it includes a discussion of whether
Netnews should be considered a single forum and a collection of many
forums.<1991Aug30.131213.24391@ms.uky.edu>
The next six notes concern a site's responsibility for the content of
Netnews. The first note explains why a sys admin may not want to carry
a controversial newsgroup such as alt.sex. The reasons include fear of
criticism (and lawsuits) and fear of obscenity and pantering
laws.<1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu> The next note suggests that
alt.sex has a valid purpose, namely to "provide an open (unmoderated)
forum to express views and questions about
sex". The third note argues that
while obscenity and pantering laws do exist, they are not as broad as
some may imagine. Also, it reports that the American Library
Association fights official access restrictions based on
age.<1991Aug26.165422.18472@eff.org>
The fourth note, quoting a law book, argues that a public university's
sponsorship of a student publication does not makes it the "unfettered
master" of content.<1991Aug29.162832.11923@eff.org> The fifth note,
quoting the same law book, says that public schools can not legally
withdraw sponsorship of student publications "simply because of
displeasure with the content."<1991Aug26.190318.20989@eff.org> The
sixth note tries to answer the question of how public schools should
address their concerns about libel and obscenity in student
publications. Quoting from the same book, the note says that prior
restraints are generally forbidden, but "[s]tudents can be punished
and publications confiscated if the material distributed ... is
libelous or obscene ..."<1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
The last two notes are about due process and the a sys admin's need
for flexibility. The first note quotes a (different) law book that
reports that due process requirements have not "turned classrooms and
schools into courtrooms". It also explains that some due process is
legally required unless the matter is trivial (or there is an
emergency).<1991Aug26.192951.21811@eff.org> At some schools, a student
will be suspended from the computer anytime the computer
administration wants the student to meet with them. In the last note,
a sys admin says such suspensions should not be used until reasonable
attempts to set up a meeting have failed. The note also gives examples
of when a sys admin needs
flexibility.<1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- Carl]
-----end abstract 1.24----
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.
------------------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 20:42:20 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.204220.27500@eff.org>
References: <1991Sep11.170548.22468@eff.org>
Subject: Abstract of Computers and Academic Freedom 1.24
I forgot to say that this is for the week of Aug 26 to Sept 1. (I'm
behind.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 22:03:54 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.220354.29371@eff.org>
Subject: CAF-News Editorial Policy
This note tries to answer the questions that I am asked from time to
time.
I am asked:
How are articles selected for CAF-news?
Is CAF-news biased? (yes!)
What are you doing to minimize the problems caused by
the lag time between CAF-talk and CAF-news?
Why are you usually the largest contributor to CAF-news?
------
Here is kind of how I select articles for CAF-news:
(in alphabetical order)
Important - If someone wants to understand Computers and Academic
Freedom, he or she should not be required to read all the notes
of caf-talk. Reading CAF-news (starting with the monthlies) should
suffice. We are selecting for posterity.
Interesting - Reports of real cases add drama and remind everyone that
computer policy effects people.
Irredundant -- Often a later article will do a good job at summarize an
earlier article. In such cases, I don't selected the earlier article.
On topic - A while back, there was a big discussion about the philosophy
of the Constitution. It was interesting, but had little to do with
computers and academic freedom. I didn't include any notes on this
topic.
Short - I don't have any problem with long notes, but I want only between
6 and 12 notes per week. Cutting down to so few notes is very difficult,
but it is the most important function of caf-news.
Representative - The reader should have confidence that major
aspects of the issues have been brought out.
-----
This is my philosophy on bias in editing
I do not believe that an editor (or writer) can be unbiased. Editing
CAF-news involves selecting the "best" set of notes of the week. The
choice of the best notes is inherently subjective; it depends on my
bias.
Although CAF-news is biased by its editor, I have taken steps to
insure fairness.
1. The flyer from CAF discloses the nature of CAF-news
"comp-academic-freedom-news
- about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
notes of the week. (I play the editor for this one)"
2. CAF-talk is an open forum
3. I make no comments in the body of notes (ala Telecom-digest)
4. I post my abstract of CAF-news in CAF-talk
5. I claim no monopoly on selection notes from CAF-talk. Anyone
can create a competing digest. Although, I won't distribute the
CAF-news mailing list, I will carry advertisements for a competing
digest in CAF-news. Also the listserv software is available via
anonymous FTP.
-----
Notes on slow CAF-newses (sp?)
Ideally, CAF-news would come out on Sunday or Monday, just a day or
two after the close of the week. This ideal is seldom met. Issue 1.23
was almost a week "late".
Sometimes important notes get posted to CAF-talk between the CAF-news
deadline and its publication. When people notice that CAF-news is
doesn't include these notes, they fear that the editor is excluding
good notes.
I think this fear can be put to rest by
1) posting the CAF-newses date along with its abstract in CAF-talk
2) Adding something like "This discussion is continuing in CAF-talk,
expect important notes on this topic in the next issue" to the
abstract.
--------
Possible reasons why I'm often the largest contributor to CAF-news
(all of which may be true to some degree):
I'm the largest contributor CAF-talk
Many of my posts are informative posts from books
I start many of the new discussions
Some of my posts are anonymous posts from others
My posts really are among the best
I just think my posts are among the best.
---
Carl M. Kadie
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Date: 11 Sep 91 11:37:00 GMT
Message-ID: <92EC79568E81427D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: censorship
>From: ruby ramji u
>hello,
>i'm new to this list and looking for some information.
Welcome
>i'm interested in the issue of censorsip on the computer networks
>in the university systems.
>are there any particular jurisdictions?
There are several legal jursidictions, the federal jurisdiction derived from
the ECPA and other laws. State jurisdictions from various state laws and
University jursidictions also from vaarious state laws and University
policies, rules and regulations.
>do students have the right to privacy?
Some people say they do, some people say they do not. The right is not well
estabilished (yet). At this point in time, it is not "safe" for a student to
assume such a right by default.
>if anyone has any information on this i would love to hear it.
>any help will be appreciated.
>
Look in the directory academic in the eff.org archives which are accessiblie
by anonymous ftp to eff.org.
>ruby
>rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca
>
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: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Date: 11 Sep 91 11:50:00 GMT
Message-ID: <94B10ABABE81427D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: censorship
>
>Following this idea I'd like to know what protections one has from
>the eavesdropping of e-mail.
>
>Its not a tough job to grab someone's packets off the net and read them.
>But having something available does not make it ethical or legal.
>Have there been any test cases involving electronic privacy?
>I bet there have!
>Can someone shed some light on this?
>
>Ant Man!
>Dan LaSota
>ffdkl@acad3.alaska.edu
This question was (hotly) debated and argued by me over the past two weeks in
this list.
The upshot of the discussion was (in my opinion), it is legal and ethical for
someone to read someones mail only under three limited circumstances and then
only by the persons directly involved in maintaining the system/network:
1) When reading such mail is required in solving a real problem on the system.
2) When reading such mail is required to maintain the quality of service.
3) When reading such mail is required to protect the propery of the owner of
the mail service provider.
It is in general illegal for such a person to disclose such information to
anyone else, except as provided for in the ECPA.
Browsing for the sake of curiosity or for the sake of browsing is illegal and
unethical.
A court order is generally the only other way someone should be able to access
your files.
There was general agreement on 1) but not everyone agreed on 2) and 3)
although they are permitted by the ECPA. You can read the relevant portions
of the ECPA by obtaining it from the eff.org archives in the academic
directory by anonymous ftp.
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: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Date: 11 Sep 91 18:05:52 GMT
Message-ID: <199109111708.AA22616@eff.org>
References:
Subject: censorship
On Wed, 11 Sep 91 00:07:40 EDT ruby ramji u said:
>
>are there any journal articles or books dealing with
>censorship and right to privacy on a computer system?
>
Yes.
You might wish to visit your local library, or dialup or telnet to the
library's catalog, to look some things up.
Hopefully your library also has one of the several print or cdrom
indexes to computer journals and related literature.
Happy researching.
dan
************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu
* Boise State University
* Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my
* 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them.
************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 19:15:09 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.191509.25587@eff.org>
Subject: How to order intellectual freedom material (much for free)
Send your order to
Office of Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, IL 61611
Don't forget to include your shipping address.
[Here are selected items from their price list:
You'll get a full price list with any order. I disclaim responsiblity
for typos - Carl]
------------------
ALA Policies on Intellectual Freedom
(single copy free *except where noted*)
#8389-5163 _____ Library Bill of Rights
Interpretations of the LIBRARY BILL of RIGHTS
8389-6083-9 ____ Challenged Materials
8389-6552-0 ____ Diversity in Collection Development
8389-5419-7 ____ Expurgation of Library Materials
8389-7549-6 ____ Free Access to Libraries for Minors
8389-7553-2 ____ Regulations, Policies, and Procedures Affecting
Access to Library Resources and Services
8389-7552-6 ____ Restricted Access to Library Materials
8389-5226-7 ____ Statement on Labeling
8389-7494-5 ____ The Universal Right to Free Expression
Statements and Polices
8389-6487-7 ____ Dealing with Concerns About Library Resources
(procedural statement)
8389-5161-9 ____ Freedom to Read Statement (single copy $0.25)
8389-5357-3 ____ Intellectual Freedom Statement (single copy $0.25)
8389-7554-2 ____ Policy Concerning Confidentiality of Personally
Identifiable Information About Library Users
8389-6082-0 ____ Policy on Confidentiality of Library Records and
Suggested Procedures for Implementation
8389-6311-0 ____ Statement on Professional Ethics, 1981
9000-0416-9 ____ Newsletter on Intelletucal Freedom subscription brochure
Mongraphs
9000-0000-0 ____ Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for
Schools ($12.95)
9000-3283-5 ____ Intellectual Freedom Manual, 3rd ed. ($17.50)
Special Items
8389-6445-1 ____ Workbook for Selection Policy Writing ($2.00)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
From: rrezaian@austral.chi.il.us (Russell Rezaian)
Date: 10 Sep 91 20:56:28 GMT
Message-ID: <9109102056.AA02191@austral.chi.il.us>
Subject: Sanjay & Jim & the ECPA.
It is interesting to note the argument that is taking place here. Both
parties seem to be arguing that a) Privacy is a good thing b) your data on
any computer you use should be protected c) there is currently some threat
to privacy.
I don't see anything that would contradict these statements. Statement a
is a value judgement that I feel is based upon ideals central to modern
society, note I am not limiting this to western society, but to modern
society in general. Some people might object to that, I believe it is
defensible.
b) flows logically from a) and the use of computers onthe part of some
person somewhere. No real room for disagreement here.
c) is again not something that can be realistically denied, nor does it
seem that anyoen is denying it.
So where is the argument that has had these two people, and several others,
going for weeks now? I have watched you argue back and forth and as near
as I can tell the REAL argument goes something like this:
Jim: Privacy is a good thing. Privacy extends to information on
computers. There are people who violate privacy in the context of
computers. This is, and should be, outlawed. The ECPA protects me, even
though it is a poorly worded, vague, law. Even where the ECPA doesn't
protect me, morality does.
Sanjay: Privacy is a good thing. Privacy should extend to information on
computers. Privacy sometimes is violated on computers. Some of this
violation may occur for legitimate reasons. Much violation occurs that
does not have any legitimate reason. The ECPA does not adequatly protect
against this. Law, in fact, cannot adequatly protect against this.
Therefore it is the responsibility of the individual to protect their own
privacy in any way they can, regarless of assurance of external protection.
Furthermore, since privcay cannot be assured by external institutions, the
user is the primary agent for protection of privacy.
Jim seems to me to be expecting the law to protect his privacy. Sanjay
seems to be trying to tell him it won't, and can't. Jim seems to be
thinking that Sanjay is saying that privacy is indefensible.
Now I ask the participants to please forgive me if I have mis-stated your
positions. These statements reflect my own interpretations of what you
have been saying, they may be flawed.
Now my own contribution: Expecting the law to protect privacy is naive.
Expecting any data stored in a place that is accessed and maintained by
other people to be private is naive. Therfore it is essential to take
whatever reasonable precautions one can on one's own to protect one's own
privacy. If this means encrypting your data, fine, if this means limiting
your use of a system to avoid having anything critical disclosed then fine.
If this means lobbying in any way possible to install legal safeguards for
aspects of your privacy to act as a deterrant (note, the law cannot
protect, it can only deter) to violators of privacy, then good. For all
intents and purposes, however, if you need privacy, the ony way to come
close is to get your own machine.
I look forward to discussion of any points I have made here. I apologize if
I have not been adequatly clear in nay of my assertions, and request
pointers on areas that might need further clarification.
P.S. austral is my own machine. Even here I do not feel I have adequate
legal safeguards for my privacy.
--
Russell Rezaian | rrezaian@austral.chi.il.us
rrezaian@amiganet.chi.il.us | Russell Rezaian via Fido 1:115/918
------------------------------
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Date: 11 Sep 91 18:12:04 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.181204.2860@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <9109102056.AA02191@austral.chi.il.us>
Subject: Sanjay & Jim & the ECPA.
In article <9109102056.AA02191@austral.chi.il.us> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>
>
>Jim seems to me to be expecting the law to protect his privacy. Sanjay
>seems to be trying to tell him it won't, and can't. Jim seems to be
>thinking that Sanjay is saying that privacy is indefensible.
>
>Now I ask the participants to please forgive me if I have mis-stated your
>positions. These statements reflect my own interpretations of what you
>have been saying, they may be flawed.
>
>Now my own contribution: Expecting the law to protect privacy is naive.
>Expecting any data stored in a place that is accessed and maintained by
>other people to be private is naive. Therfore it is essential to take
>whatever reasonable precautions one can on one's own to protect one's own
>privacy. If this means encrypting your data, fine, if this means limiting
>
1. Yes, you have misrepresented my position as well as the crux of the
debate.
2. You attribute to me a position that I do not hold nor have ever defended
and explicitly addressed in previous posts, then you call that attributed
position "naive"
3) The best way for newcomers to become flame targets is to do some
combination of a) and b). You have done both, which I suspect are the
consequence of your failure to read, or to understand, the posts to
which you respond.
Sanjay, I, and most others, agree that privacy is crucial. One of the
several points of disagreement was on the extent to which laws/policies
should be enacted to curtail snooping and the effectiveness of such
laws.
I have *never* said that "I expect law to protect me." I have enough
trouble keeping what thoughts I do have coherent without defending
fabrications imputed by others.
I would also suggest that if you want to re-start arguments that have
been resolved amicably, you get them straight before insulting people
Jim Thomas
------------------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 17:58:08 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.175808.23857@eff.org>
References: <9109061947.AA00162@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> <1991Sep6.212005.20119@eff.org> <1991Sep10.212523.3734@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Selection Policy for Computer Conferences?
Enclosed is the article I sent to PACS-L. My intention was to get some
librarians to join our discussion. (This seems to have worked.)
In the note, I refer to newsgroup selection based on fear of
controversy as "censorship". I didn't mean to indicate that I thought
such a selection criteria was illegal.
- Carl
========================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Path: eff!world!uunet!wupost!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!UHUPVM1.BITNET!LIBPACS
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1991 16:41:21 CDT
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
Subject: Selection Policy for Computer Conferences?
Please respond to CAF-TALK@EFF.ORG, not PACS-L. --Charles
We need advice from librarians to stop censorship of a new computer
medium.
Some background information:
Netnews (aka Usenet, aka newsgroups) is a computer medium for group
discussions over networks. It's content is about the same as that of
mailing lists. (In fact some Netnews newsgroups are available via
mailing lists.)
The difference between a newsgroup and a mailing list is distribution.
Mailing lists are sent to individuals; newsgroups are sent to computer
sites. Mailing lists thus have the advantage of being able to reach
anyone with an email account. Netnews requires special software on
every participant's computer. This software is generally available on
Unix machines, but is not generally available on, for example, IBM
mainframes.
The main advantage of Netnews is cost. Because everyone on a given
computer shares the same copy of a Netnews article storage and
transmission costs are very low. This means that sites can afford to
subscribe to many newsgroups. Casual participates can, thus, easily
follow or browse many topics.
The Problem:
Selection. If a computer site cannot afford to subscribe to all the
Netnews newsgroups (there are thousands of newsgroups and each
requires some amount of disk space), how should it select which
newsgroups to get?
Last week a computer administer at the University of Kentucky stated
that his machine would be avoiding a popular newsgroups dealing with
sex because he feared it was too controversial. In Canada, the
University of Waterloo bans a humor newsgroup because some of the joke
sometimes offend some people. (The jokes from the newsgroup are
published once a year in book form. Ironically, the University of
Waterloo's library collects the books.).
I think a computer with Netnews *is* (in part) a library and should
follow proper library selection (and deselection) policy. (Stanford
fought a ban of the humor newsgroup by making this their official
policy.) As a computer scientist, however, I don't have a good
understanding of the details of selection.
If you are interested how library policy should apply to new media
(and especially if you might be able to offer advice) please join the
Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) mailing list or newsgroup.
These are the formative years for computer media policy. It
is very important that we formulate a good policy.
I've enclosing the flyer for CAF. If you know anyone who might be
interested in these issues, please forward this note to him or her.
- Carl, co-moderator of Computers and Academic Freedom
------------
Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List
Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles
of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,
due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and
networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the
principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be
defended?
Mitch Kapor has given the discussion a home on the eff.org machine.
As of July, 1991, the list has 283 members in at least five countries.
Thousands more read the list via newsgroups.
There are three versions of the mailing list.
comp-academic-freedom-talk
- you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day.
comp-academic-freedom-batch
- about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes.
comp-academic-freedom-news
- about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
notes of the week. (I play the editor for this one).
To join a version of the list, send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line "add ". (Other commands are "delete
" and "help").
In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the list
by addressing it to caf-talk@eff.org.
Alternatively, if you may be able to read the mailing lists as newsgroups.
Look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
The best notes from each month are available via anonymous ftp from
eff.org as files "pub/academic/news/July", etc. Also, see file
"pub/academic/README".
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
End of caf-talk Digest
******************************
From helen Fri Sep 13 08:50:22 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA18129
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 13 Sep 1991 08:25:42 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
From: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 08:25:40 -0400
Message-Id: <199109131225.AA18124@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
caf-talk Digest Fri, 13 Aug 91 Volume 1 : Issue 14
Today's Topics:
Academic Privacy Question
What is a library?
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: jsaker@unomaha.edu (Jamie Saker)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 01:51:45 GMT
Message-ID:
References: <1631971F0E812E9F@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <9109091741.AA23739@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Subject: Academic Privacy Question
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>I'm using censorship is the sense of "review", i.e. examining
>material after is is produced. There are other definitions of
>censorship. The term "prior restraint" generally refers to the
>same thing (I think.)
Actually, prior restraint can mean censorship (as in the case of the
Pentagon Papers -- the newspaper in question was restrained for something
like 6 days until the U.S. Supreme Court could review the case), and it
can also include self-imposed controls, as in the case of many newspapers
during WWI (where the editors refused to print anything that may be of
use to the enemy). Not exactly "censorship" in the true meaning of the word.
>very general level. If a sysadmin were to stop this article from
>being passed on, for example, that would be censorship. The fact
>that my site does not receive alt.sex is not. I think the
>librarians are using censorship is a much more vague way; my
>impression is that anything that tend to stifle the freedom to
>inquire would be considered censorship.
What I've often thought was an interesting point in this issue is
the admission of liability upon acting as censor for any printed
materials. In the case of USENET, if a University adopts a policy
of censoring USENET news, it accepts liability for any information
that makes it past the censor and "offends" a particular audience.
Unfortunately, too many information providors (esp. USENET news providors)
adopt a policy of censoring information (either through selectively not
carrying/providing certain newsgroups, or controlling the content of the
groups) without carefully examining this legal issue.
For example, if the University of X imposes newsfeed censorship by
not carrying certain groups, say alt.sex.*, alt.drugs.*, rec.arts.erotica,
and a few other select groups determined to be of a character not
acceptable to the administration, they are accepting the role as
the guarantor of the information to their consumer.
Now, if an article containing offensive material slips by (such as
someone accidentely crossposting material from alt.sex.bondage to
comp.emacs, and a consumer takes offense at the material and sues
the information provider (University of X), since they acted as the
guarantor of the information, they most likely have accepted
responsibility and therefore are liable.
Overall, the most rational choice is to either carry the full service,
provide disclaimers (and require acceptance of the disclaimer prior to
the provision of service) or don't carry the service at all.
>Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
>DSAC-BCC -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu .
. #include .
. "No red beads until .
. The Penny Network Foundation further notice. Failure .
. P.O. Box 138 to comply will result in .
. Blair, NE 68008-0138 immediate termination." .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 18:56:27 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep12.185627.26936@eff.org>
Subject: What is a library?
I advocate treating newsgroup selection like selection at a library.
But is Netnews only like a library, or is it a library? The answer to
this question is more than academic. Some states such as Michigan
exempt libraries from their antipandering laws.
So what is a library?
Here is my favorite definition:
(From Indiana state law) "'Library' means a collection of a variety of
books or other printed matter, audiovisual materials or other items in
which knowledge is recorded; kept in a centralized place; for which a
person who as knowledge of the materials, their arrangement, their use
and of library skills is responsible; and which are for the use of
individuals or groups in meeting their recreational, informational,
educational, research or cultural needs."
Here are some others:
The best definition in the OED II is:
"a public institution or establishment, charged with the care of a
collection of books, and the duty of rendering the books accessible to
those who require to use them."
I called the American Library Association, but the folks I talked to
did know of an official definition. They did, however, suggest looking
in the book _American Library Laws_ (5th edition) for legal
definitions. From the book I learned that most states do not define
the term. Here are definitions from the states that do:
California: "'School library' means an organized collection of printed
and audiovisual materials which (a) is administered as a unit, (b) is
located in a designed place, and (c) makes printed, audiovisual, and
other materials as well as necessary equipment and services of a staff
accessible to elementary and secondary school students and teachers."
"'Academic library' means a library established and maintained by a
college or university to meet the needs of its students and faculty,
and others by agreement."
Maine: "'Media center' means any library utilizing print as well as
extensive nonprint resources and materials."
Pennsylvania: "'Local Library.' Any free, public, nonsectrian library,
whether established and maintained by a municipality or by a private
association, corporation or group, which serves the informational,
educational and recreational needs of all the residents of the area
for which its governing body is responsible, by providing free access
(including free lending and reference services) to an organized and
currently useful collection of printed items and other materials and
to the services of staff trained to recognized and provide for these
needs."
South Dakota: "'Public library materials,' the various forms in which
knowledge, information, and humanity's cultural heritage
are recorded that a public library might acquire, organized and
make available to its clientele;"
Washington State: "'Resources' are library materials which include but
are not limited to print, nonprint (e.g., audiovisual, realia, etc.),
and microform formats; network resources such as software, hardware,
and equipment; electronic and magnetic records; data bases;
communication technology; facilities; and human expertise."
[According to the OED II, "realia" are " Objects which may be used as
teaching aids but were not made for the purpose."]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
End of caf-talk Digest
******************************
From kadie Thu Sep 26 13:50:13 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Sep 26 13:48:13 EDT 1991 (part 1)
In this issue:
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: censorship
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: censorship
rrezaian@austral.c : Re: Sanjay & Jim & the ECPA.
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of Computers and Academic Freedom 1.24
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : re: censorship
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Selection Policy for Computer
tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu. : Re: Sanjay & Jim & the ECPA.
kadie@eff.org (Car : How to order intellectual freedom material (much for free
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Abstract of Computers and Academic Freedom 1.24
kadie@eff.org (Car : CAF-News Editorial Policy
kadie@eff.org (Car : What is a
jsaker@unomaha.edu : Re: Academic Privacy Question
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.25
nstar!bluemoon!sbr : Re: Academic Privacy Question
d9bertil@dtek.chal : Re: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.2
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: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: censorship
Message-ID: <92EC79568E81427D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 11 Sep 91 11:37:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>From: ruby ramji u
>hello,
>i'm new to this list and looking for some information.
Welcome
>i'm interested in the issue of censorsip on the computer networks
>in the university systems.
>are there any particular jurisdictions?
There are several legal jursidictions, the federal jurisdiction derived from
the ECPA and other laws. State jurisdictions from various state laws and
University jursidictions also from vaarious state laws and University
policies, rules and regulations.
>do students have the right to privacy?
Some people say they do, some people say they do not. The right is not well
estabilished (yet). At this point in time, it is not "safe" for a student to
assume such a right by default.
>if anyone has any information on this i would love to hear it.
>any help will be appreciated.
>
Look in the directory academic in the eff.org archives which are accessiblie
by anonymous ftp to eff.org.
>ruby
>rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca
>
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: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: censorship
Message-ID: <94B10ABABE81427D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 11 Sep 91 11:50:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>
>Following this idea I'd like to know what protections one has from
>the eavesdropping of e-mail.
>
>Its not a tough job to grab someone's packets off the net and read them.
>But having something available does not make it ethical or legal.
>Have there been any test cases involving electronic privacy?
>I bet there have!
>Can someone shed some light on this?
>
>Ant Man!
>Dan LaSota
>ffdkl@acad3.alaska.edu
This question was (hotly) debated and argued by me over the past two weeks in
this list.
The upshot of the discussion was (in my opinion), it is legal and ethical for
someone to read someones mail only under three limited circumstances and then
only by the persons directly involved in maintaining the system/network:
1) When reading such mail is required in solving a real problem on the system.
2) When reading such mail is required to maintain the quality of service.
3) When reading such mail is required to protect the propery of the owner of
the mail service provider.
It is in general illegal for such a person to disclose such information to
anyone else, except as provided for in the ECPA.
Browsing for the sake of curiosity or for the sake of browsing is illegal and
unethical.
A court order is generally the only other way someone should be able to access
your files.
There was general agreement on 1) but not everyone agreed on 2) and 3)
although they are permitted by the ECPA. You can read the relevant portions
of the ECPA by obtaining it from the eff.org archives in the academic
directory by anonymous ftp.
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: rrezaian@austral.chi.il.us (Russell Rezaian)
Subject: Re: Sanjay & Jim & the ECPA.
Message-ID: <9109102056.AA02191@austral.chi.il.us>
From: clout!austral!rrezaian@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Date: 10 Sep 91 20:56:28 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
It is interesting to note the argument that is taking place here. Both
parties seem to be arguing that a) Privacy is a good thing b) your data on
any computer you use should be protected c) there is currently some threat
to privacy.
I don't see anything that would contradict these statements. Statement a
is a value judgement that I feel is based upon ideals central to modern
society, note I am not limiting this to western society, but to modern
society in general. Some people might object to that, I believe it is
defensible.
b) flows logically from a) and the use of computers onthe part of some
person somewhere. No real room for disagreement here.
c) is again not something that can be realistically denied, nor does it
seem that anyoen is denying it.
So where is the argument that has had these two people, and several others,
going for weeks now? I have watched you argue back and forth and as near
as I can tell the REAL argument goes something like this:
Jim: Privacy is a good thing. Privacy extends to information on
computers. There are people who violate privacy in the context of
computers. This is, and should be, outlawed. The ECPA protects me, even
though it is a poorly worded, vague, law. Even where the ECPA doesn't
protect me, morality does.
Sanjay: Privacy is a good thing. Privacy should extend to information on
computers. Privacy sometimes is violated on computers. Some of this
violation may occur for legitimate reasons. Much violation occurs that
does not have any legitimate reason. The ECPA does not adequatly protect
against this. Law, in fact, cannot adequatly protect against this.
Therefore it is the responsibility of the individual to protect their own
privacy in any way they can, regarless of assurance of external protection.
Furthermore, since privcay cannot be assured by external institutions, the
user is the primary agent for protection of privacy.
Jim seems to me to be expecting the law to protect his privacy. Sanjay
seems to be trying to tell him it won't, and can't. Jim seems to be
thinking that Sanjay is saying that privacy is indefensible.
Now I ask the participants to please forgive me if I have mis-stated your
positions. These statements reflect my own interpretations of what you
have been saying, they may be flawed.
Now my own contribution: Expecting the law to protect privacy is naive.
Expecting any data stored in a place that is accessed and maintained by
other people to be private is naive. Therfore it is essential to take
whatever reasonable precautions one can on one's own to protect one's own
privacy. If this means encrypting your data, fine, if this means limiting
your use of a system to avoid having anything critical disclosed then fine.
If this means lobbying in any way possible to install legal safeguards for
aspects of your privacy to act as a deterrant (note, the law cannot
protect, it can only deter) to violators of privacy, then good. For all
intents and purposes, however, if you need privacy, the ony way to come
close is to get your own machine.
I look forward to discussion of any points I have made here. I apologize if
I have not been adequatly clear in nay of my assertions, and request
pointers on areas that might need further clarification.
P.S. austral is my own machine. Even here I do not feel I have adequate
legal safeguards for my privacy.
--
Russell Rezaian | rrezaian@austral.chi.il.us
rrezaian@amiganet.chi.il.us | Russell Rezaian via Fido 1:115/918
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:935 alt.sex:18794 alt.censorship:1447
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of Computers and Academic Freedom 1.24
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.170548.22468@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 17:05:48 GMT
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 1.24 ---
[This week we (finally) seem to get a handle on the likely legal
status of Netnews at public universities. The first note quotes a
court decision that explains and applies the Supreme Court's public
forum doctrine.<1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> Under this doctrine,
Netnews and email (but not necessarily the computer as a whole) seem
to be "limited-public forums". The second note points out that under
this analysis sys admins legally *can* select which Netnews newsgroups
their site will acquire.<1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu> The third
says that Netnews newsgroups *should* be selected much the way that
librarians select material. Also it includes a discussion of whether
Netnews should be considered a single forum and a collection of many
forums.<1991Aug30.131213.24391@ms.uky.edu>
The next six notes concern a site's responsibility for the content of
Netnews. The first note explains why a sys admin may not want to carry
a controversial newsgroup such as alt.sex. The reasons include fear of
criticism (and lawsuits) and fear of obscenity and pantering
laws.<1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu> The next note suggests that
alt.sex has a valid purpose, namely to "provide an open (unmoderated)
forum to express views and questions about
sex". The third note argues that
while obscenity and pantering laws do exist, they are not as broad as
some may imagine. Also, it reports that the American Library
Association fights official access restrictions based on
age.<1991Aug26.165422.18472@eff.org>
The fourth note, quoting a law book, argues that a public university's
sponsorship of a student publication does not makes it the "unfettered
master" of content.<1991Aug29.162832.11923@eff.org> The fifth note,
quoting the same law book, says that public schools can not legally
withdraw sponsorship of student publications "simply because of
displeasure with the content."<1991Aug26.190318.20989@eff.org> The
sixth note tries to answer the question of how public schools should
address their concerns about libel and obscenity in student
publications. Quoting from the same book, the note says that prior
restraints are generally forbidden, but "[s]tudents can be punished
and publications confiscated if the material distributed ... is
libelous or obscene ..."<1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
The last two notes are about due process and the a sys admin's need
for flexibility. The first note quotes a (different) law book that
reports that due process requirements have not "turned classrooms and
schools into courtrooms". It also explains that some due process is
legally required unless the matter is trivial (or there is an
emergency).<1991Aug26.192951.21811@eff.org> At some schools, a student
will be suspended from the computer anytime the computer
administration wants the student to meet with them. In the last note,
a sys admin says such suspensions should not be used until reasonable
attempts to set up a meeting have failed. The note also gives examples
of when a sys admin needs
flexibility.<1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- Carl]
-----end abstract 1.24----
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.
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: re: censorship
Message-ID: <199109111708.AA22616@eff.org>
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 11 Sep 91 18:05:52 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
On Wed, 11 Sep 91 00:07:40 EDT ruby ramji u said:
>
>are there any journal articles or books dealing with
>censorship and right to privacy on a computer system?
>
Yes.
You might wish to visit your local library, or dialup or telnet to the
library's catalog, to look some things up.
Hopefully your library also has one of the several print or cdrom
indexes to computer journals and related literature.
Happy researching.
dan
************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu
* Boise State University
* Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my
* 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them.
************************************************************************
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Selection Policy for Computer Conferences?
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.175808.23857@eff.org>
References: <9109061947.AA00162@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> <1991Sep6.212005.20119@eff.org> <1991Sep10.212523.3734@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 17:58:08 GMT
Enclosed is the article I sent to PACS-L. My intention was to get some
librarians to join our discussion. (This seems to have worked.)
In the note, I refer to newsgroup selection based on fear of
controversy as "censorship". I didn't mean to indicate that I thought
such a selection criteria was illegal.
- Carl
========================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Message-ID:
Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1991 16:41:21 CDT
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
Subject: Selection Policy for Computer Conferences?
Please respond to CAF-TALK@EFF.ORG, not PACS-L. --Charles
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Wanted selection policy for NetNews
We need advice from librarians to stop censorship of a new computer
medium.
Some background information:
Netnews (aka Usenet, aka newsgroups) is a computer medium for group
discussions over networks. It's content is about the same as that of
mailing lists. (In fact some Netnews newsgroups are available via
mailing lists.)
The difference between a newsgroup and a mailing list is distribution.
Mailing lists are sent to individuals; newsgroups are sent to computer
sites. Mailing lists thus have the advantage of being able to reach
anyone with an email account. Netnews requires special software on
every participant's computer. This software is generally available on
Unix machines, but is not generally available on, for example, IBM
mainframes.
The main advantage of Netnews is cost. Because everyone on a given
computer shares the same copy of a Netnews article storage and
transmission costs are very low. This means that sites can afford to
subscribe to many newsgroups. Casual participates can, thus, easily
follow or browse many topics.
The Problem:
Selection. If a computer site cannot afford to subscribe to all the
Netnews newsgroups (there are thousands of newsgroups and each
requires some amount of disk space), how should it select which
newsgroups to get?
Last week a computer administer at the University of Kentucky stated
that his machine would be avoiding a popular newsgroups dealing with
sex because he feared it was too controversial. In Canada, the
University of Waterloo bans a humor newsgroup because some of the joke
sometimes offend some people. (The jokes from the newsgroup are
published once a year in book form. Ironically, the University of
Waterloo's library collects the books.).
I think a computer with Netnews *is* (in part) a library and should
follow proper library selection (and deselection) policy. (Stanford
fought a ban of the humor newsgroup by making this their official
policy.) As a computer scientist, however, I don't have a good
understanding of the details of selection.
If you are interested how library policy should apply to new media
(and especially if you might be able to offer advice) please join the
Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) mailing list or newsgroup.
These are the formative years for computer media policy. It
is very important that we formulate a good policy.
I've enclosing the flyer for CAF. If you know anyone who might be
interested in these issues, please forward this note to him or her.
- Carl, co-moderator of Computers and Academic Freedom
------------
Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List
Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles
of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,
due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and
networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the
principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be
defended?
Mitch Kapor has given the discussion a home on the eff.org machine.
As of July, 1991, the list has 283 members in at least five countries.
Thousands more read the list via newsgroups.
There are three versions of the mailing list.
comp-academic-freedom-talk
- you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day.
comp-academic-freedom-batch
- about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes.
comp-academic-freedom-news
- about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
notes of the week. (I play the editor for this one).
To join a version of the list, send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line "add ". (Other commands are "delete
" and "help").
In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the list
by addressing it to caf-talk@eff.org.
Alternatively, if you may be able to read the mailing lists as newsgroups.
Look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
The best notes from each month are available via anonymous ftp from
eff.org as files "pub/academic/news/July", etc. Also, see file
"pub/academic/README".
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: Sanjay & Jim & the ECPA.
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.181204.2860@mp.cs.niu.edu>
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu
References: <9109102056.AA02191@austral.chi.il.us>
Date: 11 Sep 91 18:12:04 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In article <9109102056.AA02191@austral.chi.il.us> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>
>
>Jim seems to me to be expecting the law to protect his privacy. Sanjay
>seems to be trying to tell him it won't, and can't. Jim seems to be
>thinking that Sanjay is saying that privacy is indefensible.
>
>Now I ask the participants to please forgive me if I have mis-stated your
>positions. These statements reflect my own interpretations of what you
>have been saying, they may be flawed.
>
>Now my own contribution: Expecting the law to protect privacy is naive.
>Expecting any data stored in a place that is accessed and maintained by
>other people to be private is naive. Therfore it is essential to take
>whatever reasonable precautions one can on one's own to protect one's own
>privacy. If this means encrypting your data, fine, if this means limiting
>
1. Yes, you have misrepresented my position as well as the crux of the
debate.
2. You attribute to me a position that I do not hold nor have ever defended
and explicitly addressed in previous posts, then you call that attributed
position "naive"
3) The best way for newcomers to become flame targets is to do some
combination of a) and b). You have done both, which I suspect are the
consequence of your failure to read, or to understand, the posts to
which you respond.
Sanjay, I, and most others, agree that privacy is crucial. One of the
several points of disagreement was on the extent to which laws/policies
should be enacted to curtail snooping and the effectiveness of such
laws.
I have *never* said that "I expect law to protect me." I have enough
trouble keeping what thoughts I do have coherent without defending
fabrications imputed by others.
I would also suggest that if you want to re-start arguments that have
been resolved amicably, you get them straight before insulting people
Jim Thomas
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: How to order intellectual freedom material (much for free)
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.191509.25587@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 19:15:09 GMT
Send your order to
Office of Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, IL 61611
Don't forget to include your shipping address.
[Here are selected items from their price list:
You'll get a full price list with any order. I disclaim responsiblity
for typos - Carl]
------------------
ALA Policies on Intellectual Freedom
(single copy free *except where noted*)
#8389-5163 _____ Library Bill of Rights
Interpretations of the LIBRARY BILL of RIGHTS
8389-6083-9 ____ Challenged Materials
8389-6552-0 ____ Diversity in Collection Development
8389-5419-7 ____ Expurgation of Library Materials
8389-7549-6 ____ Free Access to Libraries for Minors
8389-7553-2 ____ Regulations, Policies, and Procedures Affecting
Access to Library Resources and Services
8389-7552-6 ____ Restricted Access to Library Materials
8389-5226-7 ____ Statement on Labeling
8389-7494-5 ____ The Universal Right to Free Expression
Statements and Polices
8389-6487-7 ____ Dealing with Concerns About Library Resources
(procedural statement)
8389-5161-9 ____ Freedom to Read Statement (single copy $0.25)
8389-5357-3 ____ Intellectual Freedom Statement (single copy $0.25)
8389-7554-2 ____ Policy Concerning Confidentiality of Personally
Identifiable Information About Library Users
8389-6082-0 ____ Policy on Confidentiality of Library Records and
Suggested Procedures for Implementation
8389-6311-0 ____ Statement on Professional Ethics, 1981
9000-0416-9 ____ Newsletter on Intelletucal Freedom subscription brochure
Mongraphs
9000-0000-0 ____ Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for
Schools ($12.95)
9000-3283-5 ____ Intellectual Freedom Manual, 3rd ed. ($17.50)
Special Items
8389-6445-1 ____ Workbook for Selection Policy Writing ($2.00)
--
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:940 alt.sex:18805 alt.censorship:1448
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Abstract of Computers and Academic Freedom 1.24
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.204220.27500@eff.org>
References: <1991Sep11.170548.22468@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 20:42:20 GMT
I forgot to say that this is for the week of Aug 26 to Sept 1. (I'm
behind.)
- 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:941 alt.sex:18807 alt.censorship:1451
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: CAF-News Editorial Policy
Message-ID: <1991Sep11.220354.29371@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 22:03:54 GMT
This note tries to answer the questions that I am asked from time to
time.
I am asked:
How are articles selected for CAF-news?
Is CAF-news biased? (yes!)
What are you doing to minimize the problems caused by
the lag time between CAF-talk and CAF-news?
Why are you usually the largest contributor to CAF-news?
------
Here is kind of how I select articles for CAF-news:
(in alphabetical order)
Important - If someone wants to understand Computers and Academic
Freedom, he or she should not be required to read all the notes
of caf-talk. Reading CAF-news (starting with the monthlies) should
suffice. We are selecting for posterity.
Interesting - Reports of real cases add drama and remind everyone that
computer policy effects people.
Irredundant -- Often a later article will do a good job at summarize an
earlier article. In such cases, I don't selected the earlier article.
On topic - A while back, there was a big discussion about the philosophy
of the Constitution. It was interesting, but had little to do with
computers and academic freedom. I didn't include any notes on this
topic.
Short - I don't have any problem with long notes, but I want only between
6 and 12 notes per week. Cutting down to so few notes is very difficult,
but it is the most important function of caf-news.
Representative - The reader should have confidence that major
aspects of the issues have been brought out.
-----
This is my philosophy on bias in editing
I do not believe that an editor (or writer) can be unbiased. Editing
CAF-news involves selecting the "best" set of notes of the week. The
choice of the best notes is inherently subjective; it depends on my
bias.
Although CAF-news is biased by its editor, I have taken steps to
insure fairness.
1. The flyer from CAF discloses the nature of CAF-news
"comp-academic-freedom-news
- about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
notes of the week. (I play the editor for this one)"
2. CAF-talk is an open forum
3. I make no comments in the body of notes (ala Telecom-digest)
4. I post my abstract of CAF-news in CAF-talk
5. I claim no monopoly on selection notes from CAF-talk. Anyone
can create a competing digest. Although, I won't distribute the
CAF-news mailing list, I will carry advertisements for a competing
digest in CAF-news. Also the listserv software is available via
anonymous FTP.
-----
Notes on slow CAF-newses (sp?)
Ideally, CAF-news would come out on Sunday or Monday, just a day or
two after the close of the week. This ideal is seldom met. Issue 1.23
was almost a week "late".
Sometimes important notes get posted to CAF-talk between the CAF-news
deadline and its publication. When people notice that CAF-news is
doesn't include these notes, they fear that the editor is excluding
good notes.
I think this fear can be put to rest by
1) posting the CAF-newses date along with its abstract in CAF-talk
2) Adding something like "This discussion is continuing in CAF-talk,
expect important notes on this topic in the next issue" to the
abstract.
--------
Possible reasons why I'm often the largest contributor to CAF-news
(all of which may be true to some degree):
I'm the largest contributor CAF-talk
Many of my posts are informative posts from books
I start many of the new discussions
Some of my posts are anonymous posts from others
My posts really are among the best
I just think my posts are among the best.
---
Carl M. Kadie
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: What is a library?
Message-ID: <1991Sep12.185627.26936@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 18:56:27 GMT
I advocate treating newsgroup selection like selection at a library.
But is Netnews only like a library, or is it a library? The answer to
this question is more than academic. Some states such as Michigan
exempt libraries from their antipandering laws.
So what is a library?
Here is my favorite definition:
(From Indiana state law) "'Library' means a collection of a variety of
books or other printed matter, audiovisual materials or other items in
which knowledge is recorded; kept in a centralized place; for which a
person who as knowledge of the materials, their arrangement, their use
and of library skills is responsible; and which are for the use of
individuals or groups in meeting their recreational, informational,
educational, research or cultural needs."
Here are some others:
The best definition in the OED II is:
"a public institution or establishment, charged with the care of a
collection of books, and the duty of rendering the books accessible to
those who require to use them."
I called the American Library Association, but the folks I talked to
did know of an official definition. They did, however, suggest looking
in the book _American Library Laws_ (5th edition) for legal
definitions. From the book I learned that most states do not define
the term. Here are definitions from the states that do:
California: "'School library' means an organized collection of printed
and audiovisual materials which (a) is administered as a unit, (b) is
located in a designed place, and (c) makes printed, audiovisual, and
other materials as well as necessary equipment and services of a staff
accessible to elementary and secondary school students and teachers."
"'Academic library' means a library established and maintained by a
college or university to meet the needs of its students and faculty,
and others by agreement."
Maine: "'Media center' means any library utilizing print as well as
extensive nonprint resources and materials."
Pennsylvania: "'Local Library.' Any free, public, nonsectrian library,
whether established and maintained by a municipality or by a private
association, corporation or group, which serves the informational,
educational and recreational needs of all the residents of the area
for which its governing body is responsible, by providing free access
(including free lending and reference services) to an organized and
currently useful collection of printed items and other materials and
to the services of staff trained to recognized and provide for these
needs."
South Dakota: "'Public library materials,' the various forms in which
knowledge, information, and humanity's cultural heritage
are recorded that a public library might acquire, organized and
make available to its clientele;"
Washington State: "'Resources' are library materials which include but
are not limited to print, nonprint (e.g., audiovisual, realia, etc.),
and microform formats; network resources such as software, hardware,
and equipment; electronic and magnetic records; data bases;
communication technology; facilities; and human expertise."
[According to the OED II, "realia" are " Objects which may be used as
teaching aids but were not made for the purpose."]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: jsaker@unomaha.edu (Jamie Saker)
Subject: Re: Academic Privacy Question
Message-ID:
From: news@news.unomaha.edu (UNO Network News Server)
References: <1631971F0E812E9F@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <9109091741.AA23739@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 01:51:45 GMT
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>I'm using censorship is the sense of "review", i.e. examining
>material after is is produced. There are other definitions of
>censorship. The term "prior restraint" generally refers to the
>same thing (I think.)
Actually, prior restraint can mean censorship (as in the case of the
Pentagon Papers -- the newspaper in question was restrained for something
like 6 days until the U.S. Supreme Court could review the case), and it
can also include self-imposed controls, as in the case of many newspapers
during WWI (where the editors refused to print anything that may be of
use to the enemy). Not exactly "censorship" in the true meaning of the word.
>very general level. If a sysadmin were to stop this article from
>being passed on, for example, that would be censorship. The fact
>that my site does not receive alt.sex is not. I think the
>librarians are using censorship is a much more vague way; my
>impression is that anything that tend to stifle the freedom to
>inquire would be considered censorship.
What I've often thought was an interesting point in this issue is
the admission of liability upon acting as censor for any printed
materials. In the case of USENET, if a University adopts a policy
of censoring USENET news, it accepts liability for any information
that makes it past the censor and "offends" a particular audience.
Unfortunately, too many information providors (esp. USENET news providors)
adopt a policy of censoring information (either through selectively not
carrying/providing certain newsgroups, or controlling the content of the
groups) without carefully examining this legal issue.
For example, if the University of X imposes newsfeed censorship by
not carrying certain groups, say alt.sex.*, alt.drugs.*, rec.arts.erotica,
and a few other select groups determined to be of a character not
acceptable to the administration, they are accepting the role as
the guarantor of the information to their consumer.
Now, if an article containing offensive material slips by (such as
someone accidentely crossposting material from alt.sex.bondage to
comp.emacs, and a consumer takes offense at the material and sues
the information provider (University of X), since they acted as the
guarantor of the information, they most likely have accepted
responsibility and therefore are liable.
Overall, the most rational choice is to either carry the full service,
provide disclaimers (and require acceptance of the disclaimer prior to
the provision of service) or don't carry the service at all.
>Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
>DSAC-BCC -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu .
. #include .
. "No red beads until .
. The Penny Network Foundation further notice. Failure .
. P.O. Box 138 to comply will result in .
. Blair, NE 68008-0138 immediate termination." .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:944 comp.admin.policy:986 alt.sex:18979 alt.censorship:1495 comp.org.eff.talk:3945
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.25
Message-ID: <1991Sep14.223653.21626@eff.org>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1991 22:36:53 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-news). Information about CAF-news followings the
abstract.
--- begin abstract 1.25 ---
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of August
August 5, 1991 to September 1, 1991
The first five notes discuss freedom of expression on the net. In the
first note, a sys admin at the University to Kentucky says that one
reason that his site dropped Netnews was because his Dean received
mail complaining about the postings of several users. (He also says
that when they upgrade their hardware they may support Netnews but may
not carry the alt.sex newsgroup because minors might be able to access
it.)<1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu> In the second note a student
argues that Netnews is much like other small student publications he
has worked on (and so should be treated like other student
publications).
The third note describes the likely legal status of Netnews at public
universities. It quotes a court decision that explains and applies the
Supreme Court' Public-Forum Doctrine. Under this doctrine, Netnews and
email (but not necessarily the computer as a whole) seem to be
"limited-public forums" in which "viewpoint discrimination" is
prohibited.<1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> The fourth note, quoting a
law book, expands on this. It says that a public university's
ownership of a student publication does not given it unfettered
control of content and that "... school authorities cannot [legally]
withdraw support from a student publication simply because of
displeasure with the content."<1991Aug29.162832.11923@eff.org> The
fifth note tries to answer the question of how public schools should
address their concerns about libel and obscenity in student
publications. Quoting a law book, the note says that prior restraints
are generally forbidden, but "[s]tudents can be punished and
publications confiscated if the material distributed ... is libelous
or obscene ..."<1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
The next three notes concern the freedom to read Netnews. The first
note explains why a sys admin may not want to carry a controversial
newsgroup such as alt.sex. The reasons include fear of criticism (and
lawsuits) and fear of obscenity and pantering
laws.<1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu> The second note points out
that under the Limited-Forum Doctrine, sys admins legally *can* select
which Netnews newsgroups their site will
acquire.<1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu> The third note suggests
that sys admins should select newsgroup the way that librarians select
books and periodicals. It includes references to American Library
Association (ALA) policy documents. The note reports that the ALA
fights official access restrictions based on
age.<1991Aug26.165422.18472@eff.org>
The next note explains that although private universities do not have
Constitutional obligations to their students, they often have
legally-binding contractual obligations to provide, for example,
provide due process.<1991Aug12.145434.3380@eff.org>
The last four notes are about policy making and due process. The first
note is excerpts from a 100 page on-line document. The document
advises on site security and also makes some good suggestions about
policy making.<1991Aug7.163131.23490@eff.org> The next note, argues
that that like academic, library, and parking policy, university
computer policy should be in the main student
handbook.<1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>
The third note, quoting a book on school law, reports that due process
requirements have not "turned classrooms and schools into courtrooms".
It also explains that some due process is legally required unless the
matter is trivial (or there is an
emergency).<1991Aug26.192951.21811@eff.org> Finally, at some schools,
a student will be suspended from the computer anytime the computer
administration wants the student to meet with them. In the last note,
a sys admin says such suspensions should not be used until reasonable
attempts to set up a meeting have failed. The note also gives examples
of when a sys admin needs more flexibility than a formal policy might
allow.<1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- Carl]
--- end abstract 1.25 ---
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-news is available as newsgroup 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".
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: Academic Privacy Question
Message-ID:
From: nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
References:
Date: 15 Sep 91 16:14:47 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
nstar!iuvax!unomaha.edu!jsaker (Jamie Saker) writes:
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu .
> . #include .
> . "No red beads until .
> . The Penny Network Foundation further notice. Failure .
> . P.O. Box 138 to comply will result in .
> . Blair, NE 68008-0138 immediate termination." .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
"No-red beads?" Do(we pezhaps wqtch8the same TV
Date: 16 Sep 91 09:35:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: chalmers.4266
References: <1991Sep14.223653.21626@eff.org>
From: news@chalmers.se
In article <1991Sep14.223653.21626@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The next three notes concern the freedom to read Netnews. The first
>note explains why a sys admin may not want to carry a controversial
>newsgroup such as alt.sex.
Is there still a federal law in the US that prohibits "Transporting obscene
materials across state borders."?
How would this impact upon alt.sex.pictures?
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-bertil-
--
"Det a"r en Svensk grej. Du skulle inte fo"rsta^..."
-------------------
