From kadie Thu Oct 3 14:01:53 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Oct 3 14:01:00 EDT 1991
In this issue:
C KELLER@UVMVAX.BI : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.22
dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Fo : Re: Academic Privacy Question
kadie@eff.org (Car : Rust v. Sullivan
CHAVES@ccvax.unica : Re: Libertarian's position on public libraries
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
kadie@herodotus.cs : Newsgroups selection (was Re: Is this politically
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
bigm@cs.uq.oz.au ( : Re: Newsgroups selection (was Re: Is this politically
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Censorship or
kadie@eff.org (Car : (repost) Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted
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: C_KELLER@UVMVAX.BITNET
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.22
Message-ID: <01GB8D7FRVPS0006F2@uvmvax.uvm.edu>
Sender: C_KELLER%UVMVAX.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Date: 1 Oct 91 17:43:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
del comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
-------------------
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: Academic Privacy Question
Message-ID: <1991Oct1.133036.8510@ousrvr.oulu.fi>
Date: 1 Oct 91 13:30:36 GMT
References: <398CF0EE5E401E65@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: news@ousrvr.oulu.fi
In article robinson@mtsu.edu (David Robinson) writes:
>As a matter of fact, here at MTSU, we *DO* keep Time magazine behind the
>counter for the primary reason that it tends to a) go walkies, or b) get
>chopped by enterprising students with razor blades but no money for the
>photocopier. This is also one of the reasons that we have chosen not to
>subscribe to Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler. When I was at the
>University of Alabama, they subscribed to Playboy, they kept it behind
>the desk, and it *still* was so quickly mutilated beyond recognition that
>they had to have 2 subscriptions to make it through the month. Even the
>*MICROFILM* got chopped!
This is a very good reason to keep such magazines behind the shelves.
However, unless the magazines are checked for clipped sections after
they are returned, the restrictions are not that useful. I would hate
for a record to be kept of access to try to ascertain who is doing the
clipping, as the information might be used for other purposes.
However, these arguments certainly have no parallels with the Netnews
case.
I remember one time when I wanted to look up a reference to an Arms
Control article in Penthouse and I had to buy it as the University
library did not stock it. Any university which teaches history, public
affairs, military strategy, or similar subjects should subscribe to
Playboy and Penthouse as they print articles on such topics often by top
players in the field (e.g. former CIA chief Turner). They also cover
censorship (for obvious reasons). [Maybe the magazine could be weighed
on a sufficiently sensitive scale to detect the possiblity -- of course
this would be a significant one-time charge.]
>Another reason for not subscribing to those particular titles is that
>they are not indexed in the traditional sources. I'm thinking
>specifically of _Reader's_Guide_to_Periodical_Literature_ which, for
>general interest type magazines, is still considered by many librarians
>as *the* indexing source. (I'm sure someone will quickly point out a
>very good, very popular index that *does* index Playboy ... like IAC's
>_Magazine_Index_ for instance, but I don't know a single source that
>indexes Hustler ... )
I agree that lack of indexing makes the publications less valuable. However,
if the content includes covered topics the magazines should be
purchased. After all, the books are not indexed.
>I realize that this sounds like a bunch of pretty lame excuses. However,
>combined with the budgetary arguments that have been presented by other
>postings, you can begin to see a picture of the complexities that are
>involved in decisions of this kind. Unfortunately, there is more to it
>than simply a matter of intellectual freedom.
>David Robinson robinson@mtsu.edu
>Automation Librarian
>Middle Tennessee State University
>Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132
I see that a library can validly be topic oriented and subscribe to
publications that address only the covered topics. A SIGNIFICANT charge
for a publication can be a valid reason for not subscribing.
For Netnews, a site can appropriately restrict it self to comp.*, sci.*,
and so on if the users of the site are restricted to computations on
those topics. It may also not subscribe to high cost groups (e.g. high
volume binaries), or be very selective in such subscriptions. Selected
subscription to appropriate groups in other hierarchies is also
reasonable. However, if a site picks up talk.* and alt.*, it should pick up
the full hierarchies (with the exception of "unneeded" binaries if there is
a memory concern). To do otherwise would be to engage in unwarrented
censorship. IMHO.
doug foxvog
dfo@tko.vtt.fi
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Rust v. Sullivan
Message-ID: <1991Oct2.001031.1159@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1991 00:10:31 GMT
Some posters have wondered what effect the Supreme Court's recent
"abortion gag rule" decision has on public-university free speech.
I've looked the decision. (It is available via anonymous ftp from
uunet.uu.net:opinions/supreme-court/89-1391.) It explictly gives
universities as an example of a place where free speech is
fundamental. So, at least for now, free speech at universities is
safe.
- Carl
-------------------
89-1391 & 89-1392 -- OPINION
RUST v. SULLIVAN
[...]
This is not to suggest that funding by the Government, even when
coupled with the freedom of the fund recipients to speak outside the
scope of the Government-funded project, is invariably sufficient to
justify government control over the content of expression. For
example, this Court has recognized that the existence of a Government
``subsidy,'' in the form of Government-owned property, does not
justify the restriction of speech in areas that have ``been
traditionally open to the public for expressive activity,'' United
States v. Kokinda, 110 S. Ct. 3115, 3119 (1990); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.
S. 496, 515 (1939)(opinion of Roberts, J.), or have been ``expressly
dedicated to speech activity.'' Kokinda, supra, 110 S. Ct., at 3119;
Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U. S. 37,
45 (1983). Similarly, we have recognized that the university is a
traditional sphere of free expression so fundamental to the
functioning of our society that the Government's ability to control
speech within that sphere by means of conditions attached to the
expenditure of Government funds is restricted by the vagueness and
overbreadth doctrines of the First Amendment, Keyishian v. Board of
Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 603, 605-606 (1967). It could be argued by
analogy that traditional relationships such as that between doctor and
patient should enjoy protection under the First Amendment from
government regulation, even when subsidized by the Government. We
need not resolve that question here, however, because the Title X
program regulations do not significantly impinge upon the
doctor-patient relationship. Nothing in them requires a doctor to
represent as his own any opinion that he does not in fact hold. Nor
is the doctor-patient relationship established by the Title X program
sufficiently all-encompassing so as to justify an expectation on the
part of the patient of comprehensive medical advice. The program does
not provide post-conception medical care, and therefore a doctor's
silence with regard to abortion cannot reasonably be thought to
mislead a client into thinking that the doctor does not consider
abortion an appropriate option for her. The doctor is always free to
make clear that advice regarding abortion is simply beyond the scope
of the program. In these circumstances, the general rule that the
Government may choose not to subsidize speech applies with full force.
[...]
------------
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: CHAVES@ccvax.unicamp.ansp.br (EDUARDO CHAVES -- UNICAMP)
Subject: Re: Libertarian's position on public libraries
Message-ID: <515A2090200001AC@ccvax.unicamp.ansp.br>
X-Unparseable-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1991 15:00 GMT-03
Sender: CHAVES@ccvax.unicamp.ansp.br
Date: 2 Oct 91 19:01:42 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Sorry to send this message to the whole list, but I
need information on how to subscribe to LIBERNET I
think it was).
I have repeatedly tried to send a personal message to
ROBINSON@MTSU.EDU, who, to my knowledge, first made
reference to that list, but my message is returned
with a HOST UNKNOWN error.
Will Robinson please write me a message to my EMail
address so I can reply to him?
Thank you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Eduardo O C Chaves Bitnet: CHAVES@BRUC.BITNET +
+ Caixa Postal, 5631 Internet: CHAVES@CCVAX.UNICAMP.ANSP.BR +
+ 13091 Campinas, SP F/Phone: +55-192-51-6436 +
+ Brasil/Brazil FAX: +55-192-8-4003 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------
Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4186 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1057 alt.censorship:1721
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org>
References: <199110021650.AA23508@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1991 22:55:12 GMT
In article <1991Oct1.153519.18849@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
owenstm@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Cygnus X-1) writes:
[...]
>Well, the discussion could hold relavent if one was to involve Gif's
>files, some "hard-line" religious people had them removed from the Mars
>Hotel if you remember (Mars.ee.msstate.edu)... And the NSF has declared
>it against their "rules" to transmit pornographics material.
[...]
I don't know that the NSF has made this declaration officially. I
think it merely responded to some complaints by expressing some
concern and the sys op at Mars decided to avoid any hassles by
deleting the files.
I think it's time to move beyond expendency to principled policies.
Anonymous FTP archives are a new type of library. The Internet is the
delivery medium for these libraries. The NSF should adopt policies
based on long-standing library and academic experience. These polices
should embrace free expression and renounce content restrictions.
The Library Bill of Rights says:
" 2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all
points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be
proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval."
Also, here is the American Library Association's statement on diversity:
-------------------begin------------------------------------
DIVERSITY IN COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Throughout history, the focus of censorship has fluctuated from generation to
generation. Books and other materials have not been selected or have been
removed from library collections for many reasons, among which are prejudicial
language and ideas, political content, economic theory, social philosophies,
religious beliefs, sexual forms of expression, and other topics of a
potentially controversial nature.
Some examples of censorship may include removing or not selecting materials
because they are considered by some as racist or sexist; not purchasing
conservative religious materials; not selecting materials about or by
minorities because it is thought these groups or interests are not represented
in a community; or not providing information on or materials from non-
mainstream political entities.
Librarians may seek to increase user awareness of materials on various social
concerns by many means, including, but not limited to, issuing bibliographies
and presenting exhibits and programs.
Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive,
in collection development and in the provision of interlibrary loan. Access
to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and
policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to
the librarian or the user. Collection development should reflect the
philosophy inherent in Article II of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS: "Libraries
should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on
current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed
because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." A balanced collection reflects
a diversity of materials, not an equality of numbers. Collection development
responsibilities include selecting materials in the languages in common use in
the community which the library serves. Collection development and the
selection of materials should be done according to professional standards and
established selection and review procedures.
There are many complex facets to any issue, and variations of context in which
issues may be expressed, discussed, or interpreted. Librarians have a
professional responsibility to be fair, just, and equitable and to give all
library users equal protection in guarding against violation of the library
patron's right to read, view, or listen to materials and resources protected
by the First Amendment, no matter what the viewpoint of the author, creator,
or selector. Librarians have an obligation to protect library collections
from removal of materials based on personal bias or prejudice, and to select
and support the access to materials on all subjects that meet, as closely as
possible, the needs and interests of all persons in the community which the
library serves. This includes materials that reflect political, economic,
religious, social, minority, and sexual issues.
Intellectual freedom, the essence of equitable library services, provides for
free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a
question, cause, or movement may be explored. Toleration is meaningless
without tolerance for what some may consider detestable. Librarians cannot
justly permit their own preferences to limit their degree of tolerance in
collection development, because freedom is indivisible.
Adopted July 14, 1982; amended January 10, 1990, by the ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
----------------------------end--------------------
[The library-policy archive is accessible via anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
File README is a detailed description of the items in this directory.
The archive is also accessible via email. For information on email
access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note
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: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <75ED8DF13A204D22@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 2 Oct 91 23:23:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
>I don't know that the NSF has made this declaration officially. I
>think it merely responded to some complaints by expressing some
>concern and the sys op at Mars decided to avoid any hassles by
>deleting the files.
>
>I think it's time to move beyond expendency to principled policies.
>Anonymous FTP archives are a new type of library. The Internet is the
>delivery medium for these libraries. The NSF should adopt policies
>based on long-standing library and academic experience. These polices
>should embrace free expression and renounce content restrictions.
>
And how do you propose to influence the NSF to adopt these policies?
I would suggest writing to the people who run the NSF or to Congress. The
poor system administrator is in no position to set or even seriously challenge
the policies of the government of these United States.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Xref: eff soc.motss:11230 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1059 alt.censorship:1729
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Newsgroups selection (was Re: Is this politically correct?)
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Nntp-Posting-Host: herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
References: <9110022311.AA03738@nettlerash.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1991 02:42:32 GMT
In <9110022311.AA03738@nettlerash.berkeley.edu> FAC2813@UOFT01.BITNET
("Gary Klein, Business Librarian, Univ of Toledo") writes:
[...]
> Although the computer center here at the Univ of Toledo provides a very
>wide range of connectivity to/from various networks & systems, the Newsfeeds
>we get have been reviewed by someone higher up the ladder.
>
> No one on my campus can receive the ALT.SEX family of Newsgroups.
[...]
I think academic computer facilities should select newsgroups the way
that librarian's select books. Selection based on a desire to avoid
controversy is a form of censorship.
For information on how to create a selection policy that respects
intellectual freedom, look at the library policy archive. See file
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/README.
We discuss these issues in the Computer and Academic Freedom newsgroup
(alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk).
- Carl
p.s The archive and the newsgroups are also available via email. Send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
Information about the mailing list versions of the newsgroup is
available in file ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct03.030549.19866@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 91 03:05:49 GMT
References: <75ED8DF13A204D22@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <75ED8DF13A204D22@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>And how do you propose to influence the NSF to adopt these policies?
>
>I would suggest writing to the people who run the NSF or to Congress. The
>poor system administrator is in no position to set or even seriously challenge
>the policies of the government of these United States.
And, once again, Mr. Kapur shows us his dedication to free expression by
passing the buck and being ever willing to bow to the express, implied, or
even worried-about threat of Those In Charge.
Writing to NSF and/or Congress will do nothing. Direct challenge by systems
administrators may. Of course, this is a more risky course of action,
and we wouldn't want you sticking your neck out one little inch, would we?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
Xref: eff soc.motss:11235 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1061 alt.censorship:1732
From: bigm@cs.uq.oz.au (Michael Pilling (Dr Chocberry))
Subject: Re: Newsgroups selection (was Re: Is this politically correct?)
Message-ID: <4137@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Date: 3 Oct 91 03:44:30 GMT
References: <9110022311.AA03738@nettlerash.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au
Followup-To: soc.motss
In kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> No one on my campus can receive the ALT.SEX family of Newsgroups.
>[...]
There really is no excuse for this,
if it is a resource problem, you can arrange to expire
these articles very frequently so that on average they
do not take up lots of space.
Michael
--
Again, I fall burning. I feel myself drowning. Again, I am fleeing. A horse
changes into a dog and I struggle to see the other icons atop the broken
pillars; but the feast is about to begin. The sight of a grave stops the fork
in my hand and I wonder: do I need an aquaduct for these tears of grief?
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 3 Oct 91 12:41:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>
>And, once again, Mr. Kapur shows us his dedication to free expression by
>passing the buck and being ever willing to bow to the express, implied, or
>even worried-about threat of Those In Charge.
Yes, I would rather bow like a reed and bounce back rather than have my head
chopped off. Mr. Russotto, why are you so anxious to see me martyred?
>
>Writing to NSF and/or Congress will do nothing.
Obviously you do not believe in the functions of the various branches of a
democratic society.
>Direct challenge by systems
>administrators may.
That is fantasy, pure and simple. You are attributing more power to systems
administrators than they really have. Direct challenge does nothing
except make the policy even stricter.
> Of course, this is a more risky course of action,
>and we wouldn't want you sticking your neck out one little inch, would we?
I have absolutely no interest in sticking my neck out when it serves no
purpose whatsoever. As I said before, I admire the character of Don Quixote
but have no desire to follow in his footsteps.
You are not even willing to write to Congress and you want to volunteer my
neck????
>--
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
> .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
>Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
>(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
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: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Censorship or Oversight?
Message-ID: <9110031200.AA07233@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 3 Oct 91 04:00:05 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
The _Lantern_, published by the Department of Journalism at The Ohio State
University, has published its last two issues under protest. The _Lantern_
publishes weekdays and has a circulation of app. 33,000, making it one of the
largest college dailies in the U.S. The _Lantern_ is protesting what its
editorial staff believes is prior restraint. The Journalism Dept. faculty
reserves the right to review articles prior to publication, and the _Lantern_
believes this to be censorship. According to the editor-in-chief,
responsibility for the content of the newspaper rests with her and the
editorial staff, since they were hired by the Dept. of Journalism to put out
the paper. The staff believes that the current review policy is a slippery
slope toward other harms. In response, one of the professors from the
department responded that there are only two criteria that are used in the
review process: whether an article would advocate or incite the violation of
law, and whether an article would be libelous. In no other cases would an
article be subject to rewrite or other control.
Yesterday, the _Lantern_ published a front-page editorial condemning the
current policy, and filled some of its news space with repeated texts of the
First Amendment. Today, the _Lantern_ has another front-page editorial, but
has carried its normal news content.
Does the University, through the Department of Journalism, have the right as
owner/publisher, to attempt to protect itself from lawsuit? After all, the
current review policy makes no attempt to judge based on content or opinion.
Or does the _Lantern_ staff have the right and responsibility to be free of
oversight by the its publisher? If the latter is correct, what responsibility
would OSU have if the _Lantern_ were sued for libel or inciting to riot?
Would merely the _Lantern_ staff be responsible, or would OSU and the
Department of Journalism also have responsibility? Since OSU is a public
institution, how much more restrictive is the First Amendment vis-a-vis the
University? Does the fact the many students take the _Lantern_ as a class
change any of the above variables?
I realize that this is perhaps not the best newsgroup for this discussion, but
I think it pertains to academic freedom and questions about host
responsibility. (I refer to the common practice of putting disclaimers on
one's postings with the intent of absolving oneself of formally enunciating
policy at one's site.)
Disclaimer I: The facts that I have cited above come from news reports
published in a local newspaper (not the _Lantern_) and radio broadcast
reports. If the details of the situation are incorrect, I apologize. I
attempted to report them as accurately as I could. I invite our OSU readers
to correct substantive errors. (Perhaps, with the _Lantern's_ permission, the
text of its editorials and any responses from OSU could be posted?)
Disclaimer II: In no way does the above represent the policy of the United
States, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Defense Logistics Agency, or any
subpart thereof.
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1064 alt.censorship:1741
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [repost] Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted
Message-ID: <1991Oct3.172138.338@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1991 17:21:38 GMT
From: funnyr@looking.on.ca (Funny Guy)
Subject: Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted
Message-ID: <1991Oct03.060346.5082@looking.on.ca>
Date: 3 Oct 91 06:03:46 GMT
Those of you familar with the history of this newsgroup will know
that in December of 1988, due to the efforts of an MIT grad student
named Jonathan Richmond, a ban was placed on possibly offensive jokes
in this newsgroup at the University of Waterloo. At the time, this
newsgroup went into the net only via that site, and Richmond's goal
was to control the content of the group by putting pressure on the
University through the daily newspapers.
[It didn't work of course. RHF quickly became fed out through a wide
variety of other paths, and only Waterloo folk and downstream nodes
were affected.]
To many people's surprise, the Douglas Wright (President) and
J. Alan George (Provost) supported and implemented the ban.
Later groups such as alt.sex were also removed. Pressure from the
community, with vigourous effort by some students and an invited talk
by Dr. John McCarthy of the Stanford AI Lab (Dr. McCarthy had played
a pivotal role in reversing a shorter-lived ban at Stanford) resulted
in the appointment of a committee to study the question of newsgroup
availability.
In May 1991, this committee reported what you would expect them
to report -- that, to paraphrase, a University administration should not
make non-financial decisions about what people can and can't read on
campus. The recommended restoration of all banned newsgroups.
Today, Dr. Johnny Wong, Associate Provost for Computing at UW, announced
that he would follow the recommendations of the committee.
The result is the restoration of all banned newsgroups there, from
alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny.
I take particular satisfaction in this. The banning of my publication
at my alma mater has been a thorn in my side for years, and I have helped
and encouraged the efforts to reverse it. I did not wish to concede any
victory for the forces of thought-control and political correctness.
Even though the ban never stopped any determined reader (after all, the
groups could be read remotely with RRN and NNTP) it is good to see it
gone.
My thanks go out to all who worked to make this happen.
More detailed accounts of these events can be found in the prefaces
to the Jokebooks. This year's jokebook may be delayed a bit because
I am moving at the end of this month. Will tell you where later.
---------------
Other notes: I am keeping busy and am a fair bit behind in the joke
queue. Only 600 entries to go. Please have patience.
RHF is no longer USENET's most popular group. Alt.sex now easily holds
that distinction -- perhaps being banned at UW is the first step for success
in any USENET group. Misc.jobs.offered is also currently above, but
fluctuating. Statistics are posted in the group news.lists.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
From kadie Sat Oct 5 11:02:37 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Oct 5 11:02:18 EDT 1991
In this issue:
NMETRO@ricevm1.ric : Re: Censorship or
NMETRO@ricevm1.ric : Re: Censorship or
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Censorship or
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information
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: NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu (Nick Metrowsky)
Subject: Re: Censorship or Oversight?
Message-ID: <1991Oct3.181917.18624@rice.edu>
Sender: news@rice.edu
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1991 17:48:40 GMT
As an alumni of The Ohio State University, I am familiar with the
Department of Journalism control of The Lantern. The situation stems
from 1969-70 when Ohio State and most universities were being beseiged
by protests. According to the story I was told by a former Jornalism
student, the University Administration feared The Lantern would make
already a bad situation, worse. The protests at OSU came to ahead
after the KSU 4 were killed by the Ohio National Guard in May, 1970.
Prior to May, 1970, The Lantern was free to publish that was considered
appropriate, without full control of the Journalism faculty. After May, 1970
The Lantern became a "laboratory newspaper" of the School of Journalism.
Which means, The Lantern became nothing more than extension of a class
project, no different then a term paper, a lab course, etc. Though,
freelancers could contribute articles to The Lantern, they had to
subject themselves to the same scrutiny.
Through the 1970s I attended OSU and pretty much the attitude was
here is The Lantern, 50000 students, 10000 staff have access to it
every day and no one seemed to care or understand that the paper
they were reading was controlled by the Journalism department. A
point of fact The Michigan Daily at The University of Michigan, The
Ohio University Post, The Indiana (University) Student, are independent
of their university administrators and these schools are also state
supported like OSU. The potential circulation, of The Lantern, in
Columbus, Ohio is well above 80000 people daily!
So now seeing The Lantern trying to wrestle itself away from the
Journalism School control is definitely interesting. I am amazed
it has taken so long. Yet, there is another side of the issue,
The Lantern is free to anyone who wants one, except for mail
subscriptions. The universities, I mentioned earlier, do charge
a single-copy fee, though small, gives these papers a little more
independance. The Lantern is in a situation where the entire paper
is funded by state funds, published on state equipment, edited with
state computers, photographs usually come state owned cameras, created
in state owned offices on a state university campus, and printed on
paper owned by the state. Therefore, any form of independent control is
impossible. Maybe that's why The Michigan Daily is not on the University
of Michigan campus!
I would think that The Lantern staff do have a valid argument about
Freedome of the Press against University censorship, etc. But, because
they are so heavily tied to the OSU campus and Journalism Department, it
is very hard to separate the two. Those who want an alternative voice
for Ohio State maybe should try to start their own paper. The success
of a newspaper is based upon access and I believe OSU would reluctantly
allow another newspaper on campus. They can't stop them because you can
buy The Columbus Dispatch, The New York Times, The Plain Dealer, and
USA Today on campus (Fawcett Center). That may be their only recourse.
I give the staff, of The Lantern, for standing up for what they believe
in, but this action may last as long as the current quarter. You see
The Lantern changes its' editorial staff at the change of each 3 month
session at OSU for the new students registered in the course that has
The Lantern as the laboratory.
To sum up. Censorship maybe, oversight I don't think so. But, I hope
by giving the information about how things worked at The Lantern during
my time at OSU, that I did shine some light on their situation.
------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Censorship or Oversight?
Message-ID: <9110031200.AA07233@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 3 Oct 91 04:00:05 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
The _Lantern_, published by the Department of Journalism at The Ohio State
University, has published its last two issues under protest. The _Lantern_
publishes weekdays and has a circulation of app. 33,000, making it one of the
largest college dailies in the U.S. The _Lantern_ is protesting what its
editorial staff believes is prior restraint. The Journalism Dept. faculty
reserves the right to review articles prior to publication, and the _Lantern_
believes this to be censorship. According to the editor-in-chief,
responsibility for the content of the newspaper rests with her and the
editorial staff, since they were hired by the Dept. of Journalism to put out
the paper. The staff believes that the current review policy is a slippery
slope toward other harms. In response, one of the professors from the
department responded that there are only two criteria that are used in the
review process: whether an article would advocate or incite the violation of
law, and whether an article would be libelous. In no other cases would an
article be subject to rewrite or other control.
Yesterday, the _Lantern_ published a front-page editorial condemning the
current policy, and filled some of its news space with repeated texts of the
First Amendment. Today, the _Lantern_ has another front-page editorial, but
has carried its normal news content.
Does the University, through the Department of Journalism, have the right as
owner/publisher, to attempt to protect itself from lawsuit? After all, the
current review policy makes no attempt to judge based on content or opinion.
Or does the _Lantern_ staff have the right and responsibility to be free of
oversight by the its publisher? If the latter is correct, what responsibility
would OSU have if the _Lantern_ were sued for libel or inciting to riot?
Would merely the _Lantern_ staff be responsible, or would OSU and the
Department of Journalism also have responsibility? Since OSU is a public
institution, how much more restrictive is the First Amendment vis-a-vis the
University? Does the fact the many students take the _Lantern_ as a class
change any of the above variables?
I realize that this is perhaps not the best newsgroup for this discussion, but
I think it pertains to academic freedom and questions about host
responsibility. (I refer to the common practice of putting disclaimers on
one's postings with the intent of absolving oneself of formally enunciating
policy at one's site.)
Disclaimer I: The facts that I have cited above come from news reports
published in a local newspaper (not the _Lantern_) and radio broadcast
reports. If the details of the situation are incorrect, I apologize. I
attempted to report them as accurately as I could. I invite our OSU readers
to correct substantive errors. (Perhaps, with the _Lantern's_ permission, the
text of its editorials and any responses from OSU could be posted?)
Disclaimer II: In no way does the above represent the policy of the United
States, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Defense Logistics Agency, or any
subpart thereof.
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
From: NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu (Nick Metrowsky)
Subject: Re: Censorship or Oversight?
Message-ID: <1991Oct3.181928.18685@rice.edu>
Sender: news@rice.edu
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1991 17:48:40 GMT
As an alumni of The Ohio State University, I am familiar with the
Department of Journalism control of The Lantern. The situation stems
from 1969-70 when Ohio State and most universities were being beseiged
by protests. According to the story I was told by a former Jornalism
student, the University Administration feared The Lantern would make
already a bad situation, worse. The protests at OSU came to ahead
after the KSU 4 were killed by the Ohio National Guard in May, 1970.
Prior to May, 1970, The Lantern was free to publish that was considered
appropriate, without full control of the Journalism faculty. After May, 1970
The Lantern became a "laboratory newspaper" of the School of Journalism.
Which means, The Lantern became nothing more than extension of a class
project, no different then a term paper, a lab course, etc. Though,
freelancers could contribute articles to The Lantern, they had to
subject themselves to the same scrutiny.
Through the 1970s I attended OSU and pretty much the attitude was
here is The Lantern, 50000 students, 10000 staff have access to it
every day and no one seemed to care or understand that the paper
they were reading was controlled by the Journalism department. A
point of fact The Michigan Daily at The University of Michigan, The
Ohio University Post, The Indiana (University) Student, are independent
of their university administrators and these schools are also state
supported like OSU. The potential circulation, of The Lantern, in
Columbus, Ohio is well above 80000 people daily!
So now seeing The Lantern trying to wrestle itself away from the
Journalism School control is definitely interesting. I am amazed
it has taken so long. Yet, there is another side of the issue,
The Lantern is free to anyone who wants one, except for mail
subscriptions. The universities, I mentioned earlier, do charge
a single-copy fee, though small, gives these papers a little more
independance. The Lantern is in a situation where the entire paper
is funded by state funds, published on state equipment, edited with
state computers, photographs usually come state owned cameras, created
in state owned offices on a state university campus, and printed on
paper owned by the state. Therefore, any form of independent control is
impossible. Maybe that's why The Michigan Daily is not on the University
of Michigan campus!
I would think that The Lantern staff do have a valid argument about
Freedome of the Press against University censorship, etc. But, because
they are so heavily tied to the OSU campus and Journalism Department, it
is very hard to separate the two. Those who want an alternative voice
for Ohio State maybe should try to start their own paper. The success
of a newspaper is based upon access and I believe OSU would reluctantly
allow another newspaper on campus. They can't stop them because you can
buy The Columbus Dispatch, The New York Times, The Plain Dealer, and
USA Today on campus (Fawcett Center). That may be their only recourse.
I give the staff, of The Lantern, for standing up for what they believe
in, but this action may last as long as the current quarter. You see
The Lantern changes its' editorial staff at the change of each 3 month
session at OSU for the new students registered in the course that has
The Lantern as the laboratory.
To sum up. Censorship maybe, oversight I don't think so. But, I hope
by giving the information about how things worked at The Lantern during
my time at OSU, that I did shine some light on their situation.
------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Censorship or Oversight?
Message-ID: <9110031200.AA07233@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 3 Oct 91 04:00:05 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
The _Lantern_, published by the Department of Journalism at The Ohio State
University, has published its last two issues under protest. The _Lantern_
publishes weekdays and has a circulation of app. 33,000, making it one of the
largest college dailies in the U.S. The _Lantern_ is protesting what its
editorial staff believes is prior restraint. The Journalism Dept. faculty
reserves the right to review articles prior to publication, and the _Lantern_
believes this to be censorship. According to the editor-in-chief,
responsibility for the content of the newspaper rests with her and the
editorial staff, since they were hired by the Dept. of Journalism to put out
the paper. The staff believes that the current review policy is a slippery
slope toward other harms. In response, one of the professors from the
department responded that there are only two criteria that are used in the
review process: whether an article would advocate or incite the violation of
law, and whether an article would be libelous. In no other cases would an
article be subject to rewrite or other control.
Yesterday, the _Lantern_ published a front-page editorial condemning the
current policy, and filled some of its news space with repeated texts of the
First Amendment. Today, the _Lantern_ has another front-page editorial, but
has carried its normal news content.
Does the University, through the Department of Journalism, have the right as
owner/publisher, to attempt to protect itself from lawsuit? After all, the
current review policy makes no attempt to judge based on content or opinion.
Or does the _Lantern_ staff have the right and responsibility to be free of
oversight by the its publisher? If the latter is correct, what responsibility
would OSU have if the _Lantern_ were sued for libel or inciting to riot?
Would merely the _Lantern_ staff be responsible, or would OSU and the
Department of Journalism also have responsibility? Since OSU is a public
institution, how much more restrictive is the First Amendment vis-a-vis the
University? Does the fact the many students take the _Lantern_ as a class
change any of the above variables?
I realize that this is perhaps not the best newsgroup for this discussion, but
I think it pertains to academic freedom and questions about host
responsibility. (I refer to the common practice of putting disclaimers on
one's postings with the intent of absolving oneself of formally enunciating
policy at one's site.)
Disclaimer I: The facts that I have cited above come from news reports
published in a local newspaper (not the _Lantern_) and radio broadcast
reports. If the details of the situation are incorrect, I apologize. I
attempted to report them as accurately as I could. I invite our OSU readers
to correct substantive errors. (Perhaps, with the _Lantern's_ permission, the
text of its editorials and any responses from OSU could be posted?)
Disclaimer II: In no way does the above represent the policy of the United
States, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Defense Logistics Agency, or any
subpart thereof.
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 91 20:44:16 GMT
References:
In article Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>
>>And, once again, Mr. Kapur shows us his dedication to free expression by
>>passing the buck and being ever willing to bow to the express, implied, or
>>even worried-about threat of Those In Charge.
>
>Yes, I would rather bow like a reed and bounce back rather than have my head
>chopped off. Mr. Russotto, why are you so anxious to see me martyred?
You don't bounce back. You just keep bowing-- until eventually you find there
are regulations or unwritten confining you in every aspect of your job, and
you have no discretion whatsoever.
>
>>Writing to NSF and/or Congress will do nothing.
>
>Obviously you do not believe in the functions of the various branches of a
>democratic society.
I simply recognize reality. Usenet users are an insignificant number of
voters, and will thus be ignored. Building up a popular campaign on such
an esoteric issue is impossible.
>>Direct challenge by systems
>>administrators may.
>
>That is fantasy, pure and simple. You are attributing more power to systems
>administrators than they really have. Direct challenge does nothing
>except make the policy even stricter.
Say NSF writes a letter "suggesting" you remove alt.sex, or "action may be
taken" against you. You have two choices: remove it, or don't remove it.
If you remove it, alt.sex is banned and prude@NSF.gov has gotten his way.
If you don't remove it, the NSF has to either back down or go through
procedures to cut you off from the net. If every time NSF makes a suggestion,
it is implemented without resistance, they have no disincentive to keep making
these suggestions.
>> Of course, this is a more risky course of action,
>>and we wouldn't want you sticking your neck out one little inch, would we?
>
>I have absolutely no interest in sticking my neck out when it serves no
>purpose whatsoever. As I said before, I admire the character of Don Quixote
>but have no desire to follow in his footsteps.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship or Oversight?
Message-ID: <1991Oct3.213456.6037@eff.org>
References: <9110031200.AA07233@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1991 21:34:56 GMT
The Joint Statment says "The student press should be free of
censorship and advance approval of copy, and its editors and managers
should be free to develop their own editorial policies and news
coverage."
McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe:
---start quote---
[p.124]
Permissible and Impermissible Content
While courts are reluctant to endorse prior restrains on the content
of student publicaitons, they are more inclined to support
disciplinary action after distribution has begun. [High-school- Carl]
[s]tudents can be punished and publications confiscated if the
material distributed forsters a disruption of the educational process,
is libelous or obscene, or encourages others to engage in dangerous or
unlawful activity.
[...]
--- end quote---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4234 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1069
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.055552.19960@eff.org>
Keywords: NSFNET Acceptable Use
References: <199110031637.AA29047@eff.org> <2956@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 05:55:52 GMT
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
[...]
>Now, to get back to the topic at hand. The public, through their elected
>representatives, authorized the creation of ARPANet/Internet/NSFNet to
>accomplish a specific purpose. From a draft of the NSFNet Acceptable Use
>Policy this purpose is "to support research and other scholarly activities in
>the U.S. by providing access to unique resources and the opportunity for
>collaborative work." Net use that runs counter to the approved policy has
>not been authorized by the public, and it could be considered the
>responsibililty of government officials to ensure that such usage not take
>place. The way that a member of the public 'demands' a change is via his or
>her elected representatives.
[...]
Legally, the Net is a limited public forum; this is in contrast with a
traditional public forum such as a public plaza and a nonpublic forum,
such a prison. A limited public forum is created by the government and
may, according to the Supreme Court, be limited in two ways. First,
access to the forum may be limited. In the case of the Net, access is
limited to those with accounts on computers on the Net. Second, the
topics for discussion may be limited. For example, access to a public
college's student newspaper is limited to the students staff but a
college newspaper usually has no limit on topics. Access to a campus
(paper) mail system is often limited to staff and students and it's
topics are often limited those related to official business.
Unlike the owner of private property, the government "is not
necessarily the unfettered master of all it creates" [Supreme Court in
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n25]. For example, it can not
practice viewpoint discrimination within its forums. In other words,
if it allows one view of a topic to be expressed, then all views must
be allowed. Also, the government cannot withdraw support from a
limited-public forum simply because of displeasure with the content.
For example, "[a]lthough school boards are not obligated to support
student papers, if a given publication was originally created as a
free speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support
can be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression."
[From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M.
McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe]
I think these restrictions on the government's authority are a good
thing. This democracy is predicated on an informed electorate. New
forums such as the Net help to create such an electorate.
I think this leaves two questions:
What are the topic restrictions for use of the Net?
and
What topic restrictions *should* there be for use of the Net?
The first question cannot be answered authoritatively. There are
several indications that it is a de facto free-speech forum. First,
the tentative acceptable use policy is vague (except about commercial
use.) Second, topic restrictions are not consistently enforced. Email,
IRC, Netnews, etc all seem to be free-speech forums. Third, because of
the Nets academic nature, the courts may find topic restrictions
unacceptable. As the Supreme Court said it's recent so-called abortion
gag-rule decision: "This is not to suggest that funding by the
Government, even when coupled with the freedom of the fund recipients
to speak outside the scope of the Government-funded project, is
invariably sufficient to justify government control over the content
of expression. For example, this Court has recognized that the
existence of a Government ``subsidy,'' in the form of Government-owned
property, does not justify the restriction of speech in areas that
have ``been traditionally open to the public for expressive
activity,'' United States v. Kokinda, 110 S. Ct. 3115, 3119 (1990);
Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939)(opinion of Roberts, J.), or
have been ``expressly dedicated to speech activity.'' Kokinda, supra,
110 S. Ct., at 3119; Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators'
Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45 (1983). Similarly, we have recognized that
the university is a traditional sphere of free expression so
fundamental to the functioning of our society that the Government's
ability to control speech within that sphere by means of conditions
attached to the expenditure of Government funds is restricted by the
vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the First Amendment, Keyishian
v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 603, 605-606 (1967)."
[uunet.uu.net:opinions/supreme-court/89-1391]
I think the second question is more important. In my opinion, an
academic network should respect academic freedom. This means that
institutional control of facilities should not be used as a device of
censorship [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights]. It should
respect intellectual freedom. This means that "[m]aterials should not
be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval"
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala].
It's time to create a new Acceptable Use Policy that unambiguously
supports academic and intellectual freedom.
- Carl M. Kadie, editor Computers and Academic Freedom News
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
From kadie Sat Oct 5 11:03:54 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Oct 5 11:03:10 EDT 1991
In this issue:
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Government restriction of net information
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: (repost) Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lift
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Government restriction of net information
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: (repost) Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifte
schweige@taurus.cs : Re: Government restriction of net information
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)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <9110040722.AA26286@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 3 Oct 91 23:22:25 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In reply to the mail from ...
>
>Legally, the Net is a limited public forum; this is in contrast with a
>--
[stuff deleted]
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>
>
I don't recall any court case that has conclusively and directly determined
that Internet, Usenet, or any subpart thereof is a "limited public forum."
It seems the best we can do is say that it _seems_ to be so withut a court
case or legislative action that would extend the definition of limited public
forum to Usenet or Internet.
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV 850-8256
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.134400.2052@ms.uky.edu>
References: <75ED8DF13A204D22@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <1991Oct03.030549.19866@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 13:44:00 GMT
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>Sanjay Kapur writes:
>
>>I would suggest writing to the people who run the NSF or to Congress. The
>>poor system admin is in no position to set or even seriously challenge
>>the policies of the government of these United States.
>
>And, once again, Mr. Kapur shows us his dedication to free expression by
>passing the buck and being ever willing to bow to the express, implied, or
>even worried-about threat of Those In Charge.
>
>Writing to NSF and/or Congress will do nothing. Direct challenge by systems
>administrators may. Of course, this is a more risky course of action,
>and we wouldn't want you sticking your neck out one little inch, would we?
Would you have the same sarcastic attitude if you were a user on Sanjay's
system? Suppose that he did, indeed, "stick his neck out" and get slapped
down? Suppose that, in response, the administration at SUNY-SB removed
news completely; would you rally to his support? Somehow, I doubt it.
Would you be happy to go without news for a long period of time, while
Sanjay (and presumably others) fought the administration to restore it?
As an example, it took almost three years for Waterloo to lift their
ban on rec.humor.funny. Would you be willing to support Sanjay for that
much time? Would you just find access to some other news site and leave
him to fight his own battle? Would you just graduate and forget about it?
Would you even worry about the hundreds of other users on his systems?
There is a time and place to be a visionary/activist; it's up to every
individual to decide if he is in that time and/or place. If you don't
know the full picture at his site, you really don't have any reason to
condemn him.
--
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)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 91 14:42:25 GMT
References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu>
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>>
>>>And, once again, Mr. Kapur shows us his dedication to free expression by
>>>passing the buck and being ever willing to bow to the express, implied, or
>>>even worried-about threat of Those In Charge.
>>
>>Yes, I would rather bow like a reed and bounce back rather than have my head
>>chopped off. Mr. Russotto, why are you so anxious to see me martyred?
>
>You don't bounce back. You just keep bowing-- until eventually you find there
>are regulations or unwritten confining you in every aspect of your job, and
>you have no discretion whatsoever.
Whoa! INCONSISTENCY ALERT!
Matthew, haven't you been one of the folks arguing that many facets of
system administration should be explicitly enumerated in written policies
and/or regulations? Indeed, haven't many people argued that very point
in this forum?
You can't have it both ways. When it's something you oppose, such as
disciplinary actions, you loudly argue that "There must be a *policy*!";
however, when you support something, such as news, you argue that system
administrators should resist the implementation of policies? That doesn't
work. Most of the "written policy" proponents agree that any policy should
be comprehensive, covering almost every aspect of using a given system. I
was under the impression that you were in favor of such policies. If you
support such policies, you must be prepared to accept policies that apply
to news.
>Say NSF writes a letter "suggesting" you remove alt.sex, or "action may be
>taken" against you. You have two choices: remove it, or don't remove it.
>If you remove it, alt.sex is banned and prude@NSF.gov has gotten his way.
>If you don't remove it, the NSF has to either back down or go through
>procedures to cut you off from the net. If every time NSF makes a suggestion,
>it is implemented without resistance, they have no disincentive to keep making
>these suggestions.
You mentioned in an earlier posting that "direct pressure from system
administrators" may influence NSF policies. You also implied that
Sanjay "didn't want to stick his neck out one little bit". Let's step
back and take a look at reality. According to the September 1991 NSFNet
statistics (available via ftp from nis.nsf.net, login anonymous, password
guest), 2,958 networks sent/received 6,908,303,950 packets over the NSF
backbone. SUNY-SB, on which Sanjay's system resides, sent/received
22,088,442 packets; that was 0.16% of the inbound packets and 0.16% of
the outbound packets. SUNY-SB ranked 151st of the 2958 networks. While
that is a rather high placement, he is still only one of the hundreds of
thousands of sites using the NSFnet backbone. There are probably dozens
of systems at SUNY-SB using the backbone, so Sanjay's system may only
account for a small fraction of the total traffic coming from SUNY-SB.
How much influence do you expect him to have at SUNY-SB, much less at
the NSFnet level? Let's be realistic.
For those who may be interested in such things, here are the top 15
networks, in terms of NSFnet backbone traffic in September:
IP Addr Network Packets Packets % of % of
sent received total total
to NSFnet from NSFnet sent rcvd
========================================================================
128.252 WASHINGTON-U 201,649,750 144,999,953 2.92 2.10
18 MIT-TEMP 164,327,307 159,995,218 2.38 2.32
128.2 CMU-NET 126,130,019 182,058,039 1.83 2.64
128.95 WASHINGTON 112,634,927 113,064,032 1.63 1.64
128.32 UCB-ETHER 107,728,875 98,754,749 1.56 1.43
128.83 UTAUSTIN 104,536,346 92,867,211 1.51 1.34
128.112 PRINCETON 98,207,137 108,015,901 1.42 1.56
129.79 INDIANA-NET 95,919,160 77,674,593 1.39 1.12
137.39 UUNET-WAN 95,011,308 60,880,405 1.38 0.88
36 SU-NET-TEMP 94,878,116 82,849,003 1.37 1.20
128.174 UIUC-CAMPUS-B 93,542,769 78,996,120 1.35 1.14
128.6 RUTGERS 79,307,761 78,569,174 1.15 1.14
128.8 UMDNET 75,286,793 82,110,651 1.09 1.19
141.142 NCSANET 72,409,463 47,207,130 1.05 0.68
128.138 COLORADO 58,380,887 58,186,816 0.85 0.84
Perhaps umd.edu should lead the way; after all, they are one of the few
networks which accounts for more than 2% of the total traffic. Why not
convince the umd.edu sysadmins to "lead the way"?
--
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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org>
References: <9110040722.AA26286@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 15:18:47 GMT
In reply to the mailing list from ...
[...]
>Legally, the Net is a limited public forum; this is in contrast with a
[...]
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
[...]
>I don't recall any court case that has conclusively and directly determined
>that Internet, Usenet, or any subpart thereof is a "limited public forum."
I should have said, "In my untrained opinion, legally, the Net is a
limited public forum."
>It seems the best we can do is say that it _seems_ to be so withut a court
>case or legislative action that would extend the definition of limited public
>forum to Usenet or Internet.
In my legally untrained opinion, it is not necessary to *extend* the
definition of a limited public forum. It suffices to apply the current
definition (as layed out by the Supreme Court and explained in cases
like San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986).
- 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:1074 alt.censorship:1755
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [repost] Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.153000.29957@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct3.172138.338@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 15:30:00 GMT
[This is the announcement and report from Dr. Johnny Wong, Associate
Provost (Computing and Information Systems). - Carl]
After reviewing the report of the Advisory Committee on
Network News, and the comments that I've received, I am
proceeding in accordance with the recommendations of that
committee. Newsgroups that are currently not supported
will be reinstated as soon as possible, and Roger Watt
of the Department of Computing Services (ext. 2491;
email: rwwatt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) has been
appointed as a liaison person with respect to complaints
related to the contents of electronic mail messages and
news articles.
- - - - - - - - - -
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NETWORK NEWS
MAY 30, 1991
INTRODUCTION
A. Universities have a long tradition of investigating all areas of human
activity and of sharing the results of those inquiries with others inside and
outside the University who may be interested. The recent growth of
communication networks for computers have made the sharing much more rapid and
efficient. Arguably, the two most effective means for making these results
available, and thus potentially for advancing the works of many other members
of the University community, are electronic mail (E-mail) to individuals and
network newsgroups, the latter functioning rather like collective mailboxes to
which faculty, staff, and students may choose to subscribe.
Thus, the Committee believes that it is entirely appropriate that the
University of Waterloo, which has a strong reputation for the constructive use
of computers, continue to allocate resources to receiving, storing, and
transmitting items of E-mail and news.
B. Further, the Committee believes that it is important that the University of
Waterloo consult its user community when decisions must be made about the use
of resources which are committed to E-mail and news.
C. Most importantly, the Committee believes that it is the users of the
computing systems who must be held responsible for their decisions to take
advantage of the resources which the University of Waterloo maintains for the
general use of its community. The Committee notes that in some cases items have
been posted which contain lengthy and verbatim excerpts from newspapers, books,
and magazines. Even when the source is fully acknowledged, the Committee
believes that this acknowledgement is not a substitute for a formal release
from the holder of the copyright in the material, usually the publisher if not
the author of the cited words. Thus, in advising users of the responsibility
they bear for what they post, the Committee considers it important that a
warning that the University will not be held liable for breach of copyright be
made plain.
D. Although the University of Waterloo is not under an obligation to distribute
news across campus, once the key role of the user is recognized, the Committee
sees no role for the institution `in loco parentis'. In particular, we see no
need for a Committee, even of one, to monitor the contents of items, noting
that the current daily volume of approximately 11 megabytes arriving at the
University makes such monitoring impractical.
E. Again, once the key role of the users of computing resources is established,
the Committee is of the opinion that the University of Waterloo already has a
number of mechanisms in place for handling queries or complaints should they
arise. The Committee sees no need to duplicate these mechanisms.
The Committee believes that complaints should be dealt with in the same manner
whether the offending items originate from UW or from a remote site. It is
clear that a user may reply directly to a poster and may make a more formal
complaint under UW policies in parallel. In either case, the channels normally
used for handling complaints from UW accounts should be used for those arising
from off-campus posting.
However, the nature of electronic communication is such that action often needs
to be more rapid than in dealing with, for example, printed material. The
Committee, therefore, suggests one addition to the existing mechanisms.
In its background documents, Usenet identifies users as responsible for their
actions just as the Committee has suggested the University of Waterloo should.
As a consequence, it is natural for one user who objects to an item posted by
another to reply directly and outline his or her complaint. Such direct reply
is often effective, but does assume enough familiarity with the reply mechanism
of newsgroups or with E-mail on the part of the offended user. A simple
description of each of these processes should be a standard part of the
introduction to computing provided to each new user, whose responsibility it
must be to assimilate the information; the University of Waterloo already
provides very substantial consulting advice, widely distributed across campus,
to assist users in making effective use of the University's computing
resources.
It seems clear that users should retain copies of both the item which was the
source of the objection and of the reply. Such electronic copies carry date and
time 'stamps' which may be useful should a more extensive discussion of the
item prove necessary.
Where the initial item originates from a member of the University of Waterloo,
then the provisions of existing policies should, of course, be available. The
Committee notes that the authors of the report from the Ad Hoc Committee to
Review UW Policy 33 on Ethical Behavior, chaired by Lois Claxton, already
anticipated the extension of the provisions of Policy 33 to cover the area of
computing (IV Recommendations, page 10, first paragraph).
However, electronic items may originate from other sites and it may be
impractical for a user to object directly; furthermore, direct reply may be
ineffective. Only in such situations can the Committee foresee the desirability
of there being a person, designated by the University of Waterloo, to whom
application may be made for assistance.
In recommending such an appointment, the Committee does not envisage such an
official being responsible for dealing with objections from one member of the
University about the actions of another. Nor does it see the official acting as
the 'agent' of an aggrieved user.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the question of the use of resources and the responsibility of users, the
Committee recommends that:
1. The principles which are adopted by the University of Waterloo governing the
use of its computing facilities for storing, retrieving and transmitting
information, be widely disseminated and be included in all introductions to
computing for new users. Particular emphasis should be placed on the principles
which concern such direct methods of communication as E-mail and network news.
2. The University of Waterloo adopt and widely publicize the principle that, in
sending E-mail or in posting an article to a newsgroup, it is the user and not
the University, who assumes responsibility for its contents.
3. The University adopt and widely publicize the principle that it is the user,
not the University, who is responsible for his or her decision to read a mail
message or an article posted to an electronic newsgroup.
4. The University's primary news-server continue to receive all newsgroups
generated internally and all newsgroups which arrive over the networks to which
the University is connected.
5. The contents of these newsgroups continue to be made available to all lower
level servers.
6. When decisions are to be made re the consumption of computing resources for
newsgroups, those responsible for such decisions should widely and formally
consult with the full user community. In the case of the primary server, it
should be the responsibility of the University Computing Committee to see that
such consultation takes place. In the case of lower level servers, a
well-defined consultative process, approved by the University Computing
Committee, should exist.
On the question of responding to particular items of mail or news, the
Committee recommends that:
1. The University of Waterloo advise its user community that in the first
instance it is the responsibility, not of the University, but of a user who
objects to an item, to reply directly to the poster, making clear the nature of
the objection.
2. A person knowledgeable, particularly about electronic news and mail, but
also well-versed in the general provisions of UW policies, be appointed with
the following general terms of reference:
He or she should:
(A) Be able to identify a suitable authority at a remote site to whom a
request for action might be addressed, when he or she is convinced that
the normal methods for registering an objection have been ineffective. An
obvious example would be the continued posting of objectionable items.
(B) Be able to identify the most suitable authority at the University of
Waterloo to which objections from other sites about material generated at
the University of Waterloo might be referred. Examples of such authorities
are the Ethics Committee, the University Computing Committee, the Dean of a
Faculty; these examples clearly do not exhaust the possibilities.
3. Such an official should report at least once a year on his or her activity
in this area to the University Computing Committee through the Associate
Provost, Computing and Information Systems.
4. The responsibility for the removal of any item from a UW machine, as a
result of an investigation into a complaint, should reside with the Associate
Deans of Computing in each Faculty for machines under their control, and with
the corresponding officers responsible for non-Faculty machines, and with the
Associate Provost, Computing and Information Systems. The Committee presumes
that investigations and decisions will be carried out under University of
Waterloo policies and that where review by a Committee is called for, such
review will be carried out keeping in mind the short retention time for items
in newsgroups.
5. The University of Waterloo's principles or policies in this area clearly
identify the officers who are able to make such decisions.
6. At least once a year actions taken under this authority should be reported
to the University Computing Committee.
The Committee has not made suggestions about how the recommendations should be
implemented in any unit, academic or non-academic. The Committee presumes that
the University of Waterloo will continue to publicize its policies and
procedures which, in turn, will continue to be developed after careful
consultation with the University community. However, the Committee wishes to
point out that if the University of Waterloo appoints an official to assist
users in responding to particular items as has been recommended, then that
official should not also be asked to be responsible for removing items from
circulation; in the Committee's view the two functions conflict directly.
Submitted by:
Greg Bennett, Chair Paul Check
Ian Gibson Anil Goel
John Moore Vic Neglia
Roger Watt, Resource Person Bud Walker
Nancy Zinatelli
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.154153.28186@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 91 15:41:53 GMT
References: <9110040722.AA26286@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> <1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>[...]
>>I don't recall any court case that has conclusively and directly determined
>>that Internet, Usenet, or any subpart thereof is a "limited public forum."
>
>I should have said, "In my untrained opinion, legally, the Net is a
>limited public forum."
*NETNEWS* is, for all intents and purposes, a "limited public forum";
I think most of us can agree on that. However, that collection of
backbones known as "the Net" is not, nor has it ever been, a forum for
free expression. "The Net" is actually many networks, operating under
many jurisdictions. One particular network, NSFnet, was explicitly
created for "research and education". We can make the argument that
NSFnet is a limited public forum FOR THOSE TOPICS. We cannot, however,
arbitrarily create a "subforum", or expand the current forum; this is
the current relationship between Netnews and "the Net".
>In my legally untrained opinion, it is not necessary to *extend* the
>definition of a limited public forum. It suffices to apply the current
>definition (as layed out by the Supreme Court and explained in cases
>like San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986).
That definition gives the State (or its agents) the right to determine
which topics may be discussed in a particular forum; this point has already
been discussed in great detail. Since the limited public forum known as
"NSFnet" has determined which topics are suitable, they would have the
right to cease the transmission of netnews traffic, since it was never
really "approved" in the first place.
Please don't blur the distinction between the service and the medium
upon which it is provided. The two are, in many cases, quite different.
Remember that Netnews was distributed, for years, via uucp AT THE EXPENSE
OF EACH SITE. The fact that some folks figured out how to dump it across
someone else's network does not automatically make it a "right".
--
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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org>
References: <9110040722.AA26286@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> <1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org> <1991Oct4.154153.28186@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 16:59:49 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>*NETNEWS* is, for all intents and purposes, a "limited public forum";
>I think most of us can agree on that. However, that collection of
>backbones known as "the Net" is not, nor has it ever been, a forum for
>free expression. "The Net" is actually many networks, operating under
>many jurisdictions. One particular network, NSFnet, was explicitly
>created for "research and education". We can make the argument that
>NSFnet is a limited public forum FOR THOSE TOPICS. We cannot, however,
>arbitrarily create a "subforum", or expand the current forum; this is
>the current relationship between Netnews and "the Net".
>>In my legally untrained opinion, it is not necessary to *extend* the
>>definition of a limited public forum. It suffices to apply the current
>>definition (as layed out by the Supreme Court and explained in cases
>>like San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986).
>That definition gives the State (or its agents) the right to determine
>which topics may be discussed in a particular forum; this point has already
>been discussed in great detail. Since the limited public forum known as
>"NSFnet" has determined which topics are suitable, they would have the
>right to cease the transmission of netnews traffic, since it was never
>really "approved" in the first place.
[...]
Actual practice counts as much a policy. The government must be
consistent; it can not pick and choose when it will enforce
restrictions. If the Net carries (unrestricted) Netnews and email,
then that least the Netnews and email part of the Net are de facto
free-speech forums.
Also, the NSFNet Acceptable Use Policy is says that the net has a very
broad academic purpose: "to support research and education in and
among academic institutions in the U.S. by providing access to unique
resources and the opportunity for collaborative work." The NSF has
always been as much about education (developing the next generation of
researchers) as about research.
Given the NSF's broad academic mandate, it is appropriate and perhaps
inevitable that the NSF is, de facto, following the principles of
academic freedom.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct04.164130.540@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 91 16:41:30 GMT
References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu>
In article <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>>Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>
>>You don't bounce back. You just keep bowing-- until eventually you find there
>>are regulations or unwritten confining you in every aspect of your job, and
>>you have no discretion whatsoever.
>
>Whoa! INCONSISTENCY ALERT!
>
>Matthew, haven't you been one of the folks arguing that many facets of
>system administration should be explicitly enumerated in written policies
>and/or regulations? Indeed, haven't many people argued that very point
>in this forum?
These aren't policies-- these are unwritten standards which, when someone
thinks they are violated, they send an ultimatum demanding disconnection. A
written policy is something that can be fought. Unwritten standards enforced
by pure power cannot be fought. At all. And they are especially dangerous
because those charged with enforcing them will tend to confine themselves and
their users in ways STRICTER than those unwritten policies, and if their users
complain, they will say there is nothing they can do--- talk to Congress.
>You can't have it both ways. When it's something you oppose, such as
>disciplinary actions, you loudly argue that "There must be a *policy*!";
>however, when you support something, such as news, you argue that system
>administrators should resist the implementation of policies? That doesn't
>work. Most of the "written policy" proponents agree that any policy should
>be comprehensive, covering almost every aspect of using a given system. I
>was under the impression that you were in favor of such policies. If you
>support such policies, you must be prepared to accept policies that apply
>to news.
The policies must be clear, consistently enforced, and available to those
affected. The ultimatums from the NSF meet none of these standards.
>You mentioned in an earlier posting that "direct pressure from system
>administrators" may influence NSF policies. You also implied that
>Sanjay "didn't want to stick his neck out one little bit". Let's step
>back and take a look at reality. According to the September 1991 NSFNet
>statistics (available via ftp from nis.nsf.net, login anonymous, password
>guest), 2,958 networks sent/received 6,908,303,950 packets over the NSF
>backbone. SUNY-SB, on which Sanjay's system resides, sent/received
>22,088,442 packets; that was 0.16% of the inbound packets and 0.16% of
>the outbound packets. SUNY-SB ranked 151st of the 2958 networks. While
>that is a rather high placement, he is still only one of the hundreds of
>thousands of sites using the NSFnet backbone. There are probably dozens
>of systems at SUNY-SB using the backbone, so Sanjay's system may only
>account for a small fraction of the total traffic coming from SUNY-SB.
>How much influence do you expect him to have at SUNY-SB, much less at
>the NSFnet level? Let's be realistic.
>
>For those who may be interested in such things, here are the top 15
>networks, in terms of NSFnet backbone traffic in September:
>
>
> IP Addr Network Packets Packets % of % of
> sent received total total
> to NSFnet from NSFnet sent rcvd
>========================================================================
> 128.252 WASHINGTON-U 201,649,750 144,999,953 2.92 2.10
> 18 MIT-TEMP 164,327,307 159,995,218 2.38 2.32
> 128.2 CMU-NET 126,130,019 182,058,039 1.83 2.64
> 128.95 WASHINGTON 112,634,927 113,064,032 1.63 1.64
> 128.32 UCB-ETHER 107,728,875 98,754,749 1.56 1.43
> 128.83 UTAUSTIN 104,536,346 92,867,211 1.51 1.34
> 128.112 PRINCETON 98,207,137 108,015,901 1.42 1.56
> 129.79 INDIANA-NET 95,919,160 77,674,593 1.39 1.12
> 137.39 UUNET-WAN 95,011,308 60,880,405 1.38 0.88
> 36 SU-NET-TEMP 94,878,116 82,849,003 1.37 1.20
> 128.174 UIUC-CAMPUS-B 93,542,769 78,996,120 1.35 1.14
> 128.6 RUTGERS 79,307,761 78,569,174 1.15 1.14
> 128.8 UMDNET 75,286,793 82,110,651 1.09 1.19
> 141.142 NCSANET 72,409,463 47,207,130 1.05 0.68
> 128.138 COLORADO 58,380,887 58,186,816 0.85 0.84
>
>Perhaps umd.edu should lead the way; after all, they are one of the few
>networks which accounts for more than 2% of the total traffic. Why not
>convince the umd.edu sysadmins to "lead the way"?
Me? Convince the umd.edu sysadmins? Come now, some of those people attempted
to get me expelled, and to the others, I'm just some anonymous student. My
thoughts count for nothing. I have no authority, and am no threat to their
position. Ignoring me costs them nothing.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1078 alt.censorship:1759
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: [repost] Waterloo ban on rec.humor.funny finally lifted
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.172915.23443@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 91 17:29:15 GMT
References: <1991Oct3.172138.338@eff.org> <1991Oct4.153000.29957@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct4.153000.29957@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[This is the announcement and report from Dr. Johnny Wong, Associate
>Provost (Computing and Information Systems). - Carl]
>
> [ ... actual announcement deleted ... ]
Great! I'm glad that Waterloo has rescinded their ban. This was the
case with which I was the most familiar when I made my comments about
deciding which groups to carry. It would seem that this decision has
made mine easier......of course, I still have to find disk space for
all this stuff.....8)
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
-------------------
Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4242 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1079
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Keywords: NSFNET Acceptable Use
Message-ID: <2969@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 4 Oct 91 17:24:50 GMT
References: <199110031637.AA29047@eff.org> <2956@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> <1991Oct4.055552.19960@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
In article <1991Oct4.055552.19960@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
|
|[...]
|>Now, to get back to the topic at hand. The public, through their elected
|>representatives, authorized the creation of ARPANet/Internet/NSFNet to
|>accomplish a specific purpose. From a draft of the NSFNet Acceptable Use
|>Policy this purpose is "to support research and other scholarly activities in
|>the U.S. by providing access to unique resources and the opportunity for
|>collaborative work." Net use that runs counter to the approved policy has
|>not been authorized by the public, and it could be considered the
|>responsibililty of government officials to ensure that such usage not take
|>place. The way that a member of the public 'demands' a change is via his or
|>her elected representatives.
|[...]
|
|Legally, the Net is a limited public forum; this is in contrast with a
|traditional public forum such as a public plaza and a nonpublic forum,
|such a prison. A limited public forum is created by the government and
|may, according to the Supreme Court, be limited in two ways. First,
|access to the forum may be limited. In the case of the Net, access is
|limited to those with accounts on computers on the Net. Second, the
|topics for discussion may be limited. For example, access to a public
|college's student newspaper is limited to the students staff but a
|college newspaper usually has no limit on topics. Access to a campus
|(paper) mail system is often limited to staff and students and it's
|topics are often limited those related to official business.
Is this really true? I note that Bob Solon also question the legal status of
the "Net". Does it really have one, as people frequently can't even agree
on what the "Net" is, let alone, it's purpose or status. Note that NSFNet
is more narrowly defined and does have a specified existance.
Excerpting from Gene Spafford's "What is Usenet?" from the section called
"What Usenet is Not":
" 1. Usenet is not an organization.
No person or group has authority over Usenet as a whole. No one
controls who gets a news feed, which articles are propagated
where, who can post articles, or anything else. There is no
"Usenet Incorporated," nor is there a "Usenet User's Group."
You're on your own.
Granted, there are various activities organized by means of Usenet
newsgroups. The newsgroup creation process is is one such
activity. But it would be a mistake to equate Usenet with the
organized activities it makes possible. If they were to stop
tomorrow, Usenet would go on without them.
" 2. Usenet is not a democracy.
Since there is no person or group in charge of Usenet as a whole
-- i.e. there is no Usenet "government" -- it follows that Usenet
cannot be a democracy, autocracy, or any other kind of "-acy."
(But see "The Camel's Nose?" below.)
" 3. Usenet is not fair.
After all, who shall decide what's fair? For that matter, if
someone is behaving unfairly, who's going to stop him? Neither
you nor I, that's certain.
" 4. Usenet is not a right.
Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech"
to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers to
say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners of
said computers have no right to stop them.
Those people are wrong. Freedom of speech also means freedom not
to speak. If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,
that is my right. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own
one.
" 5. Usenet is not a public utility.
Some Usenet sites are publicly funded or subsidized. Most of
them, by plain count, are not. There is no government monopoly
on Usenet, and little or no government control."
Note from me: NSFNet doe not equal Usenet.
" 8. Usenet is not the Internet.
The Internet is a wide-ranging network, parts of which are
subsidized by various governments. It carries many kinds of
traffic, of which Usenet is only one. And the Internet is only
one of the various networks carrying Usenet traffic."
|Unlike the owner of private property, the government "is not
|necessarily the unfettered master of all it creates" [Supreme Court in
|ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n25]. For example, it can not
|practice viewpoint discrimination within its forums. In other words,
|if it allows one view of a topic to be expressed, then all views must
|be allowed. Also, the government cannot withdraw support from a
|limited-public forum simply because of displeasure with the content.
|For example, "[a]lthough school boards are not obligated to support
|student papers, if a given publication was originally created as a
|free speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support
|can be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression."
|[From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M.
|McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe]
|
|I think these restrictions on the government's authority are a good
|thing. This democracy is predicated on an informed electorate. New
|forums such as the Net help to create such an electorate.
Minor hair splitting here, the US is not a democracy (certainly not in the
classical sense), it is a republic.
|I think this leaves two questions:
|
|What are the topic restrictions for use of the Net?
| and
|What topic restrictions *should* there be for use of the Net?
|
|The first question cannot be answered authoritatively. There are
|several indications that it is a de facto free-speech forum. First,
|the tentative acceptable use policy is vague (except about commercial
|use.) Second, topic restrictions are not consistently enforced. Email,
|IRC, Netnews, etc all seem to be free-speech forums. Third, because of
|the Nets academic nature, the courts may find topic restrictions
|unacceptable. [...]
But then, again, they may not.
|I think the second question is more important. In my opinion, an
|academic network should respect academic freedom. This means that
|institutional control of facilities should not be used as a device of
|censorship [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights]. It should
|respect intellectual freedom. This means that "[m]aterials should not
|be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval"
|[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala].
There is much academic use of "the Net" but that does _not_ make it an
"academic network". The site I'm posting this from has a name in the "mil"
domain. We get our Usenet feed from sites in "gov" and "com".
Again, from Gene Spafford's "What is Usenet?"
"6. Usenet is not an academic network.
It is no surprise that many Usenet sites are universities,
research labs or other academic institutions. After all, Usenet
originated with a link between two universities, and the exchange
of ideas and information is what such institutions are all about.
But the passage of years has changed Usenet's character. Today,
by plain count, most Usenet sites are commercial entities."
|It's time to create a new Acceptable Use Policy that unambiguously
|supports academic and intellectual freedom.
|
|- Carl M. Kadie, editor Computers and Academic Freedom News
|--
|Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
|I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
From kadie Mon Oct 7 10:49:38 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 7 10:48:51 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Government restriction of net information
kadie@eff.org (Car : Is the United States a (was Re: Government restriction...
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information
rrezaian@austral.c : Re: "Public" Libraries
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Academic Porn Conference
scott@GOMEZ.phys.v : Yo, Wisconsin!
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
sbrack@bluemoon.rn : Re: Ownership rights
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)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.180750.3733@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 18:07:50 GMT
[I'm reposting this email note with the permission of the author. - Carl]
>Date: Fri, 4 Oct 91 13:10:25 EDT
>From: Bernie Cosell
>Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Thanks for the SC quote... I have been suspect about NSF net ever
since it first started and seemed to be VERY policy-deficient. I may
have mentioned in the note to you that the line of reasoning you follow
might become 'true' not by actual adminstrative decision, but by a
funny cyberspace version of 'adverse possession'. Basically, by
allowing things like email and usenet links to use the NFSnet backbone,
they may have -implicitly_ made themselves a limitiedpublic forum,
whether they wanted to be [or were chartered to be] one or not.
I wonder what NSF believes their role to be these days. If they have
really drifted into the 'common carrier' business, that'd be a pretty
sneaky way to get that funded [since I doubt that Congress would
authorize appropriations directly for a common carrier service to be
provided free to a privileged few, especially when that would compete
with legitimate business trying to make a go of it in the same market.
[consider the analog of allowing every university phone to connect to
AutoVON and let folks call their friends in Japan for free. They might
provide a WATS line for a specific project, but they'd never authorize
unrestricted wholesale undercutting of the real long distance carriers.
--- continuing the analogy, for the random, idle [non research] chatter
that occupies so much of our bandwidth [including our email exchange,
of course...:-)], wouldn't a more prudent policy be to allow funding
for folks to use commercial nets [and encourage competition to ensure
sensible costs] --- basically budget telecom services the way they
budget for phone service, workstations, etc --- instead of virtually
killing the marketplace by making a non-cost-sensitive competitor to
the real carriers].
When I was talking about policy, I was talking about the pre-NSF
policy. As far as I can tell, NSF is just beginning [a bit late in the
game actually] to try to sort out just what they ARE going to do about
this mess they've inherited from DCA/DARPA. I think that the whole
matter of overall and regional-net administrative policies was
under-planned, and so a bunch of hard issues were put off and are just
beginning to surface.
A bit of history: in order to be connected to the network at all, you
had to petition DARPA [or DCA] and your site had to have a legitimate
need to use the network [and, for example, if it was work on a specific
contract, when the contract was completed you net connection could go
away unless you could invent some new need for it]. If you received
approval for connection to the network, you still didn't get carte
blanche to play with your new toy: part of the conditions of the
connect were that network use was limited to gov't business. There
were *explicit* policies to that effect up until the day the arpanet
was turned off [and those policies are still in place on the
less-visible networks that the DoD is still funding]. The site
administrators were expected to put procedures in place to ensure
compliance.
Now, originally, the network was built [and made available to
researchers] to support *network* research [and it did: work on
satellite links, sending real-time speech [and much later, real-time
video], queueing and modeling theory, routing algorithms, lots of other
net-based experiments [e.g., distributing weather maps via the net,
instead of by US mail [this before the days of omnipresent fax].
The first chink in the armor came because the network quickly proved to
be useful to *support* research, rather than just to *do* research.
This prompted the first change in policy: to allow almost unrestricted
use of the network *for*approved*gov't*business*. Email, of course,
was a incredibly addictive drug and the use of the net for other than
net-research grew.
The next chink --- which, given your analysis, is _probably_ the one
that leds direct to the current situation --- is when the network moves
>from being adminstered by DARPA to being adminstered by DCA. This, in
essence, meant that DARPA *admitted* that the network had stopped being
a research vehicle and, instead, had become an operation tool in its
own right. Still limited to 'official business', but the dam was
breached: It *was* a "common carrier" in the usual sense of the word.
With NSFNET's VERY relaxed rules and nonexistent policies as ti allowed
folks to connect willy-nilly, you're probably right: it is easy to show
that it is really a carrier, and all you needed was the "limited
public" part, and NSF bumbled into making THAT happen, and so LONG in
advance of any actual policy decisions [which are, apparently, just
being sorted out now], much of it is already a fait accompli.
Interesting... I wonder where it will all lead.
/bernie\
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.180007.277@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 91 18:00:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct4.180007.277
References: <1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org> <1991Oct4.154153.28186@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Actual practice counts as much a policy.
Then why was there such an uproar when Joe Abernathy published his
"Internet pornography ring" stories? I can make a practice of sending
mail-order catalogs through electronic mail; do you think that would
be approved just because it's an "actual practice"? How many people
have to participate before it becomes an "actual practice"? Does that
inherently make it right?
>The government must be
>consistent; it can not pick and choose when it will enforce
>restrictions. If the Net carries (unrestricted) Netnews and email,
>then that least the Netnews and email part of the Net are de facto
>free-speech forums.
OK, so NSFnet is free to stop carrying packets addressed to NNTP ports?
After all, that would effectively restrict all Netnews traffic. I don't
really know of a way to "partially" restrict Netnews traffic; after all,
there's no way to discern whether a particular packet is part of a message
for comp.sys.sun or soc.singles. It will wind up being an "all or nothing"
decision.
(For your information, nntp was the third largest single service carried on the
NSFnet backbone in August 1991, in terms of packet counts. ftp-data was the
largest, and telnet was the second-largest. This information is available
via anonymous ftp from nis.nsf.net, directory nsfstats, file nsf91-XX.ports,
where XX is the number of the month desired, 01-12)
Did you realize just how much of the NSFnet traffic is netnews?
I think that we must separate email from these discussions. Electronic
mail has always been an expressly personal medium, radically different
from netnews. While email may indeed reach large numbers of people (via
mailing lists), it is still primarily an individual activity. This is
in the process of court tests in several jurisdictions; however, I don't
think that any of those proceedings involve universities.
>Also, the NSFNet Acceptable Use Policy is says that the net has a very
>broad academic purpose: "to support research and education in and
>among academic institutions in the U.S. by providing access to unique
>resources and the opportunity for collaborative work." The NSF has
>always been as much about education (developing the next generation of
>researchers) as about research.
I have never said otherwise. However, the actual suitability of Netnews as
an instructional tool has yet to be proven to anyone's satisfaction. Netnews
does, indeed, have an educational value; however, it is currently used on an
individual basis, outside of organized classwork. The same argument can be
applied to almost anything. I can "learn" something individually by trying
to make explosives; does that mean that the University is obligated to allow
me to use their labs? I can "learn" something by publishing a newspaper or
magazine; is the University obligated to allow me to use their presses?
>Given the NSF's broad academic mandate, it is appropriate and perhaps
>inevitable that the NSF is, de facto, following the principles of
>academic freedom.
Appropriate? Perhaps. Inevitable? Not by a long shot, unless you measure
inevitabilty on a scale of decades. Was it inevitable that women would have
the right to vote? Very few things are inevitable, especially where govern-
ments are concerned. I would suggest that it is more inevitable, given the
current wave of conservativism in America, that networks (and, by default,
services such as netnews) will become MORE controlled. Sad, but true.
--
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
-------------------
Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4243 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1082
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Is the United States a democracy? (was Re: Government restriction...)
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.182051.4031@eff.org>
Keywords: NSFNET Acceptable Use
References: <199110031637.AA29047@eff.org> <2956@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> <1991Oct4.055552.19960@eff.org> <2969@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 18:20:51 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
This democracy is predicated on an informed electorate. New
>|forums such as the Net help to create such an electorate.
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
[...]
>Minor hair splitting here, the US is not a democracy (certainly not in the
>classical sense), it is a republic.
[...]
The US is a republic *and* a democracy.
- 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:1083 comp.org.eff.talk:4244
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.183043.4431@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct4.180750.3733@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 18:30:43 GMT
[Comp.org.eff.talk readers, Some of this discussion is in
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk only]
My use of term "Net" was ambigous. By "the Net" I mean
government-sponsored academic nets that are used as a medium for
communications. For example, NFSnet and, if funded, the NREN. (NREN
will have a very broad mandate. They are talking about subnets that
will connect public libraries, grade and high schools. Its supporters
liken it to an interstate highway for data. For information on NREN
look at file ftp.eff.org:pub/docs/open.road.
Also, I should have included this in my first note.
appellate decision: [Quotes within the quote are from the Supreme
Court.]
--------- start quote -----------
The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call
this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum
by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state
to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the
public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first
place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the
groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
forum is quite restricted:
"{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
compelling state interest." [refs]
"Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and
second types of public forums, [ref]although in the latter type of
forums those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries
of the specific forum that has been established.
------------ end quote ----------
--
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)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 4 Oct 91 18:41:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
>>Yes, I would rather bow like a reed and bounce back rather than have my head
>>chopped off. Mr. Russotto, why are you so anxious to see me martyred?
>
>You don't bounce back. You just keep bowing-- until eventually you find there
>are regulations or unwritten confining you in every aspect of your job, and
>you have no discretion whatsoever.
If my head is chopped off, it will guarantee that I do not bounce back.
Unwritten regulations == Discretion
It is good of you to actually want to give Systems Administrators some
discretion.
>>
>>>Writing to NSF and/or Congress will do nothing.
>>
>>Obviously you do not believe in the functions of the various branches of a
>>democratic society.
>
>I simply recognize reality. Usenet users are an insignificant number of
>voters, and will thus be ignored. Building up a popular campaign on such
>an esoteric issue is impossible.
Congress has been known to be swayed quite a bit by letter writing campaigns.
While we are on the subject of reality, do you really believe that Systems
Administrators can really change NSF policy ?
>
>Say NSF writes a letter "suggesting" you remove alt.sex, or "action may be
>taken" against you. You have two choices: remove it, or don't remove it.
>If you remove it, alt.sex is banned and prude@NSF.gov has gotten his way.
>If you don't remove it, the NSF has to either back down or go through
>procedures to cut you off from the net. If every time NSF makes a suggestion,
>it is implemented without resistance, they have no disincentive to keep making
>these suggestions.
Are you implying that systems administrators actually are implementing NSF
suggestions without resistance unless they agree with them?
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.182637.7569@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 91 18:26:37 GMT
References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct04.164130.540@eng.umd.edu>
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
>morgan@engr.uky.edu (that's me) writes:
>>Perhaps umd.edu should lead the way; after all, they are one of the few
>>networks which accounts for more than 2% of the total traffic. Why not
>>convince the umd.edu sysadmins to "lead the way"?
>
>Me? Convince the umd.edu sysadmins? Come now, some of those people attempted
>to get me expelled, and to the others, I'm just some anonymous student. My
>thoughts count for nothing. I have no authority, and am no threat to their
>position. Ignoring me costs them nothing.
Given the fact that there are several hundred thousand systems using the
NSFnet backbone (directly or indirectly), the same rationale applies to
system administrators such as Sanjay or I. In fact, let's just change a
few words in this quote:
Me? Convince the NSFnet administrators? Come now, some of those people
could attempt to get my net shut off, and to the others, I'm just some
anonymous system administrator. My thoughts count for nothing. I have
no authority, and am no threat to their position. Ignoring me costs them
nothing.
See? We're in the same boat.
--
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
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1086 comp.org.eff.talk:4247
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org> <1991Oct4.154153.28186@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> <1991Oct4.180007.277@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 19:53:17 GMT
In article <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
cmk> Actual practice counts as much a policy.
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
wm> Then why was there such an uproar when Joe Abernathy published his
wm> "Internet pornography ring" stories?
I would guess because Abernathy's article
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library.porn.real] was sensationalistic and
short changed the importance of the free expression in an academic
environment. If he had written a similar article about libraries as a
pornogaphy ring, I think the reaction would have been similar. (As an
example of what such an article might look like see
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library.porn)
wm> I can make a practice of sending
wm> mail-order catalogs through electronic mail; do you think that would
wm> be approved just because it's an "actual practice"? How many people
wm> have to participate before it becomes an "actual practice"? Does that
wm> inherently make it right?
I don't think you *could* send unsolicited catalogs through the email
for very long. It is my impression that such commercial use is
consistently prohibited.
wm> OK, so NSFnet is free to stop carrying packets addressed to NNTP ports?
wm> After all, that would effectively restrict all Netnews traffic. I don't
wm> really know of a way to "partially" restrict Netnews traffic; after all,
wm> there's no way to discern whether a particular packet is part of a message
wm> for comp.sys.sun or soc.singles. It will wind up being an "all or nothing"
wm> decision.
The NSF effectively prohibits inappropriate commerical use without
shutting down the whole net. What it has not done is prohibit the
speech that academic freedom protects.
wm> (For your information, nntp was the third largest
wm> single service carried on the
wm> NSFnet backbone in August 1991, in terms of packet counts.
wm> ftp-data was the
wm> largest, and telnet was the second-largest.
wm> This information is available
wm> via anonymous ftp from nis.nsf.net, directory nsfstats,
wm> file nsf91-XX.ports,
wm> where XX is the number of the month desired, 01-12)
wm> Did you realize just how much of the NSFnet traffic is netnews?
It is not suprising that a broadcast medium like Netnews uses more
bandwidth than point-to-point email. This note will be read by an
estimated 11,000 people (many of whom get it via government-sponsered
academic nets).
wm> I think that we must separate email from these discussions. Electronic
wm> mail has always been an expressly personal medium, radically different
wm> from netnews.
Campus mail is also an expressly personal medium, and yet I'm not
allowed to use it for sending News Years cards to my friends.
wm> While email may indeed reach large numbers of people (via
wm> mailing lists), it is still primarily an individual activity. This is
wm> in the process of court tests in several jurisdictions; however, I don't
wm> think that any of those proceedings involve universities.
As Prodigy found out, restricting on-line forums (like Netnews) causes
increased traffic in email as people switch to mailing list.
cmk> Also, the NSFNet Acceptable Use Policy is says that the net has a very
cmk> broad academic purpose: "to support research and education in and
cmk> among academic institutions in the U.S. by providing access to unique
cmk> resources and the opportunity for collaborative work." The NSF has
cmk> always been as much about education (developing the next generation of
cmk> researchers) as about research.
wm> I have never said otherwise. However, the actual suitability of
wm> Netnews as an instructional tool has yet to be proven to
wm> anyone's satisfaction. Netnews does, indeed, have an educational
wm> value; however, it is currently used on an individual basis,
wm> outside of organized classwork. The same argument can be
wm> applied to almost anything. I can "learn" something individually
wm> by trying to make explosives; does that mean that the University
wm> is obligated to allow me to use their labs? I can "learn"
wm> something by publishing a newspaper or magazine; is the University
wm> obligated to allow me to use their presses?
(Interesting examples, most universities do give Professors and some
students labs. They also give students presses so that the students
can publish newspapers.)
The Net-as-communications-medium is not periphery to the University's
mission. It is central. To quote the preamble of the "Joint Statement
on Rights and Freedoms of Students"
--- begin quote of ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms ---
Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth. Institutional procedures for achieving
these purposes may vary from campus to campus, but the minimal
standards of academic freedom of students outlined below are essential
to any community of scholars.
----- end quote---
cmk> Given the NSF's broad academic mandate, it is appropriate and perhaps
cmk> inevitable that the NSF is, de facto, following the principles of
cmk> academic freedom.
wm> Appropriate? Perhaps. Inevitable? Not by a long shot, unless you measure
wm> inevitabilty on a scale of decades.
wm> Was it inevitable that women would have
wm> the right to vote? Very few things are inevitable, especially where govern-
wm> ments are concerned. I would suggest that it is more inevitable, given the
wm> current wave of conservativism in America, that networks (and, by default,
wm> services such as netnews) will become MORE controlled. Sad, but true.
I'm not willing to give up yet.
- Carl
--
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)
Subject: Re: "Public" Libraries
Message-ID: <2110032103.AA02575@austral.chi.il.us>
X-Unparseable-Date: Sun, 3 Oct 21 16:03:43 CDT
Sender: clout!austral!rrezaian@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Date: 4 Oct 91 20:01:06 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Just to confuse the issue further, an example:
I will argue that the so called "free" public libraries aren't.
Now, quite obviously, everyone who uses those libraries pays for that
privalige. Most of the time this payment is hiden in the myriad other
taxes people are confronted with. However, as people who live outside of
part of the "normal" tax structure can tell you, if you aren't in a city
library district you must pay separatly to use a public library.
We live in an un-incorporated area, and as such are spared city
taxes. If we wish to use the local library we must buy into the library
system to the tune of $160 to over $200 a year. We like libraries, and
have usually payed this, and conisded it a reasonably good deal.
So what's the point? Just that even today's public government
supported libraries aren't free, and that is is stupid to think that they
are. (And that if you think that no one would pay for access to a library,
you are wrong.)
--
Russell Rezaian | rrezaian@austral.chi.il.us
rrezaian@amiganet.chi.il.us | Russell Rezaian via Fido 1:115/918
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:20659 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1088
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Academic Porn Conference
Message-ID: <1991Oct4.203547.6378@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <1991Oct4.183808.23118@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1991 20:35:47 GMT
PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- A group of academians snatched pornography out
of the sleazy booskstores and X-rated theaters Friday and put it in a
more respectable setting -- a college campus [U. of Pennsylvania].
[...]
The conference, which is titled ``The Origins of Pornography,'' was
expected to draw up to 200 professors, researchers and other experts
from across the country for two days of intellectual discussion.
[...]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: scott@GOMEZ.phys.virginia.edu
Subject: Yo, Wisconsin!
Message-ID: <0094F9EB.F84E7820@GOMEZ.PHYS.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1991 16:00:43 EDT
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate group for my purposes,
but I have a friend at UWM, and would like to find her e-address. Anyone
at UWM who would like to help? Thanks in advance.
Cheers
Scott
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct05.005949.2975@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 5 Oct 91 00:59:49 GMT
References: <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct04.164130.540@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct4.182637.7569@ms.uky.edu>
In article <1991Oct4.182637.7569@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>
>>morgan@engr.uky.edu (that's me) writes:
>>>Perhaps umd.edu should lead the way; after all, they are one of the few
>>>networks which accounts for more than 2% of the total traffic. Why not
>>>convince the umd.edu sysadmins to "lead the way"?
>>
>>Me? Convince the umd.edu sysadmins? Come now, some of those people attempted
>>to get me expelled, and to the others, I'm just some anonymous student. My
>>thoughts count for nothing. I have no authority, and am no threat to their
>>position. Ignoring me costs them nothing.
>
>Given the fact that there are several hundred thousand systems using the
>NSFnet backbone (directly or indirectly), the same rationale applies to
>system administrators such as Sanjay or I. In fact, let's just change a
>few words in this quote:
>
>Me? Convince the NSFnet administrators? Come now, some of those people
>could attempt to get my net shut off, and to the others, I'm just some
>anonymous system administrator. My thoughts count for nothing. I have
>no authority, and am no threat to their position. Ignoring me costs them
>nothing.
>
>See? We're in the same boat.
No, we aren't. If the NSF administrators make some ruling or write some
threating letter, you, the system administrators, have to take some positive
action to implement it. I just have to either suffer under it, or find some
way around it. (which you, the sysadmins, will no doubt decide to discipline
me for). As an administrator, you do have authority. As a user, I'm
nobody.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: Ownership rights
Message-ID: <0gZa02w164w@bluemoon.rn.com>
Sender: nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
References: <9109290018.AA04252@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 91 17:23:08 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Joe R Tierney writes:
>
> Dear Steve,
>
> I see that your address is sbrack@bluemoon.uucp
> Does this mean the Bluemoon BBS has a connection with Internet or with Ohio
> State or both? I talked with someone at BlueMoon and they said they were goi
> to get an internet connection. Does Bluemoon have all the same access as one
> has if they connect through Ohio State. Please respon.
BlueMoon has a UUCP connection with a host that provides it with
InterNet e-mail & news service. Services like telnet & ftp,
however, are not available without a direct InterNet connection,
like MAGNUS has.
It's nice to here frome someone @ OSU. If you would write me &
tell me what's happening on campus, I'd be much obliged.
PS: If you want a bluemoon acct, send mail to grant@bluemoon.uucp.
He's the sysadmin here (& the owner).
-- 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 kadie Mon Oct 7 10:54:06 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 7 10:53:07 EDT 1991
In this issue:
alyoung@silver.ucs : Campus Newspaper 'censorship.'
sbrack@bluemoon.rn : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
sbrack@bluemoon.rn : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
danielsn@unixg.ubc : Computer Mediated Ethical Discussion: An Invitation
sbrack@bluemoon.rn : Re: Government restriction of net information
sean@sdg.dra.com : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
warnold@eff.org (W : Readership stats
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
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: alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young)
Subject: Campus Newspaper 'censorship.'
Message-ID: <199110051758.AA02208@eff.org>
Sender: alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
References: <199110051502.AA29881@eff.org>
Date: 5 Oct 91 17:58:53 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
What one must conclude is that the person owning has control. Not pretty
when you are talking about something such as college newspaper, for colleges
are supposed to be the hotbeds of opinion and outspokeness, right?
If the school is owner of the paper, they pretty much can pick and chose, and
yes, judge what goes into it.
The Indiana Daily Student from Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana
is close to celebrating it's 125th birthday. It's one of the oldest around.
It's been through every stage: a college journal, a monthly, semi-monthly,
weekly, bi weekly, tri weekly, daily, etc. IT's been a laboratory paper,
it's been totally university owned and operated, you name it.
Now it's 100% self supporting, with a daily printing of 11,000. Mail
subscriptions, single copy, all have a charge. It's supported by revenues
from circulatin and advertising, which brings in about 1 million annually.
The thing is, as well as varied in news, filled with student aimed
advertising. It is printed by the Herald-Times, the
Being self supportive, there hasn't been a problem with the school saying
what they can and can't say, at least I have not heard of any lately.
The editorials regularly shred the university (as it should) for one
point or another.
IF the university is not going to help make the paper independent,
then perhaps an organization and move to create a true STUDENT newspaper
would pick up the interest of a local person able to support a fledgling
publication such as that.
amy
-------------------
From: sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID:
Sender: nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
References: <1991Oct4.134400.2052@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 5 Oct 91 18:59:28 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
nstar!iuvax!ms.uky.edu!morgan (Wes Morgan) writes:
> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> >Sanjay Kapur writes:
> >
> >>I would suggest writing to the people who run the NSF or to Congress. The
> >>poor system admin is in no position to set or even seriously challenge
> >>the policies of the government of these United States.
> >
> >And, once again, Mr. Kapur shows us his dedication to free expression by
> >passing the buck and being ever willing to bow to the express, implied, or
> >even worried-about threat of Those In Charge.
> >
> >Writing to NSF and/or Congress will do nothing. Direct challenge by systems
> >administrators may. Of course, this is a more risky course of action,
> >and we wouldn't want you sticking your neck out one little inch, would we?
>
> Would you have the same sarcastic attitude if you were a user on Sanjay's
> system? Suppose that he did, indeed, "stick his neck out" and get slapped
> down? Suppose that, in response, the administration at SUNY-SB removed
> news completely; would you rally to his support? Somehow, I doubt it.
> Would you be happy to go without news for a long period of time, while
> Sanjay (and presumably others) fought the administration to restore it?
There has to be a deeper sence of right and wrong, than simply
what is practical. Case in point: the Orphan Drug Act of 1983(?);
The users of the prescription drugs covered under that Act
represent a far smaller percentage of the population than do the
contributors & readers of UseNet.
>
> As an example, it took almost three years for Waterloo to lift their
> ban on rec.humor.funny. Would you be willing to support Sanjay for that
> much time? Would you just find access to some other news site and leave
> him to fight his own battle? Would you just graduate and forget about it?
> Would you even worry about the hundreds of other users on his systems?
The preceding paragraph presents a very good example of big
government's injurious effect upon civil liberties. Because
the beauraucracy is so hard to fight, its accidental encroachment
on civil liberties & academic freedom are seen as too difficult to
correct. But, if we continue to be this complacent, then slowly
but surely, all our liberties will be eroded away. There has to
be a point at which we stand up & stop the process.
>
> There is a time and place to be a visionary/activist; it's up to every
> individual to decide if he is in that time and/or place. If you don't
> know the full picture at his site, you really don't have any reason to
> condemn him.
I can see very little practical justification for criticizing
anyone for not taking a stand on this, because most of us have
let things slide that we knew were wrong. It is a problem on
a larger scale than just one person. But the fact that we are
collectively guilty doesn't lesson our guilt. Fr. Maxmillian
Kolbe is recordedd as saying that failure to stop a wrong is as
evil as its commission.
So, I put it to you: How can we, in good conscience, allow this
silencing of free expression to continue. If they take alt.sex,
then how long will it be trill we lose tralk.politics or caf-talk?
-- Steve Brack
_________________________________________________________________________
|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: sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID:
Sender: nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
References: <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 5 Oct 91 19:17:27 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
nstar!iuvax!ms.uky.edu!morgan (Wes Morgan) writes:
> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> >>Sanjay Kapur writes:
> >>>
> >>>And, once again, Mr. Kapur shows us his dedication to free expression by
> >>>passing the buck and being ever willing to bow to the express, implied, or
> >>>even worried-about threat of Those In Charge.
> >>
> >>Yes, I would rather bow like a reed and bounce back rather than have my hea
> >>chopped off. Mr. Russotto, why are you so anxious to see me martyred?
> >
> >You don't bounce back. You just keep bowing-- until eventually you find the
> >are regulations or unwritten confining you in every aspect of your job, and
> >you have no discretion whatsoever.
>
> Whoa! INCONSISTENCY ALERT!
>
> Matthew, haven't you been one of the folks arguing that many facets of
> system administration should be explicitly enumerated in written policies
> and/or regulations? Indeed, haven't many people argued that very point
> in this forum?
I think he's only saying that such unwritten policies exist, not
that he supports them.
>
> You can't have it both ways. When it's something you oppose, such as
> disciplinary actions, you loudly argue that "There must be a *policy*!";
> however, when you support something, such as news, you argue that system
> administrators should resist the implementation of policies? That doesn't
> work. Most of the "written policy" proponents agree that any policy should
> be comprehensive, covering almost every aspect of using a given system. I
> was under the impression that you were in favor of such policies. If you
> support such policies, you must be prepared to accept policies that apply
> to news.
Once again, I don't think the argument is against written news
policy, but against overly restrictive written news policy.
Just because we want to have a policy governing NetNews doesn't
mean we should accept a bad policy governing NetNews.
>
> >Say NSF writes a letter "suggesting" you remove alt.sex, or "action may be
> >taken" against you. You have two choices: remove it, or don't remove it.
> >If you remove it, alt.sex is banned and prude@NSF.gov has gotten his way.
> >If you don't remove it, the NSF has to either back down or go through
> >procedures to cut you off from the net. If every time NSF makes a suggestio
> >it is implemented without resistance, they have no disincentive to keep maki
> >these suggestions.
>
> You mentioned in an earlier posting that "direct pressure from system
> administrators" may influence NSF policies. You also implied that
> Sanjay "didn't want to stick his neck out one little bit". Let's step
> back and take a look at reality. According to the September 1991 NSFNet
> statistics (available via ftp from nis.nsf.net, login anonymous, password
> guest), 2,958 networks sent/received 6,908,303,950 packets over the NSF
> backbone. SUNY-SB, on which Sanjay's system resides, sent/received
> 22,088,442 packets; that was 0.16% of the inbound packets and 0.16% of
> the outbound packets. SUNY-SB ranked 151st of the 2958 networks. While
> that is a rather high placement, he is still only one of the hundreds of
> thousands of sites using the NSFnet backbone. There are probably dozens
> of systems at SUNY-SB using the backbone, so Sanjay's system may only
> account for a small fraction of the total traffic coming from SUNY-SB.
> How much influence do you expect him to have at SUNY-SB, much less at
> the NSFnet level? Let's be realistic.
Just because he is a "little guy" doesn't mean he shouldn't stand
up for his principles, for academic freedom. And if enough of
the small sites, volumewise, were to do the same thing, then you
would see a reaction. If NSF cuts off SUNY-SB, then won't that
adversely effect NSF's primary mission, that of disseminating
information related to research. As it is, NetNews is carried
over NSFNet at a lower priority than its most important traffic.
If NSF provides connectivity between sistes, then there is no
valid reason not to provide NetNews if the resources are
available.
> For those who may be interested in such things, here are the top 15
> networks, in terms of NSFnet backbone traffic in September:
>
> [Listing Deleted]
>
> Perhaps umd.edu should lead the way; after all, they are one of the few
> networks which accounts for more than 2% of the total traffic. Why not
> convince the umd.edu sysadmins to "lead the way"?
>
Why should we single out any one person or site? This should be
a collective effort. We cannot win if we only fight restrictions
on academic freedom in a piecemeal effort.
-- Steve Brack
_________________________________________________________________________
|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: danielsn@unixg.ubc.ca (Peter Danielson)
Subject: Computer Mediated Ethical Discussion: An Invitation
Message-ID: <199110060708.AA00144@eff.org>
Sender: SK@ccvm.sunysb.edu
Date: 4 Oct 91 21:26:02 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
This may be of interest to members of this forum.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
6 Oct 1991 Announcement
COMPUTER ETHICS THROUGH THICK & THIN
Computer Ethics through Thick & Thin is a three year research
project funded by an Applied Ethics Strategic Grant from the
Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The
project will investigate the ethical potential of computer
mediated communication by creating two virtual colloquia that
differ in the information available to their members. The Thick
group will know each other only as continuing pseudonyms; the
Thin group will be able to access whatever information its
members will contribute.
The two colloquia are based on e-mail in order to encourage wide
membership. The groups will discuss ethical issues raised by
computer technology, such as privacy and ownership and control.
For a description of the project and information about how to join
either group, please contact:
Prof. Peter Danielson danielsn@unixg.ubc.ca
Centre for Applied Ethics (604) 822 4658
University of British Columbia FAX (604) 822 8627
1866 Mail Mall E-165 Vancouver,
B.C. Canada V6T 1Z1
-------------------
From: sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID:
Sender: nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
References: <1991Oct4.154153.28186@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 5 Oct 91 19:24:44 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
nstar!iuvax!ms.uky.edu!morgan (Wes Morgan) writes:
> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
> >[...]
> >>I don't recall any court case that has conclusively and directly determined
> >>that Internet, Usenet, or any subpart thereof is a "limited public forum."
> >
> >I should have said, "In my untrained opinion, legally, the Net is a
> >limited public forum."
>
> *NETNEWS* is, for all intents and purposes, a "limited public forum";
> I think most of us can agree on that. However, that collection of
> backbones known as "the Net" is not, nor has it ever been, a forum for
> free expression. "The Net" is actually many networks, operating under
> many jurisdictions. One particular network, NSFnet, was explicitly
> created for "research and education". We can make the argument that
> NSFnet is a limited public forum FOR THOSE TOPICS. We cannot, however,
> arbitrarily create a "subforum", or expand the current forum; this is
> the current relationship between Netnews and "the Net".
>
> >In my legally untrained opinion, it is not necessary to *extend* the
> >definition of a limited public forum. It suffices to apply the current
> >definition (as layed out by the Supreme Court and explained in cases
> >like San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986).
>
> That definition gives the State (or its agents) the right to determine
> which topics may be discussed in a particular forum; this point has already
> been discussed in great detail. Since the limited public forum known as
> "NSFnet" has determined which topics are suitable, they would have the
> right to cease the transmission of netnews traffic, since it was never
> really "approved" in the first place.
>
> Please don't blur the distinction between the service and the medium
> upon which it is provided. The two are, in many cases, quite different.
> Remember that Netnews was distributed, for years, via uucp AT THE EXPENSE
> OF EACH SITE. The fact that some folks figured out how to dump it across
> someone else's network does not automatically make it a "right".
>
But, there is really no reason to disallow such traffic when it
does not interfere in the normal use of the backbone net.
Also, I believe there is a common law principle that if a
institution allows an action for a period of time, that
action becomes authorized by estoppel, by the fact that it
could have been stopped at any tiome, but wasn't.
-- Steve Brack
> --
> morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morg
> morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UK
> morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.e
_________________________________________________________________________
|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: sean@sdg.dra.com
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct5.183000.37@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 5 Oct 91 18:30:00 CDT
References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct04.164130.540@eng.umd.edu>
In article <1991Oct04.164130.540@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> Me? Convince the umd.edu sysadmins? Come now, some of those people attempted
> to get me expelled, and to the others, I'm just some anonymous student. My
> thoughts count for nothing. I have no authority, and am no threat to their
> position. Ignoring me costs them nothing.
If you're a US citizen you can have a very large effect. They may be slow,
but ignoring a citizen is not a recommended method for career advancement
in government.
Stephen S. Wolff
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, NW
Room 533
Washington, DC 20550
Write up a research proposal that is within NSF's congressional mandate and
submit it. After NSF received the complaint about those GIFs, they asked that
anyone using those GIFs for formal research or education to write up a report
on their work. The response was rather underwhelming. With no evidence that
the consumption of NSFnet resources by transmitting those GIFs was furthering
any of the stated goals of the NSFnet, it was a summary judgement for the
plaintiff (the defense never showed up).
I've talked to people at NSF about delivery of a variety of materials across
the Internet. I think it would be fairer to characterize NSF's position as
anyone transmitting material across the NSFnet had better be prepared to
explain how it furthers NSFnet's stated goals. This is true regardless of
the content.
In particular, I was told delivery of subscribed material via NSFnet to a U.S.
university library for their research collection was acceptable. It seems
that collection policies for research libraries get approved somewhere else,
so if you meet those standards, NSF will also accept them. I didn't ask
about delivery to end users, but you may have to go to the interlibrary-loan
department and ask them to FTP the files for you (assuming you meet your
university's requirements for ILL).
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
-------------------
From: warnold@eff.org (William W. Arnold)
Subject: Readership stats
Message-ID: <199110061556.AA06644@eff.org>
Sender: warnold
Date: 6 Oct 91 15:56:01 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
For all those who don't get news.lists. Here are the current
propigation statistics.
+-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
| +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
| | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
| | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
| | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
| | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
| | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader
| | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
| | | | | | | | who read this group.
V V V V V V V V
677 11000 252 51% 206 624.1 7% 0.06 0.7% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
So, we moved up by a couple of thousand people.
and for everyone here are the current mailing list totals-
comp-academic-freedom-batch 79
comp-academic-freedom-news 257
comp-academic-freedom-talk 86
total- 422 subscriptions.
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <738CCD4C5020A654@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 6 Oct 91 18:43:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>From: sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com (Steven S. Brack)
> The preceding paragraph presents a very good example of big
> government's injurious effect upon civil liberties. Because
> the beauraucracy is so hard to fight, its accidental encroachment
> on civil liberties & academic freedom are seen as too difficult to
> correct. But, if we continue to be this complacent, then slowly
> but surely, all our liberties will be eroded away. There has to
> be a point at which we stand up & stop the process.
Agreed.
> I can see very little practical justification for criticizing
> anyone for not taking a stand on this, because most of us have
> let things slide that we knew were wrong. It is a problem on
> a larger scale than just one person. But the fact that we are
> collectively guilty doesn't lesson our guilt. Fr. Maxmillian
> Kolbe is recordedd as saying that failure to stop a wrong is as
> evil as its commission.
>
Agreed again.
> So, I put it to you: How can we, in good conscience, allow this
> silencing of free expression to continue. If they take alt.sex,
> then how long will it be trill we lose tralk.politics or caf-talk?
>
Just because users interact with System Administrators, they asume that the
systems administrators set the policy on these issues. The "they" that you
mention above is most commonly someone far above the level of the System
Administrator. Usually Systems Administrators are too proud to admit that the
policy that they are implementing is not their policy but that of someone
above them. What users also do not realize is that the "they" mentioned above
are much more likely to listen to user complaints than the "Challenge" or
"Request" of a Systems Adminstrator.
> -- Steve Brack
>|Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com |
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 kadie Mon Oct 7 10:55:24 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Oct 7 10:55:02 EDT 1991
In this issue:
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Government restriction of net information
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Campus Newspaper 'censorship.'
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
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: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <7402DCFDF020A654@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 6 Oct 91 18:47:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> But, there is really no reason to disallow such traffic when it
> does not interfere in the normal use of the backbone net.
>
> Also, I believe there is a common law principle that if a
> institution allows an action for a period of time, that
> action becomes authorized by estoppel, by the fact that it
> could have been stopped at any tiome, but wasn't.
At least in New York state and also for the Federal Government the doctrine of
"Estoppel" is inapplicable to governemnt owned institutions.
> -- Steve Brack
>|Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com |
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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Campus Newspaper 'censorship.'
Message-ID: <1991Oct6.213324.10905@eff.org>
References: <199110051502.AA29881@eff.org> <199110051758.AA02208@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1991 21:33:24 GMT
alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young) writes:
>What one must conclude is that the person owning has control. Not pretty
>when you are talking about something such as college newspaper, for colleges
>are supposed to be the hotbeds of opinion and outspokeness, right?
>If the school is owner of the paper, they pretty much can pick and chose, and
>yes, judge what goes into it.
[...]
The government is not a person. It is an organization that should
operate according to it's charter. That charter, the Constitution,
forbids the government from practicing, for example, viewpoint
discrimination within the forums that it owns.
I agree with the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms] that "[w]henever possible
the student newspaper should be an independent corporation financially
and legally separate from the university." But I assert that financial
dependence does not give the government legal (or moral) authority to
censor.
- 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)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct6.215752.11435@eff.org>
References: <7402DCFDF020A654@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1991 21:57:52 GMT
sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com (Steven S. Brack) writes:
[...]
>> Also, I believe there is a common law principle that if a
>> institution allows an action for a period of time, that
>> action becomes authorized by estoppel, by the fact that it
>> could have been stopped at any tiome, but wasn't.
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
> At least in New York state and also for the Federal Government the
> doctrine of "Estoppel" is inapplicable to governemnt owned
> institutions.
I don't think we need to rely on common law. In San Diego Committee v.
Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986), the appellate court applied the
principles set down in several Supreme Court cases and ruled that a
public high school not ban anti-draft ads from its newspaper. It said:
--- begin quote ---
CARD's advertisement comes within the boundaries of the limited public
forum the Board has created. Having established a limited public forum
the Board cannot, absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude
speech otherwise within the boundaries of the forum.... In particular,
the Board cannot allow the presentation of one side of an issue, but
prohibit the presentation of the other side ... Here, the board
permitted mixed political and commercial speech advocating military
service, but attempted to bar the same type of speech opposing
interest justifying its conduct. Accordingly, the Board violated the
First Amendment when it excluded CARD's advertisements from the
newspapers.
--- end quote ---
The court required consistency; it looked at what the board had
actually permitted and then said that they could not change the rules
of the game just because they didn't like the content of the new
material.
[There are more excerpts from this decision in
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n25. The full decision is
published in _The Freedom to Publish_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian.
Published by Neal-Schuman Publishers 1989.]
- Carl 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: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct6.220403.11597@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct4.144225.13879@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct04.164130.540@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct5.183000.37@sdg.dra.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1991 22:04:03 GMT
sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
[...]
>In particular, I was told delivery of subscribed material via NSFnet to a U.S.
>university library for their research collection was acceptable. It seems
>that collection policies for research libraries get approved somewhere else,
>so if you meet those standards, NSF will also accept them. I didn't ask
>about delivery to end users, but you may have to go to the interlibrary-loan
>department and ask them to FTP the files for you (assuming you meet your
>university's requirements for ILL).
[...]
Academic freedom is in a sad state if our freedom to read depends on
finding a research library to vouch for us.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
