From kadie Tue Oct 8 20:28:54 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Oct 8 20:28:00 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.28
edtjda@magic322.ch : So what is the
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : So what is the
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: Newsgroups selection
gritton@irvine.ee. : Re: Newsgroups selection
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.e : Re: Government restriction of net information
-- commercial free speech
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: Government restriction of net information
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: Government restriction of net information
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
stev@ftp.com (stev : Re: So what is the
edtjda@magic322.ch : Re: So what is the
sean@dsl.pitt.edu : Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
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
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1138 comp.admin.policy:1025 comp.org.eff.talk:4362
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.28
Message-ID: <1991Oct8.145023.16702@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 14:50:23 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-news). Information about CAF-news followings the
abstract.
--- begin abstract 1.28 ---
[For the week of September 16 to September 22, 1991
If you believe that sys admins should select newsgroups the way that
librarians select books and magazines, you will find the first two
notes useful. The first note is a short list of suggestions gathered
from the American Library Association's "Workbook for Selection Policy
Writing".<1991Sep21.215316.833@eff.org> The second note is the full
text of the Workbook, including a complete sample
policy.<1991Sep21.193707.22331@eff.org>
The next notes contrast traditional libraries and computer libraries.
The first note list similarities and differences
<1991Sep17.172347.9216@eff.org>. The second note clarifies the
comparison. For example, "Netnews" is not compared to a library, but
to rather a set of publications. It is a Netnews service that compared
to a library. The note also creates a "Hypothetical Netnews Bill of
Rights" by slighting rewriting the "Library Bill of
Rights".<1991Sep18.152828.6297@eff.org>
The next note argues against the proposition that all selection is
censorship and that exclusion of some newsgroups might increase
liability.<1991Sep16.135211.16610@ms.uky.edu> Next, a note says that
if the owner of a computer system is the U.S. government it must act
within the constraints of its charter (the
Constitution).<1991Sep18.200431.12028@eff.org> Then, a note opins that
availability of a newsgroup on another easily accessible system would
be a valid selection criterion.<1991Sep22.024825.5272@eff.org>
In the middle of September, someone posted a note to uiuc.general, the
general campus newsgroup at the University of Illinois. At least two
student were offended by the note and said that University discipline
could be applied to the poster. Enclosed is a note that argues that
University discipline is not appropriate because it would infringe on
the poster's contractual and constitutional right to free
expression.<1991Sep17.195000.9335@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
The next two notes are about magazine selection. The first note
observes that recreational magazines including Playboy are inexpensive
and popular. It conjectures that a general lack of library
subscriptions to such magazines indicates that offensiveness plays a
bigger role in selection than librarians
admit.<6665D4606E821004@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The second note says that
funds for academic departments and libraries are so tight that even
inexpensive magazines loose out to periodicals that are needed
more.<199109191903.AA09665@eff.org>
The last note points out recent article in the Harvard Law Review. The
Review article discusses e-mail monitoring and the
law.<910919001657.20205765@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
- Carl]
--- end abstract 1.28 ---
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-news is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to listserv@eff.org.
Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com>
Sender: edtjda@magic322.chron.com
Date: 8 Oct 91 18:29:55 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Let me pose a question for you.
The Texas Education Agency recently granted
Internet access to everyone in Texas affiliated
with education -- classrooms, teachers, administrators,
parents, etc.
It took about two days for them to have a "major
porno incident" that ended with them shutting down
the news feed; and for now, students will not be
allowed their own accounts. Obviously, shutting down
usenet doesn't bar access to the lively material.
In the two years since I started looking, I still
haven't found an answer that addresses everyone's
concerns on this topic. How does one introduce
Internet to children in a socially acceptable,
responsible fashion? What's the answer? Free speech is a
powerful argument, but please conside the reality
that you're preparing an argument for a school board.
School boards don't care a whit for free speech if they
think it might be a defense for something that has a
potentially negative effect on young people.
And the oft-touted comparison of Internet to a library
also has problems when held up against daylight. No
matter what one argues, libraries outside of San
Francisco usually do not carry material as explicit
as that found in alt.sex.bondage or Modern Primitives,
for instance. In test after court test, it has been
decided that media which circulate in Peoria,
Kansas, have to meet the community standards of
Peoria. Or wherever.
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I'm inquiring
for the purpose of publication; please specifically
state if you do not wish to be quoted. Pornography
is not the focus of the article(s); one is a discussion
of computer networking in K-12; another is a survey of
resources available on Internet for amateur and young
scientists. The editor of that magazine had an interesting
statement when I called to query the article: "Yes, I'm
quite interested in the net, but isn't it full of trash?
Sure wouldn't want my kids on there."
Please feel free to redistribute this posting.
Best Regards,
Joe Abernathy edtjda@chron.com
Special Projects P.O. Box 4260
The Houston Chronicle Houston, Texas 77210
(800) 735-3820 (713) 526-9711
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110081922.AA16495@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
References: <9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com>
Date: 8 Oct 91 09:22:51 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Joe Abernathy of the Houston Chronicle writes:
>for instance. In test after court test, it has been
>decided that media which circulate in Peoria,
>Kansas, have to meet the community standards of
>Peoria. Or wherever.
Can you give me a reference to the Peoria, Kansas case? What court
decided this case? Is the decision final or is it being appealed? (I'm
from Peoria, Illinois. I know there is also a Peoria, Arizona, but
I've never heard of Peoria, Kansas.)
- Carl
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1818 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1141 alt.sex:20878
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Newsgroups selection
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Oct 91 15:51:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: herodotu.kadie.686937105
References: <9110022311.AA03738@nettlerash.berkeley.edu> <4137@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Distribution: na
Nntp-Posting-Host: herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
Concerning newsgroup selection at private, religious universities ...
In gritton@irvine.ee.byu.edu
(Jamie Gritton) writes:
[...]
>I worked hard to get news running here. I don't want to lose it. Being
>a rather moral person myself, I don't miss alt.sex.*, and I am quite
>willing to sacrifice it. Cest la vie.
[...]
I assert that many moral people read alt.sex*. Discussion of sex is
inherently not immoral. Moreover, reading material that advocates
immorality, say Mein Kampf, is not inhearently immoral.
>The gist of all this is that if a private individual or instituition
>decides not to carry a product (i.e. newsgroup), that's personal taste,
>not censorship. Were this a public university, I may argue differently.
[...]
I would say that it is both personal taste *and* censorship. In my
opinion, as long as the private, religious university is up front
about such censorship, it does not violate academic freedom.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.censorship:1819 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1142
From: gritton@irvine.ee.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Subject: Re: Newsgroups selection
Message-ID:
Date: 4 Oct 91 03:44:01 GMT
References: <9110022311.AA03738@nettlerash.berkeley.edu>
<4137@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Distribution: na
In-reply-to: bigm@cs.uq.oz.au's message of 3 Oct 91 03:44:30 GMT
In article <4137@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> bigm@cs.uq.oz.au (Michael Pilling
(Dr Chocberry)) 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.
No one on my part of my campus can get alt.sex.* either. I have reasons for
doing this (yes, I did it.)
Brigham Young University is a church-owned private institution. Like many
churches, the Mormons have rather negative views on pornography. What
is pornography anyway, you may ask. Well in this case, it's what the
church says it is, since they own the university (and thus the news feed.)
Were alt.sex seen by the dean of the college of engineering, or other such
conservative people, that would be the instant end of usenet on campus.
I worked hard to get news running here. I don't want to lose it. Being
a rather moral person myself, I don't miss alt.sex.*, and I am quite
willing to sacrifice it. Cest la vie.
The gist of all this is that if a private individual or instituition
decides not to carry a product (i.e. newsgroup), that's personal taste,
not censorship. Were this a public university, I may argue differently.
P.S.: It's not a matter of space, and whoever says such things are
should be more honest about their reasons.
--
James Gritton - gritton@ee.byu.edu - I disclaim
-------------------
Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4372 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1143
From: otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Summary: commercial free speech
Message-ID: <1991Oct8.141523.7921@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Date: 8 Oct 91 18:15:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: mailer.1991Oct8.141523.7921
References: <1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org> <1991Oct4.154153.28186@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
>In article <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes...
>>In article <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
>> (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>wm>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>wm> I can make a practice of sending mail-order catalogs through electronic
>wm> mail; do you think that would be approved just because it's an "actual
>wm> practice"? How many people have to participate before it becomes an
>wm> "actual practice"? Does that 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.
I don't understand why it would be ok to censor commercial free speech
but not ok to censor other free speech. Why not just set up a forum
for such, so those who wish to carry/read/post may do so, at their own
expense, of course, and those who do not wish to do so do not?
"The makers of your Constitution sought to protect Americans... They
conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone -
the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by
civilized men." Louis D. Brandeis (Olmstead v. US)
John G. Otto otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu otto@systems.cc.fsu.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4373 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1144
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Oct 91 19:28:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: herodotu.kadie.686950082
References: <1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org> <1991Oct4.154153.28186@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org> <1991Oct8.141523.7921@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Nntp-Posting-Host: herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
In <1991Oct8.141523.7921@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) writes:
[...]
>I don't understand why it would be ok to censor commercial free speech
>but not ok to censor other free speech. Why not just set up a forum
>for such, so those who wish to carry/read/post may do so, at their own
>expense, of course, and those who do not wish to do so do not?
[...]
That is pretty much what the biz.* hierarchy within Netnews. As a
matter of fact, I can read biz.* notes at eff.org but not at
m.cs.uiuc.edu.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1145 comp.org.eff.talk:4375
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Oct 91 19:31:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: herodotu.kadie.686950281
References: <1991Oct7.195956.579@eff.org> <1991Oct7.203605.27593@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct8.130131.19706@ms.uky.edu>
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Nntp-Posting-Host: herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
In <1991Oct8.130131.19706@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>I don't consider everything done by a student to be a "student publication".
>You can certainly argue that, since "publish" is defined as "to issue or
>prepare a work for public distribution or sale", a Usenet posting falls under
>that definition. I tend to consider the "preparation" step more essential
>to the definition than the "issuance" step. To me, calling something a
>"student publication" implies a certain amount of editorial presence among
>the authors. I consider the Kentucky Kernel a "student publication", since
>it has an established editorial board and procedures in place; there is a great
>deal of emphasis on the "preparation" step. The same applies to the Kentuckian
>(the yearbook). However, I have a hard time placing a single-person,
>off-the-cuff, unedited Usenet posting on the same level as the more common
>examples of "student publications".
[...]
Legally, the term "limited public forum" is more important than the
term "student publication". I'm confident that the Netnews facilities
at most public universities are limited public forums.
In terms of academic freedom, all freedom of expression is protected.
Recall that the Joint Statement says:
"Student publications and the student press are a valuable aid in
establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible
discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are a
means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the faculty and
the institutional authorities and of formulating student opinion on
various issues on the campus and in the world at large."
My experience at U. of Illinois is that this describes Netnews,
especially, local newsgroups perfectly. There are unmoderated general
newsgroups for the whole campus, for my department, for my building,
and for my research group. Many campus clubs also have newsgroups.
In uiuc.general, the general campus newsgroup, we have discussed the
NCSA email policy, the suitability of having Chief Illinwek as the
school mascot/symbol, etc.
While nonlocal unmoderated newsgroups are not so good at "bringing
student concerns to the attention of .. institutional authorities..",
They do meet all the other goals of a student publication.
[...]
>There is another factor we must consider -- the "integrated" nature of
>Usenet. Usenet is not solely a "resource for students"; there are par-
>ticipants from the faculty, from the corporate world, from government,
>and from the private sector (BBS systems, Portal, the Well, et cetera).
>Can we really extend protection as a "student publication" to only part
>of Usenet? Can we extend the protection of "academic freedom" to those
>posters outside of academia?
[...]
Some academic freedom protects all Netnews (and all books) to some
degree. Its protection for student expression is mostly about access
to resources and protection against retaliation.
Protections include:
----------[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]-----------
Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis,
not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards.
...
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes
by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential
operation of the institution. At the same time, it should be made
clear to the academic and the larger community that in their public
expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak
only for themselves.
2. Students should be allowed to invite and to hear any person of
their own choosing. Those routine procedures required by an
institution before a guest speaker is invited to appear on campus
should be designed only to insure that there is orderly scheduling of
facilities and adequate preparation for the event, and that the
occasion is conducted in a manner appropriate to an academic
community. The institutional control of campus facilities should not
be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does
not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed,
either by the sponsoring group or the institution.
...
1. The student press should be free of censorship and advance
approval of copy, and its editors and managers should be free to
develop their own editorial policies and news coverage.
2. Editors and managers of student publications should be protected
from arbitrary suspension and removal because of student, faculty,
administrative, or public disapproval of editorial policy or content.
Only for proper and stated causes should editors and managers be
subject to removal and then by orderly and prescribed procedures. The
agency responsible for the appointment of editors and managers should
be the agency responsible for their removal.
3. All university published and financed student publications should
explicitly state on the editorial page that the opinions there
expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or
student body.
---------------------
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <1991Oct8.210210.4733@eff.org>
References: <9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 21:02:10 GMT
edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy) writes:
>And the oft-touted comparison of Internet to a library
>also has problems when held up against daylight. No
>matter what one argues, libraries outside of San
>Francisco usually do not carry material as explicit
>as that found in alt.sex.bondage or Modern Primitives,
>for instance.
Just as a grade or high school does not subscribe to all magazines, it
will not subscribe to all newsgroups. The important question then, is
how should a school decide which newsgroups to subscribe to? I believe
that newsgroups should be selected using the policy that is used to
select library material.
The American Library Association's _Workbook for Selection Policy
Writing_ says this about selection criteria: "In terms of the subject
matter covered, your policy will include criteria, and the application
of criteria, relevant to your objectives, excellence (artistic,
literary, etc.), appropriateness to level of user, superiority in
treatment of controversial issues, and ability to stimulate further
intellectual and social development. Consider authenticity,
appropriateness, interest, content, and circumstances of use."
The Workbook is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org as file
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala.
- 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: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110082117.AA05401@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 8 Oct 91 13:17:50 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110082041.AA01496@turbo.bio.net>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
References: <9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com>
Distribution: eff
Date: 8 Oct 91 06:41:37 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In mail.com-priv you write:
>Let me pose a question for you.
Let me pose a question to you, Joe:
What's the point of answering your question in any meaningful way when
one is likely to be misquoted by your yellow pen?
--
Eliot Lear
[lear@turbo.bio.net]
-------------------
From: stev@ftp.com (stev knowles)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110082223.AA20827@ftp.com>
Sender: stev@ftp.com
Date: 8 Oct 91 14:23:58 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
The Texas Education Agency recently granted
Internet access to everyone in Texas affiliated
with education -- classrooms, teachers, administrators,
parents, etc.
this sounds good.
It took about two days for them to have a "major
porno incident" that ended with them shutting down
the news feed; and for now, students will not be
allowed their own accounts. Obviously, shutting down
usenet doesn't bar access to the lively material.
we always get back to the porno, dont we. now, did they find this "porno"
through the news system? if so, why did they talk down the links instead of
turning off the news?
In the two years since I started looking, I still
haven't found an answer that addresses everyone's
concerns on this topic. How does one introduce
Internet to children in a socially acceptable,
responsible fashion? What's the answer? Free speech is a
powerful argument, but please conside the reality
that you're preparing an argument for a school board.
why dont we get them a description of the news groups, and allow them to
decide which ones to accept?
School boards don't care a whit for free speech if they
think it might be a defense for something that has a
potentially negative effect on young people.
(*sigh*) i would like to think that the school boards in texas are more
intelligent than you seem to imply. nothing is black and white . . . .
And the oft-touted comparison of Internet to a library
also has problems when held up against daylight. No
matter what one argues, libraries outside of San
Francisco usually do not carry material as explicit
as that found in alt.sex.bondage or Modern Primitives,
for instance. In test after court test, it has been
my jr high school had a copy of dahlgren, by sam delany, along time ago.
they knew what was in it, they assumed that few kids would pick it up. they,
in general, were correct. remember, if you make a big deal about a banned
book, it wants to make people find out what you are denying them. i can
understand the desire to keep porn out of the hands of 8 year olds, but i
dont understand why we cant just not import those news groups into the
schools. why is this so hard?
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I'm inquiring
for the purpose of publication; please specifically
state if you do not wish to be quoted. Pornography
i dont want to be quoted, since i have not found anyone who can quote in
context, and without distorting what was said to prove the authors point.
is not the focus of the article(s); one is a discussion
it will be interesting to see you write an article that doesnt mention
porno.
statement when I called to query the article: "Yes, I'm
quite interested in the net, but isn't it full of trash?
Sure wouldn't want my kids on there."
i see he has read your articles.
does your boss know about all the porno you are able to see?
-------------------
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110082219.AA14407@magic322.chron.com>
Sender: edtjda@magic322.chron.com
Date: 8 Oct 91 22:19:36 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Carl Kadie writes:
> Can you give me a reference to the Peoria, Kansas case?
I think it was clear that that reference was intended to
highlight the differences between the various locales served
by the network, but in fact, I was thinking of an actual
example. That's the recent decision shutting down an
explicit movie channel whose signal could be pulled off
satellite. Some church group in the Midwest complained,
and won, even though the company was located in New York.
Let's not let this degenerate into another endless,
pointless discussion of semantics. It's been done.
Joe Abernathy edtjda@chron.com
Special Projects P.O. Box 4260
The Houston Chronicle Houston, Texas 77210
(800) 735-3820 (713) 526-9711
-------------------
From: sean@dsl.pitt.edu (sean mclinden)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110082307.AA11036@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>
Sender: sean@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu
Date: 8 Oct 91 15:07:44 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> In the two years since I started looking, I still haven't found an
> answer that addresses everyone's concerns on this topic. How does
> one introduce Internet to children in a socially acceptable, responsible
> fashion?
Is this an inappropriate focus of concern? How do you introduce children
to the telephone, television, magazines, or any other communications platform?
If school boards are so concerned about Internet (or "Tom Sawyer" or MTV)
why don't they (and you) try spending a few hours on a school playground
or in the parking lot (or local motels) after a junior-senior prom? Media,
whatever medium you choose, is inherently amoral. People who expect it to
be otherwise are deluding themselves. It is the content which gives it
meaning and the meaning which determines the value.
What is pornography? It is, I believe, the presentation of information in
such a way as to obscure or corrupt it's meaning or value to a society that
has values. It is distortion of the truth where truth is a factor of both
content and context.
We are exposed to it all of the time. Much of commercial advertising could
be considered pornographic but most of us are intelligent enough to recognize
the untruths and ignore them. I believe, for example, that much of the
commericial advertising aimed at trying to convince consumers that what they
are doing by buying this garbage bag or that container is "environmentally
friendly" when this is known to be a gross overstatement (or flat out lie)
is pornographic. It is even worse when we cannot appreciate the lie, such
as when an unscrupulous journalist distorts the truth or lies about the
veracity of their reporting or uses the context of journalism to advance
a personal point of view rather than objectively reporting the truth.
Pornography is most effective as a tool for shaping human behavior when it
is not recognized for what it is.
In order to appreciate that something is pornographic we have to appreciate
the truth. To do that we need to be educated. On what do we rely for education?
Certainly not on people who claim to be the one source of truth, for how do
we validate their claims? The task of educating our citizenry has outstripped
out ability to do this with controlled personal interaction, alone. Parents,
alone, cannot do this. Teachers, as well, cannot.
We need access to the media and tools to facilitate this access. We need
to make this access affordable, so that it does not become something which
can only be had by a few people (this lack of affordability is what concerns
me about commercialization of the Internet and is why I am, personally, in
favor of the vacation of the ill-considered order restaining the RBOCs from
offering information services and of efforts to insure open, affordable,
services such as CIX).
We need to continue to support and expand our support for communication of
all forms and the ability of ourselves and others to openly question our
presentation of the "facts" and our analysis of their importance.
In response to your question I would turn it around. I would question anyone's
right to determine which media to which I may have access at any stage in my
education. It is the responsibility of educators, whether they be parents or
teachers, to provide the appropriate context in which to interpret communi-
cation, be it Huck Finn, alt.sex.pictures, MTV, or C-SPAN and if they cannot
or will not do that then we hire someone who can. But the failure of our
educational system to provide us with the tools to evaluate this new media
should not, in any way, given it license to restrict our access to it.
Sean McLinden
Medical Applications Group
Carnegie Mellon University
Information Technology Center
and
Information Networking Institute
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110090020.AA10085@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 8 Oct 91 16:20:49 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110082247.AA14436@magic322.chron.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 8 Oct 91 22:47:02 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Eliot Lear writes:
> Let me pose a question to you, Joe:
> What's the point of answering your question in any meaningful way when
> one is likely to be misquoted by your yellow pen?
I'd hoped to avoid this thread again so soon, but whatever.
You have absolutely no reason to make an accusation like that,
and no way to defend it. I've never quoted you; never talked
with you; never exchanged email with you. You're arguing without
any facts on the table.
Let's cut to the chase: alt.sex.bestiality is an indefensible
application of public funds. It's an indefensible thing to bring
into the public schools. It's equally unnacceptable to allow the
government to serve as censor.
That's a problem, and it's not gonna go away until reasonable people
address it honestly. Better me than the Baptists, but if you'd rather
wait six months until they get TENET accounts and take up the cause,
more power to you. I'm sure it'll make an amusing article.
Joe Abernathy edtjda@chron.com
Special Projects P.O. Box 4260
The Houston Chronicle Houston, Texas 77210
(800) 735-3820 (713) 526-9711
From kadie Tue Oct 8 10:25:37 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Oct 8 10:24:20 EDT 1991
In this issue:
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Academic Porn Conference
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Government restriction of net information
schweige@taurus.cs : Re: Campus Newspaper 'censorship.'
sean@sdg.dra.com : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
kadie@eff.org (Car : Digression (Re: Government restriction of net information
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Government restriction of net information
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Digression (Re: Government restriction of net informat
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Government restriction of net information
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Government restriction of net information
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: Government restriction of net information
fwp1@Jester.CC.MsS : Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att : Re: Government restriction of net information
MCNAB PD@DARWIN.NT : Re: Government restriction of net information
morgan@ms.uky.edu : 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
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.sex:20798 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1120
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Academic Porn Conference
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.145250.12246@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 91 14:52:50 GMT
References: <1991Oct4.183808.23118@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Oct4.203547.6378@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> 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.
Great! I'm glad to see that a topic such as this can be discussed in
an academic setting; I'm sure that this research can be applied to many
fields, including (at a minimum) psychology and sociology.
If you're posting this as supporting evidence for groups such as alt.sex or
alt.binaries.pictures, I would compare the organized nature of the UPenn
conference with the near-complete anarchy of Usenet.
--
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: disclaimers?
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.150934.15231@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 91 15:09:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct7.150934.15231
References: <9110071420.AA09435@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
ooi@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Jim Porter) writes:
>I find the disclaimers that many of you attach to your postings
>very interesting. (Statements such as "the above opinion is
>my own," "my organization is not responsible for the views expressed
>here," etc.)
>
>I am wondering, are such disclaimers simply your own way of
>identifying the authority for your remarks--or are some institutions
>and organizations mandating or advising their use? What legal
>authority do such statements have? (No legal authority, I would
>suspect--though maybe a good idea for other reasons.)
To my knowledge, none of the systems through which I have participated
in forums such as Usenet have required the use of disclaimers. However,
the implicit link between an individual and his site is very strong. For
instance, how many people associate Steven Brack with Ohio State, despite
the fact that he has no official status with the University (other than that
of a student)? In a similar vein, many people associate me with the
University of Kentucky. While I am a staff member at UK (namely a Unix
systems administrator), I do NOT speak in an official capacity. Therefore,
I feel it prudent to place an explicit "not speaking for" statement in my
postings.
I'm sure that we've all seen the famous Usenet "I think you're a jerk,
so I'm going to send mail to your admin" ploy at work. I think that
disclaimers are just a preemptive move against the effect of such postings.
It's nothing more than an attempt to separate our private opinions from our
official positions as employees.
--
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:1122 comp.org.eff.talk:4324
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.155322.7069@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> <1991Oct4.180007.277@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org> <1991Oct7.143951.10183@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 15:53:22 GMT
[I'm only answering the easier questions in this post,
but expect another post soon - Carl]
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>I could argue (successfully, I believe) that parts of Usenet fulfill an
>academic/research need. I could certainly argue on behalf of the sci.*
>and comp.* hierarchies. To a lesser extent, I could make similar argu-
>ments on behalf of the soc.* groups. The supporting arguments begin to
>fail when they are applied to the talk.*, misc.*, and alt.* hierarchies.
>They fail completely, in my opinion, when applied to the biz.* and clari.*
>hierarchies, as well as when applied to certain individual groups, such
>as misc.forsale and misc.jobs.offered. Do you really think, for example,
>that ads for CAT-TALK, Portal, the Well, and Joe Shmo's BBS are relflective
>of an academic or research need?
biz.*, clari.*, and alt.* are part of Netnews, but not part of Usenet.
Also, the NSF tenative AUP does not forbid all commercial activities. It says:
"7. Use for commercial activities by for-profit institutions is
generally not acceptable unless it can be justified under (4) above. ..."
>I'd guess that the readership would be higher, when taken in terms of
>users to which it was available. Where did this newgroup (caf.talk)
>place in the most recent readership statistics?
In reverse order:
est. # of readers est. % of sites that receive it rank
Sept: 11000 51% 677
Aug: 8500 47% 712
July: 7800 47% 704
June: 9400 46% 691
(The estimates are probably high because I think that the sampled
sites are disproportionately academic.)
wm1> I think that we must separate email from these discussions. Electronic
wm1> mail has always been an expressly personal medium, radically different
wm1> from netnews.
cmk> Campus mail is also an expressly personal medium, and yet I'm not
cmk> allowed to use it for sending News Years cards to my friends.
wm2> Campus mail is NOT expressly personal; in most cases, it is explicitly
wm2> limited to university business. I know of very few universities which
wm2> place such prohibitions on electronic mail; in fact, I can't think of
wm2> single case where such restrictions exist. You're comparing apples
wm2> and oranges.
Campus mail, like email, is personal in the sense that the material in
my campus mailbox is for me personally.
I think many places once placed the same restrictions on email as they
did on campus mail (for example the NCSA at Illinois). Over time these
restrictions have mostly faded away; I would guess because
note-per-note email is much cheaper than campus mail.
cmk> As Prodigy found out, restricting on-line forums (like Netnews) causes
cmk> increased traffic in email as people switch to mailing list.
wm> Ah, but ask yourself if that was the response they wanted, since they
wm> charge for email. I'd also point out that Prodigy is a private, for-
wm> profit concern; Usenet is not. We're back to apples and oranges.
Prodigy timetable:
0) Email "free", on-line forums mostly unrestricted
1) On-line forums restricted
2) Growth of mailing lists
3) Per note charges for email added.
[...]
>They certainly do, for use in APPROVED, CONTROLLED RESEARCH OR EDUCATION.
>I don't believe that I can walk into a University lab for the purpose of
>trying to make explosives on my own, outside of the university's academic
>agenda. Can you give an example of where this is allowed?
What do you mean by approved and controlled? A professor
doesn't not need official approval from the university
to pursue a particular line of research.
>>They also give students presses so that the students
>>can publish newspapers.)
>They certainly do, for use in APPROVED, CONTROLLED (in some fashion)
>EDUCATIONAL means. I don't believe that I can walk into the student
>newspaper's press room and start printing my own newspaper at their
>expense. Can you give an example of where this is allowed?
What to you mean by approved and controlled? The content of my student
newspaper is not subject to approval and control by the University.
On my campus, two alternative student newspapers have recently been
created (one liberal, one conserative). They both seek student
activity funding. The University's control of these papers is very,
very limited, because student activity funding is distributed by the
student government not the University administration.
>>The Net-as-communications-medium is not periphery to the University's
>>mission. It is central.
>Are you arguing that "the Net-as-communications-medium" is *essential*
>to the University's mission? I don't think so; many fine universities
>and colleges function quite well without network access.
The Net is not essential, but free expression and free inquiry is.
- 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:1123 comp.org.eff.talk:4327
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.164246.7991@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> <1991Oct4.180007.277@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org> <1991Oct7.143951.10183@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 16:42:46 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>We must also realize that we cannot paint all of Usenet with the brush of
>academic freedom. I think that many parts of Usenet have nothing to do with
>academics; we may have to define our vehicle more clearly. Let me ask you
>this -- do you think that all of Usenet deserves the protection of "academic
>freedom"? If not, which parts of Usenet *do* deserve that protection?
[...]
Let my try an analogy:
Date: 7 Oct 91 16:45:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct7.164556.5496
References: <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org> <1991Oct7.143951.10183@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct7.155322.7069@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct7.155322.7069@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>biz.*, clari.*, and alt.* are part of Netnews, but not part of Usenet.
>
They are, to use some folks' favorite phrase, de facto parts of Usenet. The
end user access them through the same mechanism, and they are classed together
in the public eye. The traffic in those groups is transmitted in the same
manner as "regular" Usenet, through the same software.
Does a typical end user say "We have netnews, and we also have alt.* and
biz.*"? I don't think so.
>Also, the NSF tenative AUP does not forbid all commercial activities. It says:
>
>"7. Use for commercial activities by for-profit institutions is
>generally not acceptable unless it can be justified under (4) above. ..."
What was item number four? Does it apply in this case?
>wm2> Campus mail is NOT expressly personal; in most cases, it is explicitly
>wm2> limited to university business. I know of very few universities which
>wm2> place such prohibitions on electronic mail; in fact, I can't think of
>wm2> single case where such restrictions exist. You're comparing apples
>wm2> and oranges.
>
>Campus mail, like email, is personal in the sense that the material in
>my campus mailbox is for me personally.
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm referring to the campus delivery
service, not the "put a stamp on it/get it postmarked" campus postal service.
They have VERY different uses and restrictions. I'm sure that the campus
POSTAL service would deliver your New Year's cards; you put the postage on it,
and it's just as if you mailed it through the USPS. I don't think that the
campus DELIVERY service would consider your cards appropriate. After all,
they're more like a university "Federal Express", running on university
dollars.
>>They certainly do, for use in APPROVED, CONTROLLED RESEARCH OR EDUCATION.
>>I don't believe that I can walk into a University lab for the purpose of
>>trying to make explosives on my own, outside of the university's academic
>>agenda. Can you give an example of where this is allowed?
>
>What do you mean by approved and controlled? A professor
>doesn't not need official approval from the university
>to pursue a particular line of research.
Oh, really? I suggest that you announce to the Chemistry department
that you want to start experimenting with explosives. I'm willing to
bet that they will definitely want to assign you a particular laboratory,
control the access to that laboratory, and set some fairly explicit
safety rules. They may even determine that there is no laboratory that
can provide adequate safety measures; in that case, you'll have to wait
until such a lab exists, won't you?
I'm not even going to mention the fact that you'll probably have to
submit a formal proposal for your project and be required to sub-
mit progress reports.
Of course, this applies to professors and research associates; a
regular student doesn't have a snowball's chance of just walking
in and cranking out some nitroglycerin.
>>They certainly do, for use in APPROVED, CONTROLLED (in some fashion)
>>EDUCATIONAL means. I don't believe that I can walk into the student
>>newspaper's press room and start printing my own newspaper at their
>>expense. Can you give an example of where this is allowed?
>
>What to you mean by approved and controlled? The content of my student
>newspaper is not subject to approval and control by the University.
No, but your ability to use the University presses certainly IS subject
to approval. I agree that the University should not attempt to control
the content of such things; however, you usually have to request access
to the University equipment. You'll probably have to share the equipment
with other student publications, so the University will have to handle the
allocation of machine time, etc. You'll also probably have to have a faculty
sponsor, and you will probably be given a set of guidelines from which
to work.
I am not talking about university control of the CONTENT of such experimenta-
tion. I am asking you to consider the university's control of the PHYSICAL
resources necessary for your projects.
>On my campus, two alternative student newspapers have recently been
>created (one liberal, one conserative). They both seek student
>activity funding. The University's control of these papers is very,
>very limited, because student activity funding is distributed by the
>student government not the University administration.
However, I'm willing to bet that the University still has to do things
such as schedule services (such as the actual printing press times),
support the maintenance of those presses, and establish some form of
communication between those publications' editorial boards and the
University proper. THAT's what I'm talking about.
I'm sure that both of those new papers had to go through a certain
procedure to receive University blessing (and University resources).
They didn't just walk in and say "We want to start a new paper!" and
receive all the goodies.....
>>>The Net-as-communications-medium is not periphery to the University's
>>>mission. It is central.
>
>>Are you arguing that "the Net-as-communications-medium" is *essential*
>>to the University's mission? I don't think so; many fine universities
>>and colleges function quite well without network access.
>
>The Net is not essential, but free expression and free inquiry is.
Remember what I said earlier about trying to paint too many things with
the same brush? It is quite possible to support free expression and free
inquiry without supporting computer networks. Let's not confuse necessi-
ties with luxuries.
--
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: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: Campus Newspaper 'censorship.'
Message-ID: <2980@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 7 Oct 91 05:59:16 GMT
References: <1991Oct07.032516.13864@eng.umd.edu>
In article <1991Oct07.032516.13864@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
|In article Sanjay Kapur writes:
|>>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.
|>
|>It may not give the government authority but it does give it power.
|
|Power? The government has a 4-million or so man army. Financial dependence
|is in no way necessary to give government power. The government also has
|plenty of police willing to force citizens to comply with this edict or that--
|again, there is no need for financial dependence. Financial dependence is
|only there as an attempt to show legitimacy, not as a means of power.
Actually, Matthew, I have to disagree with you here on a few different points:
First, the size of the army - the active duty strength of the U.S. Army is
somewhere around 3/4 million (that's 750,000) at the moment (the actual
31 August number was 720,009). Assuming you meant all of the military
services, the active duty count is still only slightly over 2 million. That's
the lowest count since 1950. That, however, isn't really pertinant to the
discussion - The military is not used "to force citizens to comply with
this edict or that--". The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits military involvement
in law enforcement, with a few indirect support exceptions. As far as I know
"censorship" isn't involved in those exceptions, either.
I also seriously doubt that the federal government would use civilian law
enforcement assets for 'Campus Newspaper 'censorship.'', or for control over the
"net".
IMHO, unless you are dealing with an armed opposition, financial power (the
power of the "purse strings") is much more effective. Financial dependence is
not there "as an attempt to show legitimacy", it actually is the most
effective means of power.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
-------------------
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.115649.39@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 7 Oct 91 11:56:49 CDT
References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct7.135752.3433@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct7.135752.3433@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> I confess, I haven't read the American Library Association's or the
> International Federation for Information Processing's interlibrary
> loan manuals. (What are the titles of the manuals? Maybe I can get
> copies of them via interlibrary loan).
I think you need a :-) on that last statement.
I goofed on those initials, should be IFLA, not IFIP, but regardless your
interlibrary loan department should still have a copy of the them.
For more information consult
Boucher, Virginia. Interlibrary loan practices handbook. Chicago :
American Library Association, c1984.
excerpts from the National Interlibrary Loan Code (1980), a copy of which
is found in an appendix in the book above.
II. Purpose
The purpose of interlibrary loan as defined in this code is to obtain, for
research and serious study, library material not available through local,
state, or regional libraries.
IV. Responsibilities of Borrowing Libraries
F. The borrowing library should carefully screen all requests for loans
and reject any that do not conform to this code.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1127 comp.org.eff.talk:4329
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Digression (Re: Government restriction of net information)
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.174545.9566@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org> <1991Oct7.143951.10183@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct7.155322.7069@eff.org> <1991Oct7.164556.5496@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 17:45:45 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>Does a typical end user say "We have netnews, and we also have alt.* and
>biz.*"? I don't think so.
Here is the way I use the terms:
Netnews - set of all newsgroups
Usenet - the soc.*, talk.*, sci.*, comp.*, and misc.* newsgroups.
>>Also, the NSF tenative AUP does not forbid all commercial activities.
>> It says:
>>
>>"7. Use for commercial activities by for-profit institutions is
>>generally not acceptable unless it can be justified under (4) above. ..."
>What was item number four? Does it apply in this case?
"4. If a use is consistent with the purposes
of NSFNET, then activities in direct
support of that use will be considered
consistent with the purposes of
NSFNET. For example, administrative
communications for the support infra-
structure needed for research and in-
struction are acceptable."
(ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/nsf)
So, for example, it is OK for a school to use the NSFnet to send email
to a computer maker asking for an on-line catalog and it is OK for the
computer maker to send that catalog via NSF email.
>>What do you mean by approved and controlled? A professor
>>doesn't not need official approval from the university
>>to pursue a particular line of research.
>I'm not even going to mention the fact that you'll probably have to
>submit a formal proposal for your project and be required to sub-
>mit progress reports.
>Of course, this applies to professors and research associates;
Professors are not generally required to submit formal proposals and
progress reports to their university.
>No, but your ability to use the University presses certainly IS subject
>to approval. I agree that the University should not attempt to control
>the content of such things; however, you usually have to request access
>to the University equipment. You'll probably have to share the equipment
>with other student publications, so the University will have to handle the
>allocation of machine time, etc.
> You'll also probably have to have a faculty
>sponsor, and you will probably be given a set of guidelines from which
>to work.
Student organizations that publish newspapers are not required to have
a faculty sponser. The only guideline I know of is the disclaimer.
>>On my campus, two alternative student newspapers have recently been
>>created (one liberal, one conserative). They both seek student
>>activity funding. The University's control of these papers is very,
>>very limited, because student activity funding is distributed by the
>>student government not the University administration.
>However, I'm willing to bet that the University still has to do things
>such as schedule services (such as the actual printing press times),
>support the maintenance of those presses, and establish some form of
>communication between those publications' editorial boards and the
>University proper. THAT's what I'm talking about.
If the alternative newspapers are given money from the student
activies board, they can buy the printing press time that they need.
The communications between the publications and the university is the
same as it is for any student organization.
>I'm sure that both of those new papers had to go through a certain
>procedure to receive University blessing (and University resources).
>They didn't just walk in and say "We want to start a new paper!" and
>receive all the goodies.....
They submitted (or will submit) a request to the student government,
but not the the university administration.
- 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:1128 comp.org.eff.talk:4331
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.180905.24183@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 91 18:09:05 GMT
References: <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org> <1991Oct7.143951.10183@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct7.164246.7991@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct7.164246.7991@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>[...]
>>We must also realize that we cannot paint all of Usenet with the brush of
>>academic freedom. I think that many parts of Usenet have nothing to do with
>>academics; we may have to define our vehicle more clearly. Let me ask you
>>this -- do you think that all of Usenet deserves the protection of "academic
>>freedom"? If not, which parts of Usenet *do* deserve that protection?
>[...]
>
>Yes and no. Yes, I think that all books/newsgroups are protected by
>academic freedom.
People can send a 200K GIF file of their dog out over Usenet,
and it's "academic freedom". The name-calling, whining morass known as
talk.abortion is "academic freedom". The nudist camp discussions in
rec.nude fall under "academic freedom". The instructions for building your
own radar detector fall under "academic freedom".
Don't you see that we cannot render Usenet as a collection of absolutes?
Don't you see that Usenet is far too anarchic to qualify as a library
of any sort? There are elements of control to every information pro-
vider, such as libraries; there is no such control in Usenet.
Don't you see that parts of Usenet don't even remotely qualify as
"academic endeavor"?
Don't you see that there is a BIG difference between "academic freedom",
"freedom of speech", and, as you put it earlier, "freedom to read"?
I really would like to know how you regard the various aspects of Usenet.
We may wind up defending netnews on a case-by-case basis, and we can't
just lump it together as a single entity.
--
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:1129 comp.org.eff.talk:4332
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Digression (Re: Government restriction of net information)
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.183434.702@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 91 18:34:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct7.183434.702
References: <1991Oct7.155322.7069@eff.org> <1991Oct7.164556.5496@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct7.174545.9566@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct7.174545.9566@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>Does a typical end user say "We have netnews, and we also have alt.* and
>>biz.*"? I don't think so.
>
>Here is the way I use the terms:
>Netnews - set of all newsgroups
>Usenet - the soc.*, talk.*, sci.*, comp.*, and misc.* newsgroups.
As I said, the vast majority of end users (and service providers) consider
the set of all newsgroups to be a single entity.
>>>Also, the NSF tenative AUP does not forbid all commercial activities.
>>> It says:
>>>
>>>"7. Use for commercial activities by for-profit institutions is
>>>generally not acceptable unless it can be justified under (4) above. ..."
>
>>What was item number four? Does it apply in this case?
>
>"4. If a use is consistent with the purposes
> of NSFNET, then activities in direct
> support of that use will be considered
> consistent with the purposes of
> NSFNET. For example, administrative
> communications for the support infra-
> structure needed for research and in-
> struction are acceptable."
> (ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/nsf)
>
>So, for example, it is OK for a school to use the NSFnet to send email
>to a computer maker asking for an on-line catalog and it is OK for the
>computer maker to send that catalog via NSF email.
Sure, but is it OK for the authors in Usenet to flood the newsgroups with
the announcement of their new textbook? I saw such an announcement in over
25 newsgroups for ONE textbook! Is it acceptable for me to see ads for used
equipment in comp.sys.att? Last year, I received several pieces of email
which essentially said "You talked about this on Usenet, so we thought you'd
like to know about our product"; is this acceptable? More importantly, is
there ANY way to control Usenet postings so that they DO fall within this
acceptable use? To my knowledge, there is no such control. Would you want
such a thing?
>Professors are not generally required to submit formal proposals and
>progress reports to their university.
No, but they do receive evaluation reports on their performance, which
includes their research. I think that they must also justify their use
of University space, i.e. they have to give reasons for requesting more
laboratory space. Note that UK (nor any other university, to my knowledge)
does not attempt to dictate the subject of research; however, they are "in
the loop", so they know what's being done with their facilities.
>Student organizations that publish newspapers are not required to have
>a faculty sponser. The only guideline I know of is the disclaimer.
That's interesting; EVERY registered student organization at this campus
must have a faculty advisor. In most cases, it is merely a formality, but
there MUST be a faculty name on a form somewhere before the organization
can apply for university resources (such as meeting rooms, office space,
funding, mailings, et cetera.) Organizations that want to use University
space (other than the explicitly allocated "free speech area") must be
registered; therefore, they must have a faculty advisor.
>If the alternative newspapers are given money from the student
>activies board, they can buy the printing press time that they need.
>The communications between the publications and the university is the
>same as it is for any student organization.
>
>They submitted (or will submit) a request to the student government,
>but not the the university administration.
But there is a connection; the student government acts as the university's
agent. I'm sure that the University audits the student government's books,
don't they? I know that a minor brouhaha arose here at UK recently over
the results of the SGA's audit.
In summary (as the reader breathes a sigh of relief), there is a thread
of control running through almost all student activities. It may be nothing
more than a faculty member's name on a form as advisor, but the framework
is there. Many universities do not exercise that control; for instance, I
know of several organizations whose advisors show up for one meeting a year.
However, they are there if either the organization or the University needs
them. There is no such thread in Usenet; it is one of the most disorganized
things I've ever seen. We need to get our own house in order before we can
start making claims about our importance/viability as an educational tool
deserving of protection under academic freedom.
--
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: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1991Oct07.182713.17230@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 91 18:27:13 GMT
References: <1991Oct4.182637.7569@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct05.005949.2975@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct7.123050.13950@ms.uky.edu>
In article <1991Oct7.123050.13950@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
>>As an administrator, you do have authority. As a user, I'm
>>nobody.
>
>I may have authority on the *local* systems which I administer; on a national
>(or global, in the case of Usenet) scale, I'm just as much of a nobody as you.
Well, if users can't fight NSF edicts, and sysadmins can't (or WON'T), WHO
CAN?
Judging from the disappearance of GIFs,mail FTP servers, and the like, I must
assume that NOBODY can.
--
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:1131 comp.org.eff.talk:4333
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.195956.579@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org> <1991Oct7.143951.10183@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct7.164246.7991@eff.org> <1991Oct7.180905.24183@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 19:59:56 GMT
In article <1991Oct7.164246.7991@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
> Yes and no. Yes, I think that all books/newsgroups are protected by
> academic freedom. No, I don't think that that protection requries that
> the university buy every book that I want for the university library.
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Don't you see that Usenet is far too anarchic to qualify as a library
>of any sort? There are elements of control to every information pro-
>vider, such as libraries; there is no such control in Usenet.
I agree, that is why I do not compare Netnews/Usenet to a library. I
compared it to books. The universe of books is also anarchic. Netnews
and books are media, not information providers. Libraries and
university-computers-that-offer-Netnews are examples of information
providers.
I think that both kinds of information provider should respect
academic freedom (i.e. don't ban material just because someone finds
it offensive, don't censor even if you own the forum, channel
challenges of material through a formal process.)
>Don't you see that parts of Usenet don't even remotely qualify as
>"academic endeavor"?
In this, Netnews/usenet is like many books and magazines. Academic
freedom *DOES NOT*, in my opinion, require that a Univeristy acquire
all frivolous books, newsgroups, and GIF archives. It *DOES*, however,
offer some protection to even the most frivolous material. For
example, it requires a formal review of any challaged material, no
matter how frivolous, before that material can be removed.
[...]
>I really would like to know how you regard the various aspects of Usenet.
>We may wind up defending netnews on a case-by-case basis, and we can't
>just lump it together as a single entity.
[by analogy ...]
References: <1991Oct7.164246.7991@eff.org> <1991Oct7.180905.24183@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct7.195956.579@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 20:36:05 GMT
In article <1991Oct7.195956.579@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>I agree, that is why I do not compare Netnews/Usenet to a library. I
>compared it to books. The universe of books is also anarchic. Netnews
>and books are media, not information providers. Libraries and
>university-computers-that-offer-Netnews are examples of information
>providers.
>
Let me get this straight. Two months ago, you were espousing the
"usenet as a library" viewpoint in loud, long postings. You posted
that it should be managed as a library, controlled as a library, and that
it should follow the same procurement/availability model as a library.
You posted many American Library Association materials, drawing parallels
between netnews and libraries. Now, all of a sudden, you don't compare
them any longer? I don't understand.
>I think that both kinds of information provider should respect
>academic freedom (i.e. don't ban material just because someone finds
>it offensive, don't censor even if you own the forum, channel
>challenges of material through a formal process.)
If I only allow one side of a debate to be propagated, that's censorship.
If I decide that I don't want that issue discussed on my forum at all,
that's management. The decisions behind that management have been explicitly
given to the creators of a limited public forum.
>In this, Netnews/usenet is like many books and magazines. Academic
>freedom *DOES NOT*, in my opinion, require that a Univeristy acquire
>all frivolous books, newsgroups, and GIF archives. It *DOES*, however,
>offer some protection to even the most frivolous material.
Sure, I agree with this completely. That's why people tolerate the
uncounted "how do I change my prompt" questions in comp.unix.questions.
It may be frivolous, but it is still within the focus of the discussion.
That's also why people do not tolerate gun control postings in the same
group; that would not be within the declared focus of the group. The
"most frivolous material" is indeed protected, WITHIN those groups which
a given forum chooses to support.
>For
>example, it requires a formal review of any challaged material, no
>matter how frivolous, before that material can be removed.
Certainly! Before I decided to drop a newsgroup, I would certainly
make that decision available for review. I would do the same for any
group additions. The core, original organization of the local forum
is my call, as the maintainer of that forum. If users wish to discuss
additinal topics (i.e., add more newsgroups), they are welcome to make
their case. Removal of newsgroups would, by its very nature, be much
more difficult to accomplish. Academic freedom is preserved, in the
context of the single limited forum that is a single news site.
>[by analogy ...]
>
>I think some newsgroups and books are more important than others.I
>don't think that any book or newsgroup should be banned just because
>someone finds it offensive. I think student publications "are a
>valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and
>responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus.
>They are a means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the
>faculty and the institutional authorities and of formulating student
>opinion on various issues on the campus and in the world at large."
>[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]
That's great, but netnews is no more a "student publication" than
graffiti on a bathroom wall. It may reach as many people (or more),
but it is NOT a student publication.
--
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:1133 comp.org.eff.talk:4346
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Nntp-Posting-Host: herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
References: <1991Oct7.164246.7991@eff.org> <1991Oct7.180905.24183@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct7.195956.579@eff.org> <1991Oct7.203605.27593@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 21:29:56 GMT
In article <1991Oct7.195956.579@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
cmk> I agree, that is why I do not compare Netnews/Usenet to a library. I
cmk> compared it to books. The universe of books is also anarchic. Netnews
cmk> and books are media, not information providers. Libraries and
cmk> university-computers-that-offer-Netnews are examples of information
cmk> providers.
In <1991Oct7.203605.27593@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
wm> Let me get this straight. Two months ago, you were espousing the
wm> "usenet as a library" viewpoint in loud, long postings. You posted
wm> that it should be managed as a library, controlled as a library, and that
wm> it should follow the same procurement/availability model as a library.
wm> You posted many American Library Association materials, drawing parallels
wm> between netnews and libraries. Now, all of a sudden, you don't compare
wm> them any longer? I don't understand.
I'm sorry if you found me unclear on this point. Perhaps a quote from
note that I wrote on Sept. 18th will help clear things up.
------begin quote of <1991Sep18.152828.6297@eff.org> -------
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
....
>[...] Is every newsgroup a
>library, or only Usenet as a whole? What about archives? Are they
>libraries? Is each major hierarchy a library?
...
I would say that every newsgroup is a publication. Usenet is a set of
publications. Netnews is a larger set of publications. Each major
hierarchy is a smaller set of publications. None of these are
libraries.
The Netnews service on a particular machine is a library service. The
sys admin who selects which newsgroups will be carried on a particular
machine is acting as a librarian. (Most sys admins also, of course,
have other duties.)
An archive on a particular machine may also be a library. (Archives
and news servers on other machines are other libraries.)
[...]
------end quote --------
cmk> I think that both kinds of information provider should respect
cmk> academic freedom (i.e. don't ban material just because someone finds
cmk> it offensive, don't censor even if you own the forum, channel
cmk> challenges of material through a formal process.)
wm> If I only allow one side of a debate to be propagated, that's censorship.
wm> If I decide that I don't want that issue discussed on my forum at all,
wm> that's management. The decisions behind that management
wm> have been explicitly
wm> given to the creators of a limited public forum.
I believe you to be on firm legal ground, but weak ground with respect
to academic freedom. Legally, as a librarian or Netnews admin, can
base your selection of topics on the avoid-offending-anyone criterion.
This criterion, however, violates the Library Bill of Rights.
Librarians consider selection based on this criterion a form of
censorship.
[...some stuff Wes and I seem to agree on ...]
cmk> I think some newsgroups and books are more important than others.I
cmk> don't think that any book or newsgroup should be banned just because
cmk> someone finds it offensive. I think student publications "are a
cmk> valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and
cmk> responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus.
cmk> They are a means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the
cmk> faculty and the institutional authorities and of formulating student
cmk> opinion on various issues on the campus and in the world at large."
cmk> [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]
wm> That's great, but netnews is no more a "student publication" than
wm> graffiti on a bathroom wall. It may reach as many people (or more),
wm> but it is NOT a student publication.
Netnews is not entirely a student publiciation, of course, but the
Netnews notes posted by students are "by students" and are
"published". Why don't you think that they are "student publications".
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: fwp1@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... )
Message-ID: <1801@ra.MsState.Edu>
Date: 7 Oct 91 21:54:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: ra.1801
References: <1991Oct05.005949.2975@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct7.123050.13950@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct07.182713.17230@eng.umd.edu>
Sender: usenet@ra.MsState.Edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: jester.cc.msstate.edu
In article <1991Oct07.182713.17230@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <1991Oct7.123050.13950@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>
>>>As an administrator, you do have authority. As a user, I'm
>>>nobody.
>>
>>I may have authority on the *local* systems which I administer; on a national
>>(or global, in the case of Usenet) scale, I'm just as much of a nobody as you.
>
>Well, if users can't fight NSF edicts, and sysadmins can't (or WON'T), WHO
>CAN?
>
>Judging from the disappearance of GIFs,mail FTP servers, and the like, I must
>assume that NOBODY can.
Collectively is a different story.
When the Mars Hotel BBS GIF archive was questioned by the NSF the files
were eliminated by the administrator of that machine. A few users complained
about it on the BBS itself. There was even a minor stir on usenet. When
people complained to me about the removal I suggested that they put pen
to paper and write to the NSF (I even had the address though I've since
lost it). For some reason I strongly suspect that very many (if any)
people wrote to them to protest such pressure.
If you are a system administrator and the NSF doesn't like your files
protest. Even if you remove the files write a formal letter indicating
your dislike of the policy.
If you are a user and an archive you frequent (or even one you consider
important even if you don't use it) is shut down write a letter to the
NFS explaining clearly and maturely why you think such archives are
appropriate and useful.
System administrators and users are nobodies. But a hundred or a
thousand nobodies can add up to somebody.
Expecting one individual (ANY one individual) to stand alone against
the NSF is unrealistic though.
Frank Peters
Mississippi State University
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1135 comp.org.eff.talk:4347
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 23:29:41 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.232941.9463@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
References: <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org> <1991Oct7.143951.10183@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct7.155322.7069@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct7.155322.7069@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
]morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
]>I'd guess that the readership would be higher, when taken in terms of
]>users to which it was available. Where did this newgroup (caf.talk)
]>place in the most recent readership statistics?
Actually, many of us are reading this thread in comp.org.eff.talk,
which has been around somewhat longer than the caf newsgroups.
Looking up the statistics, and estimating the overlap of readers
between the two groups, is left as an exercise for the reader :-)
--
Pray for peace;
Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ
# No, that's covered by the Drug Exception to the 4th Amendment
-------------------
From: MCNAB_PD@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark Neely)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <911008182707.2080133d@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Sender: MCNAB_PD@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Date: 8 Oct 91 18:27:07 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
With regard to S.Kapur's comment that in New York State (and for the
Federal Government) the doctrine of Estoppel in inapplicable to govt.
institution, it might be worth noting that there have been at least two
recent Australian High Court cases which have held that government institutions
may very well be estopped by their actions.
The reasoning behind the decisions was that if governments are becoming
more and more involved in the commercial world, why should they not be
responisble for their actions where they affect (often causing great
detriment) other parties.
Mark Neely
Research Student
Northern Territory Univ. Law School
Darwin, NT Australia
mcnab_pd@darwin.ntu.edu.au
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1137 comp.org.eff.talk:4360
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct8.130131.19706@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Oct7.195956.579@eff.org> <1991Oct7.203605.27593@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 13:01:31 GMT
In article kadie@eff.org writes:
>I believe you to be on firm legal ground, but weak ground with respect
>to academic freedom. Legally, as a librarian or Netnews admin, can
>base your selection of topics on the avoid-offending-anyone criterion.
>This criterion, however, violates the Library Bill of Rights.
>Librarians consider selection based on this criterion a form of
>censorship.
Agreed. However, more and more of the commentary in this discussion seems
to imply that almost ANY criterion violates some rights. I've been told that
even starting a sci.*-and-comp.*-only site is wrong, and that I should auto-
matically carry a full feed. I don't agree with that, but every opinion I
give seems to be flame fodder for activists. I'm trying to be realistic, in
terms of our capabilities and our mission (as an engineering school), as well
as the general concept of "site independance". It's the unreality of some
postions that upsets me; believe it or not, it's not your posts, Carl. 8)
>wm> That's great, but netnews is no more a "student publication" than
>wm> graffiti on a bathroom wall. It may reach as many people (or more),
>wm> but it is NOT a student publication.
>
>Netnews is not entirely a student publiciation, of course, but the
>Netnews notes posted by students are "by students" and are
>"published". Why don't you think that they are "student publications".
>
I don't consider everything done by a student to be a "student publication".
You can certainly argue that, since "publish" is defined as "to issue or
prepare a work for public distribution or sale", a Usenet posting falls under
that definition. I tend to consider the "preparation" step more essential
to the definition than the "issuance" step. To me, calling something a
"student publication" implies a certain amount of editorial presence among
the authors. I consider the Kentucky Kernel a "student publication", since
it has an established editorial board and procedures in place; there is a great
deal of emphasis on the "preparation" step. The same applies to the Kentuckian
(the yearbook). However, I have a hard time placing a single-person,
off-the-cuff, unedited Usenet posting on the same level as the more common
examples of "student publications".
There are some exceptions to this interpretation. For instance, there is
a mailing list called PACS-L; it is moderated, and it is registered as a
periodical (ISSN and the works). Since this is a recognized electronic
publication, I would consider student postings to that list as "student
publications"; there is an established editorial method. The same concept
applies, in my opinion, to moderated newsgroups, such as sci.military and
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
It's the basic anarchy of Usenet that brought the "bathroom wall" image
to my mind. Can we really consider Usenet to be anything more than an
electronic home for graffiti? I urge anyone who thinks otherwise to
examine any unmoderated group for a month; think long and hard on what
you read in those groups. Ask yourself if the more common "student pub-
lications", such as student newspapers or magazines, would print these
materials. I really have a hard time justifying "the canonical list of
light bulb jokes" or "PETA is a bunch of jerks" as a "student publication".
There is another factor we must consider -- the "integrated" nature of
Usenet. Usenet is not solely a "resource for students"; there are par-
ticipants from the faculty, from the corporate world, from government,
and from the private sector (BBS systems, Portal, the Well, et cetera).
Can we really extend protection as a "student publication" to only part
of Usenet? Can we extend the protection of "academic freedom" to those
posters outside of academia?
It may seem as though I'm picking at nits; rest assured, I am not.
I anticipate that, in the near future, we may need to defend Usenet
on several levels. When that becomes necessary, I'd like to have a
single set of defenses that apply equally to all of Usenet. I don't
want to have to defend "student postings", "corporate users", or
(perhaps) "scientific only"; I very much want to keep the whole anarchic
mess intact. I'm trying to find the common ground we'll need to defend
all of it.
--
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 Wed Oct 9 18:29:39 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Oct 9 18:29:35 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
edtjda@magic322.ch : It doesn't play in Peoria
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Banned Computer Material 1991
ehunt%bsc835@uunet : Satellite porno busted
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.29
hadjiyia@cat4.cs.w : Re: Government restriction of net information
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
morgan@ms.uky.edu : The Cleveland Free-Net's approach to "adult" materials
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: So what is the (fwd)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: The Cleveland Free-Net's approach to "adult" material
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: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110090107.AA12306@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 8 Oct 91 17:07:59 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID:
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
References: <9110082247.AA14436@magic322.chron.com>
Distribution: eff
Date: 8 Oct 91 10:39:12 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
No reason?? Get real.
Your own writing to this list betrays you. You need not exchange mail
with me to point out your flaws. However, I'll not argue with one such
as you over the topic. I encourage you and the others to merely review
the July archives of this mailing list for a bunch 'o examples by your
own pen (so to speak).
And you're right. There's probably a problem out there somewhere, but
you can't seem to grasp the technology, and we need a reporter who can
do that and explain it to the public at large. John Markoff does an
excellent job at doing just that. You could, too, but you need to
develop the understanding of the technology before you write
influential, misguided articles (to give you the benefit of the doubt as
to whether you are one of ``them'').
Eliot Lear
[lear@turbo.bio.net]
-------------------
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: It doesn't play in Peoria
Message-ID: <9110090116.AA14628@magic322.chron.com>
Sender: edtjda@magic322.chron.com
Date: 9 Oct 91 01:16:45 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Carl --
Tom Grundner of Cleveland Freenet fame writes in with definitive word
on the status of things in Peoria. He says they have a Freenet there,
and indeed they didn't care for the more colorful material.
No word on which Peoria. :-)
Joe Abernathy
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110090244.AA14472@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 8 Oct 91 18:44:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110090159.AA00153@world.std.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
References: <9110090045.AA14512@magic322.chron.com>
Distribution: eff
Date: 8 Oct 91 17:59:09 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
If you plop a 10 year old in front of a cabled television set, how do
you stop that kid from turning to a blue channel or movie?
If you let a kid near a telephone, how do you prevent the kid from
dialing some 900 "Let Me Suck Your Ear" number?
If you send a kid to buy a magazine, how do you stop the kid from
perusing the flesh mags etc?
If you send a kid into a large library, how do you keep the kid from
heading straight for Marquis de Sade, Joy of Sex or whatever it is
that horrifies the parent or their proxies?
The point is:
If anyone thinks that computers or computer networks somehow will
replace the care and sincere concern of the adults who are supposed to
guide them they are deluded.
The same people who will plop their kid in front of a TV and then be
horrified to come back several hours later to see that their latchkey
kid is engrossed in some X rated movie are the same ones who will now
try to blame their own disinterest and failure to guide their children
on yet another box full of wires.
Face it, if the parents (or teachers etc) don't care about the
children in their charge, how can the rest of us make up the
difference?
...We can't.
The answer is:
You can't care and not care simultaneously.
Blaming problems on inanimate objects is not generally considered a
healthy approach to life.
Someone will just have to care.
Just as much as you have to keep a kid out of traffic rather than rail
against the "dangers and irresponsibility" of automobile technology.
If they can't, then computer networks are the least of their problems.
To be frank:
I find your questions leading, not peculiar to computer networks in
any way (you could be asking about public libraries or cable TV or
telephones or magazine stands, just replace the words and your
question is just as apt), and reeking of a political agenda that you,
and only you, think is clever.
That's why you get so much heat on this list.
You're transparent as hell, Joe, these are smart people here, they're
not fooled by your cheap muckraking, they're just offended.
So wipe that self-satisfied smug look off your face and realize you're
making a complete jackass of yourself in front of a lot of people.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110090244.AA14553@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 8 Oct 91 18:44:34 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110090045.AA14512@magic322.chron.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 00:45:56 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Stev Knowles writes:
> We always get back to the pornography, don't we?
So solve it for me, Stev. Believe me -- b e l i e v e me --
nobody is more tired of the issue than am I. And please
remember that this is nothing more than a sidelight to an
article about networking in the public schools.
But the issue's not going away.
That business of "so don't take those newsgroups" sounds good,
if it worked. Of course, it doesn't. I can think of no less
than four alternate methods to get to controversial material
in the absence of a usenet feed. Shut 'em all down and you've
got no net left.
Joe
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <1991Oct9.030315.15561@eff.org>
References: <199110090244.AA14553@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 03:03:15 GMT
edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy) writes:
>That business of "so don't take those newsgroups" sounds good,
>if it worked. Of course, it doesn't. I can think of no less
>than four alternate methods to get to controversial material
>in the absence of a usenet feed. Shut 'em all down and you've
>got no net left.
Please elaborate. What are the four methods?
- 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:1157 alt.censorship:1829
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1991
Message-ID: <1991Oct9.031615.16024@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct7.040646.16775@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 03:16:15 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>As part of Banned Book Week (and only a week late), here is:
> Banned Computer Material 1991 (and earlier)
[...]
Here is an addendum:
The alt.sex* newsgroup and the alt.flame newsgroups are proscribed on
all Penn State machines administered by the Center for Academic
Computing on all of their machines.
[I got this information via email. Can anyone confirm it? What
is their selection policy? - Carl]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: ehunt%bsc835@uunet.UU.NET (Eric P. Hunt)
Subject: Satellite porno busted
Message-ID: <9110090323.AA16945@relay2.UU.NET>
Sender: bsc835!ehunt@uunet.UU.NET
Date: 9 Oct 91 03:21:35 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Joe Abernathy (edtjda@chron.com) writes:
---***
by the network, but in fact, I was thinking of an actual
example. That's the recent decision shutting down an
explicit movie channel whose signal could be pulled off
satellite. Some church group in the Midwest complained,
and won, even though the company was located in New York.
---***
If what you say is true, then there are two cases of this happening. The
current Attorney General of Alabama did this as well. Right before his election
as AG for the state, while he was still AG for the city of Montgomery, he
shut down a similiar operation. Seems some kids were requesting pay-per-view
porno movies. He took the company to court, and the company that owned the
satellite the porno movies were beamed around on cut the feed for fear THEY
would get dragged into the mess as well. That put the firm out of business like
that week. Dunno whatever happened with the criminal charges, I'm in Birmingham,
so it died out in the media faster here than it did in Montgomery.
--
Eric Hunt
Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL
"bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net"
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110090401.AA17108@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 8 Oct 91 20:01:54 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: halcyon!ralphs@sumax.seattleu.edu
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID:
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 03:13:54 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
sumax!magic322.chron.com!edtjda (Joe Abernathy) writes:
> That business of "so don't take those newsgroups" sounds good,
> if it worked. Of course, it doesn't. I can think of no less
> than four alternate methods to get to controversial material
> in the absence of a usenet feed. Shut 'em all down and you've
> got no net left.
But in the case of a K-12 environment, the folks who administer the
system have the ability (or should) to control what flows in an out
of their monitors and keyboards. In this setting, an introduction
the myriad of Internet services is quite a treasure in itself, what
with White Pages, WAIS, talk, phone, etc., and keeping those resources
from the community that might best benefit from them would appear not
to be in the best interests of all concerned.
The same argument exists for the youth, who in the comfort of the
family home, discovers 'questionable' materials on the net. Should
not the supervision of this individual be left to the parents, and
not to the net in question? Should not, then,the supervision of the
school youth using the Internet best be left to the instructor?
Perhaps we're attempting to educate the wrong people.
I'm sure you are aware that the alt groups are not 'mainstream' Usenet
and, in fact, are not carried by the majority of Usenet sites and not
even by all of the 'roadways' of the Internet. The analogy of killing
the messenger for delivering the message might be drawn, when writing
your articles; as you become more aware of what the Internet and all
its ramifications is about, the more you should be one of its activists
instead of one of its doomsayers. Unfortunately, your reputation has
preceeded you, but we are still hopeful...
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1160 comp.admin.policy:1026 comp.org.eff.talk:4386 alt.censorship:1831
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.29
Message-ID: <1991Oct9.041842.17433@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 04:18:42 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-news). Information about CAF-news followings the
abstract.
--- begin abstract 1.29 ---
[For the week of September 23 to September 29, 1991
The first three articles cover two topics. The first says that
unwritten rules are bad and that a site that is really for
instructional use only should subscribe to few or no
newsgroups.<1991Sep23.041527.1439@eng.umd.edu> The second note says
that there is nothing wrong with a site being mostly for instructional
use and a little for recreational use. Experience shows that this
works.<1991Sep26.041948.27809@visix.com> The third note explains why
written rules are better than unwritten rules.<4B0Z91w164w@bluemoon.rn.com>
The next three notes are about restricted access to magazines and
newsgroups. The first note says that access restrictions can be
censorship.<07829621CE001F77@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The second says that
there are sometimes legitimate reasons to restricted
access<199109231818.AA23069@eff.org>. The third note reports that the
American Library Association (ALA) recognizes some forms of access
restriction as censorship. It then lists the ALA's definition of
censorship and other related terms.<1991Sep23.151518.18589@eff.org>
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) protects the
privacy of "public" email users. In the next note, Mike Godwin, staff
lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), says that the
ECPA could be reasonably construed to protect university
email.<1991Sep23.190848.24422@eff.org> The note following suggests
that the ability to send and receive mail from off campus makes a
university email system more "public"<8264@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>.
The final four notes are about the ALA's Intellectual Freedom
Statement. The first note is the text of the Statement. 'It talks
about the role of free expression in a democracy and the role of an
information provider ("We need not endorse every idea contained in the
materials we produce and make available."). It argues against
censorship and labeling. Finally, it talks about professional
responsibility ("We perceive the admirable, often lonely, refusal to
succumb to threats of punitive action as the highest form of true
professionalism: dedication to the cause of intellectual freedom and
the preservation of vital human and civil liberties.")'
<1991Sep24.033201.24899@m.cs.uiuc.edu> The next note says
that parts of the Statement are Quixotic, stupid, and Libertarian.
<917C2FD0A24073B3@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The third note asserts that
fighting censorship is not stupid.<1991Sep24.200349.27056@mp.cs.niu.edu>
The fourth note questions the application of the label "Libertarian"
<1991Sep24.061001.13417@eff.org>
- Carl]
--- end abstract 1.29 ---
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-news is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to listserv@eff.org.
Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4387 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1161
From: hadjiyia@cat4.cs.wisc.edu (Simos Hadjiyiannis)
Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information
Message-ID: <1991Oct9.001600.6370@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 91 00:16:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: daffy.1991Oct9.001600.6370
Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu (The News)
Thus spake otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu:
> [...]
>I don't understand why it would be ok to censor commercial free speech
>but not ok to censor other free speech. Why not just set up a forum
>for such, so those who wish to carry/read/post may do so, at their own
>expense, of course, and those who do not wish to do so do not?
> [...]
Because that is equivalent to restricting commercials on TV to a specified
hour (say 4pm to 6pm) : most of us would simply not TV at those times, and
the people who advertise would simply stop paying for commercials.
The whole point is that what these people would like is some sort of Prodigy
style ads (at the bottom of your screen at all times, I think...) where you
can't avoid but look at them, otherwise there would be no real point to it...
Personally, it will be a sad day when I get a digitised Gif file of Ed
McMahon telling me that I have a chance for $10,000,000... :) :) :)
Cheers,
Simos
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110091348.AA02602@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 05:48:05 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110090109.AA01995@reason.ig.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
References: <9110082247.AA14436@magic322.chron.com>
Distribution: eff
Date: 8 Oct 91 11:09:18 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In <9110082247.AA14436@magic322.chron.com> Joe Abernathy writes:
> Eliot Lear writes:
>
> > Let me pose a question to you, Joe:
>
> > What's the point of answering your question in any meaningful way when
> > one is likely to be misquoted by your yellow pen?
>
> I'd hoped to avoid this thread again so soon, but whatever.
Frankly, Mr. Abernathy, it is going to keep coming up, again and again,
so long as your journalistic ethics are in question. And from what I
have read, here, and elsewhere, they remain very much in question.
> [...]
> Let's cut to the chase: alt.sex.bestiality is an indefensible
> application of public funds. It's an indefensible thing to bring
> into the public schools. It's equally unnacceptable to allow the
> government to serve as censor.
I have watched this discussion, without participation, for quite a
while, since the original controversy involving your "computer
porn" article for the Houston Chronicle. However, I find it difficult
to stay out after this. Mr. Abernathy, you have finally overstepped
the role of a reporter and assumed the role of an advocate. And from
the courses in journalistic ethics I've taken (B.A. Journalism, Univ.
of California, Berkeley, 1978) I learned that in doing so you have lost
whatever claim of objectivity and fairness that you might have
originally possessed.
Sir: it is not your job to determine whether alt.sex.bestiality is or
is not "an indefensible application of public funds", or "an
indefensible thing to bring into the public schools". That is what we
have school boards for, and elected officials, and others involved in
the public policy process. Your role, or so you have claimed, is as a
reporter -- to give fair and accurate accounts of events, and perhaps
to analyze them, in areas of interest to your readers, under the
direction of your editorial management. I was not aware that it was
within your reportorial purview to render conclusions about
controversial matters of public policy; perhaps before doing so,
especially in a public forum, you should check with your editor (I
certainly will).
Speaking as a degreed journalist, a licensed attorney with experience
in computer-related legal matters, and an Internet site manager and
consultant since 1984, I urge you to cease your self-serving,
provocative, and sensationalist attempts to stir up the pot of
"computer porno rings". Previous messages in this forum address your
concept of fairness in quoting members of the Internet/Usenet
community. Your reply to Mr. Lear exposes your lack of objectivity.
There is little wonder that people refuse to be interviewed by you, or
quoted by you, or decline to cooperate in your "reporting"; when you
cross the line from reporter to advocate, you lose the traditional
deference accorded to members of the press. You say, "better (to deal
with) me than the Baptists", but I wonder -- is there really a
difference?
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@presto.ig.com
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110091348.AA02696@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 05:48:30 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: brian@ray.lloyd.com (Brian Lloyd)
Subject: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110090459.AA01998@ray.lloyd.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
References: <9110082247.AA14436@magic322.chron.com>
Distribution: eff
Date: 8 Oct 91 14:59:55 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
OK, let's cut to the chase. I am in a similar situation here (schools
interested in Internet connectivity). I plan to present the pros and
cons of netnews and to point out the newsgroups that present potential
problems. I suspect that I will probably turn off alt.* for the
gradeschools and require parental permission to allow access to alt.*
for the high-school kids. Who knows, we will play it by ear. Perhaps
we will even have a rational discussion about it.
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN Lloyd and Associates
Network Architect 3420 Sudbury Road
brian@ray.lloyd.com Cameron Park, CA 95682
voice (916) 676-1147
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110091348.AA02783@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 05:48:51 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110090536.AA08878@tmc.edu>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
References: sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber)
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 05:36:38 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Ah, but Joe, You have talked to me.
As a result of that conversation, my comments appeared in an article about
"porn" on the internet. You never told me anything about the subject matter
being part of that article. Of course, you may choose to deny this is the
case. Fortunately, I don't have to make a living quoting people in newspapers.
--
Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Director, Networking
Olan uucp: rutgers!bcm!sob and Systems Support
Barber Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicine
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110091349.AA02866@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 05:49:17 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: Charles_K._Kuhlman.MAN@rxg.xerox.com
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <__9-Oct-91__9:56:36_+1_.*.Charles_K._Kuhlman.MAN@RXG.Xerox.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 08:56:36 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Michael C. Berch writes:
Amen to that. After watching this thread (and the others) I went down to a
library and found some of Joe Abernathys articles. Ouch. Joe, you must have
tremendously thick skin to write like that and come back to the Internet for
more abuse. Do you receive ANY support from the net (and can you quote them
here??) or are you a lone wolf?
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110091349.AA02949@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 05:49:43 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110091313.AA07239@alanine.phri.nyu.edu>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 13:13:42 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
tower@bu-it.BU.EDU says:
> I do NOT wish to be quoted.
Let's get real, people. Standing up in a public forum to state your
views prefaced by "I do NOT wish to be quoted" is, at best, naive.
Perhaps it's reasonable to express the hope that if you are quoted, you
are quoted accurately, and/or in-context, but if you flat-out don't
want to be quoted, then don't say anything in the first place.
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: The Cleveland Free-Net's approach to "adult" materials
Keywords: public computing adult material control measures
Message-ID: <1991Oct9.131801.16198@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 91 13:18:01 GMT
In light of the long discussion about "adult" netnews material, I thought
it informative to let you know how the Cleveland Freenet (at Case Western
Reserve University) is handling the situation. The following is the new
policy for access to "adult" discussion groups.
---------------begin message from Free-Net--------------------------
Adult Areas in Free-Net
Most areas of Free-Net operate under certain restrictions that constrain
the speech of users in some way or another. These restrictions are put
into place to make areas suitable for access by the general community.
Subject matter and language is restricted so that most people in the
community would not find the postings objectionable and that the postings
will be suitable for access by minors.
In order to accommodate more open discussions, certain areas or menu items
within areas of Free-Net will be designated "adult" areas. The speech in
these areas will be less restricted in both language and content. An area
being designated an "adult" area does NOT necessarily mean that it's
content will be "x-rated", but that a significant number of people in the
community might find the language or content of the postings to be
personally objectionable and/or not suitable for access by minors.
In order to access the adult areas of Free-Net, a user will be required
to certify that they are 18 years of age or older or have a parent/guardian
certify that they have permission to access these areas.
Starting November 1, 1991, the adult areas, or menu items within an area
designated to be adult oriented, will only be visible and accessible to
to the following process:
NOTE THAT ALL CWRU FACULTY, STAFF, AND STUDENTS ARE AUTOMATICALLY CERTIFIED
AS ADULTS. If you are CWRU faculty, staff, or students you do NOT need to
send in a statement of certification. All others are required to do so.
* * * *
If you are an adult and wish to use the adult areas of the Cleveland
Free-Net, then you must send us a SIGNED and DATED statement containing the
following sentence:
"I hereby certify that I am an adult, 18 years of age or older,
and wish to access the adult areas of the Cleveland Free-Net."
If you are under 18 and wish to have access to the adult areas of the
Cleveland Free-Net, then your parent or guardian may authorize you to have
access by sending us a SIGNED and DATED statement containing the following
sentence:
"I, ________, the parent/guardian of _________ , authorize
this minor to access the adult areas of the Cleveland Free-Net."
All correspondence MUST include your full name and your user ID! Please
print the name and user ID legibly. ANY CORRESPONDENCE THAT DOES NOT
CONFORM TO THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED.
Send your signed, dated release statement to:
The Cleveland Free-Net Project
Case Western Reserve University
10900 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44106-7072
Please note that it may take a week or so to process this information,
once received. This does not include the time it will take for the
statement to reach us by mail.
------------------End message from Cleveland Free-Net-----------------------
Considering the fact that Free-Net is explicitly available to anyone, at no
cost other than their means of access, I think that they are attempting to
address many of the same concerns we have discussed. In fact, their situa-
tion is potentially more volatile than ours, since the Free-Net program is
expanding rapidly; for many people, the Free-Net is their introduction to
the world of computer networks.
Given the configuration and wide distribution of Free-Net services (they
have members from all areas of the world), I think that their approach is
good. It requires concrete actions by any individual wishing to access
adult areas, and it gives Free-Net a formal, written application for such
services. It also involves the parents in the process, as it should, when
applied to minors.
I would also note that this policy actually facilitates more open discussion
among adults; it removes some of the concerns we have identified in our dis-
cussions. It is interesting to note their assumption that all CWRU students,
faculty, and staff are automatically given access to the adult areas. Des-
pite my "devil's advocate" positions in many of the caf-talk discussions, I'm
glad to see such action; every site that applies policies such as this makes
it easier for me to do the same. Coming, as it does, on the heels of the
Waterloo decisions, I'm looking forward to a larger news feed.
Wes
(al752@cleveland.freenet.edu, as well as the addresses below)
--
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: FYI: So what is the (fwd)
Message-ID: <199110091350.AA03056@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 05:50:20 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton)
Subject: So what is the answer? (fwd)
Message-ID: <9110090236.aa02879@utoday.utoday.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 06:36:43 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>
>
> Let me pose a question for you.
[ stuff deleted ]
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I'm inquiring
> for the purpose of publication; please specifically
> state if you do not wish to be quoted.
The statement that you should ``specifically state if you do not wish
to be quoted'' presents certain logistical questions. Since this was
sent to a mailing list, are we to assume that every reply to the list
is up for possible quoting? If so, is this fair? If it is only replies
sent directly to JDA, then shouldn't that be made clear up front?
And what happens when I send it to the list, and Joe makes a mistake
and takes it for private e-mail? Where do I complain?
Folks, I'd be cautious when replying to this missive. Last time I sent
Abernathy a private mail-gram, he mistook it for a posting to com-priv
and fired his response back at the list.
--
Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com
UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The Cleveland Free-Net's approach to "adult" materials
Message-ID: <1991Oct9.150014.4570@eff.org>
Keywords: public computing adult material control measures
References: <1991Oct9.131801.16198@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 15:00:14 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>In light of the long discussion about "adult" netnews material, I thought
>it informative to let you know how the Cleveland Freenet (at Case Western
>Reserve University) is handling the situation. The following is the new
>policy for access to "adult" discussion groups.
[...]
>>In order to access the adult areas of Free-Net, a user will be required
>>to certify that they are 18 years of age or older or have a parent/guardian
>>certify that they have permission to access these areas.
[...]
The American Library Association suggests that the default be access
to material, but that parents be allowed to restrict access.
The policy is explained in the enclosed ALA Interpretation. All the
interpretations and statements mentioned are available on-line via
anonymous ftp from directory ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library. The
material is also available via email. For information on email
access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
"help" and "index".
-----
ACCESS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE TO VIDEOTAPES
AND OTHER NONPRINT FORMATS
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Library collections of videotapes, motion pictures, and other nonprint formats
raise a number of intellectual freedom issues, especially regarding minors.
The interests of young people, like those of adults, are not limited by
subject, theme, or level of sophistication. Librarians have a responsibility
to ensure young people have access to materials and services that reflect
diversity sufficient to meet their needs.
To guide librarians and others in resolving these issues, the American Library
Association provides the following guidelines.
Article V of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS says, "A person's right to use a
library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background,
or views."
ALA's FREE ACCESS TO LIBRARIES FOR MINORS: An Interpretation of the LIBRARY
BILL OF RIGHTS states:
The "right to use a library" includes free access to, and unrestricted
use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to
offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources,
based solely on the chronological age, educational level, or legal
emancipation of users violates Article V.
. . .[P]arents - and only parents - have the right and the
responsibility to restrict the access of their children - and only their
children - to library resources. Parents or legal guardians who do not
want their children to have access to certain library services,
materials or facilities, should so advise their children. Librarians
and governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions
of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and
child. Librarians and governing bodies have a public and professional
obligation to provide equal access to all library resources for all
library users.
Policies which set minimum age limits for access to videotapes and/or other
audiovisual materials and equipment, with or without parental permission,
abridge library use for minors. Further, age limits based on the cost of the
materials are unacceptable. Unless directly and specifically prohibited by
law from circulating certain motion pictures and video productions to minors,
librarians should apply the same standards to circulation of these materials
as are applied to books and other materials.
Recognizing that libraries cannot act in loco parentis, ALA acknowledges and
supports the exercise by parents of their responsibility to guide their won
children's reading and viewing. Published reviews of films and videotapes
and/or reference works which provide information about the content, subject
matter, and recommended audiences can be made available in conjunction with
nonprint collections to assist parents in guiding their children without
implicating the library in censorship. This material may include information
provided by video producers and distributors, promotional material on
videotape packaging, and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings
if they are included on the tape or in the packaging by the original publisher
and/or if they appear in review sources or reference works included in the
library's collection. Marking out or removing ratings information from
videotape packages constitutes expurgation or censorship.
MPAA and other rating services are private advisory codes and have no legal
standing*. For the library to add such ratings to the materials if they are
not already there, to post a list of such ratings with a collection, or to
attempt to enforce such ratings through circulation policies or other
procedures constitutes labeling, "an attempt to prejudice attitudes" about the
material, and is unacceptable. The application of locally generated ratings
schemes intended to provide content warnings to library users is also
inconsistent with the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
*For information on case law, please contact the ALA Office for Intellectual
Freedom.
See also: STATEMENT ON LABELING and EXPURGATION OF LIBRARY MATERIALS,
Interpretations of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
Adopted June 28, 1989, by the ALA Council; the quotation from FREE ACCESS TO
LIBRARIES FOR MINORS was changed after Council adopted the July 3, 1991,
revision of that Interpretation.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
From kadie Wed Oct 9 18:32:03 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Oct 9 18:30:16 EDT 1991
In this issue:
c90matgu@odalix.id : Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.28
pwh@bradley.bradle : Re: It doesn't play in Peoria
stevens@Csa1.LBL.G : Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: ECPA and University Email
J.Hayward@utexas.e : Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : CAF-abstracts: New version of mailing list
ebrandt@jarthur.Cl : Re: (Ll)ibertarians and public libraries
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: (none)
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the (fwd)
edtjda@magic322.ch : Re: The answer
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
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: c90matgu@odalix.ida.liu.se (Mats Gustafsson)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.28
Message-ID: <9110091507.AA01362@astmatix>
Sender: c90matgu@odalix.ida.liu.se
References: <199110081442.AA16428@eff.org>
Date: 9 Oct 91 17:07:03 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
DELTE comp-academic-freedom-talk
-------------------
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: It doesn't play in Peoria
Message-ID: <1991Oct9.154742.18384@bradley.bradley.edu>
Sender: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
References: <9110090116.AA14628@magic322.chron.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 9 Oct 91 15:47:42 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Most likely Peoria, IL, and the heartland freenet.
Not that I know any more about it than that....
--
-----
Pete Hartman Bradley University pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
I'm having a wonderful time but I'd rather be whistling in the dark.
-------------------
From: stevens@Csa1.LBL.Gov (Dave F. Stevens)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <911009085254.24204d19@Csa1.LBL.Gov>
Sender: stevens@Csa1.LBL.Gov
References: <9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com>
Date: 9 Oct 91 15:52:54 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
unsubscribe
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: ECPA and University Email
Message-ID: <1991Oct9.161026.6922@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 16:10:26 GMT
From: pthomas@quark2.aero.org (Peter L. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.29
Message-Id: <9OCT199108560392@quark2.aero.org>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
Sender: news@aero.org
References: <1991Oct9.041203.17283@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 16:56:00 GMT
Apparently-To: alt-comp-acad-freedom-news@ucsd.edu
Status: R
Mike Godwin replies to Carl Kadie:
>Carl, I don't think it's been resolved whether ECPA reaches
>university e-mail, but I think there is an argument that it
>does. Consider two key terms in ECPA:
>
>a: "electronic communication service" [defined in 18 USC 2510]
>means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to
>send or receive wire or electronic communications.
>
>b: "remote computing service" [defined in 18 USC 2711] means the provision
>*to the public* [emphasis mine] of computer storage or processing services
>by means of an electronic communications services.
I have to agree with Doug's and Mike's view on this, especially when you
consider that some of the groups that are covered by this act (large-scale
commercial information and communication providers) do not provide their
services "to the public." They provide them to their customers. Although at
a state-supported school a different situation applies, I don't see how a
private university that has an information provider role as part of its
services is any different.
Standard disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer--and I don't even play one on TV.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: J.Hayward@utexas.edu (Jeff Hayward)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110091611.AA07131@margo.ots.utexas.edu>
Sender: jah@margo.ots.utexas.edu
References: <9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com>
Date: 9 Oct 91 16:11:37 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Ahh, Mr. Abernathy's missives arrive with all the elegance of a SCUD
missile. Inaccurate and of no journalistic significance, they are
only capable of inflaming public opinion and causing limited damage
to undeserving populations.
Without bothering to correct him point by point, I'll just state
categorically that Joe hasn't managed to get a single correct
statement in the paragraph below.
>It took about two days for them to have a "major
>porno incident" that ended with them shutting down
>the news feed; and for now, students will not be
>allowed their own accounts. Obviously, shutting down
>usenet doesn't bar access to the lively material.
Also, in response to Tom Grundner's concern for TENET's access
control capabilities, I would reassure him that we find Kerberos
authentication and AFS access control technologies to be both strong
and flexible. Frankly, anything less would be insufficient.
--Jeff Hayward
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: CAF-abstracts: New version of mailing list
Message-ID: <1991Oct9.173247.9274@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 17:32:47 GMT
Now that the CAF archive is accessable by email, we've created a new
version of the list. I expect the new version to be of special
interest to folks who found that CAF-news was sending them to much
information.
Here is the updated description of the CAF mailing list:
------------ftp.eff.org/pub/academic/caf-------------------
Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List
Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles
of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,
due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and
networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the
principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be
defended?
Mitch Kapor of the Electronic Freedom Foundation has given the
discussion a home on the eff.org machine. As of Sept, 1991, the list
has 375 members in at least five countries. Thousands more read the
list via newsgroups.
There are four versions of the mailing list.
comp-academic-freedom-talk
- you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day.
comp-academic-freedom-batch
- about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes.
comp-academic-freedom-news
- about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
notes of the week. (Helen O'Boyle or I play the editor for
this one).
comp-academic-freeedom-abstracts
- about one a week you'll receive the abstract of the current
comp-academic-freedom-news (CAF-news). You'll also receive
instructions on how to access the current CAF-news.
To join a version of the list, send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line "add ". (Other commands are "delete
" and "help"). If you have problems, send email to
caf-requests@eff.org.
In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the list
by addressing it to caf-talk@eff.org.
Alternatively, if you may be able to read the mailing lists as newsgroups.
Look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
An abstract and archive of comp-academic-freedom-news is available via
anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. See file "pub/academic/abstracts" and
"pub/academic/README". These files are also available via email (Send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and
"index".)
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
The long version:
When my grandmother attended the University of Illinois fifty-five
years ago, academic freedom meant the right to speak up in class, to
created student organizations, to listen to controversial speakers, to
read "dangerous" books in the library, and to be protected from random
searches of your dorm room.
Today these rights are guaranteed by most universities. These days,
however, my academic life very different from my grandmother's. Her
academic life was centered on the classroom and the student union.
Mine centers on the computer and the computer network. In the new
academia, my academic freedom is much less secure.
It is time for a discussion of computers and academic freedom. I've
been in contact with Mitch Kapor. He has given the discussion a home on
the eff.org machine.
The suppression of academic freedom on computers is common. At least
once a month, someone posts on plea on Usenet for help. The most
common complaint is that a newsgroup has been banned because of its
content (usually alt.sex). In January, a sysadmin at the University of
Wisconsin didn't ban any newsgroups directly. Instead, he reduced the
newsgroup expiration time so that reading groups such as alt.sex is
almost impossible. Last month, a sysadmin at Case Western killed
a note that a student had posted to a local newsgroup. The sysadmin
said the information in the note could be misused. In other cases,
university employees may be reading e-mail or looking through user
files. This may happen with or without some prior notice that e-mail
and files are fair game.
In many of these cases the legality of the suppression is unclear. It
may depend on user expectation, prior announcements, and whether the
university is public or private.
The legality is, however, irrelevant. The duty of the University is
not to suppress everything it legally can; rather it is to support the
free and open investigation and expression of ideas. This is the ideal
of academic freedom. In this role, the University acts a model of how
the wider world should be. (In the world of computers, universities are
perhaps the most important model of how things should be).
If you are interested in discussing this issues, or if you have
first-hand experience with academic surpression on computers or
networks, please join the mailing list.
- Carl Kadie
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.edu (Eli Brandt)
Subject: Re: [Ll]ibertarians and public libraries
Message-ID: <199110091820.AA10881@eff.org>
Sender: ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.edu
References: <199110090411.AA17240@eff.org>
Date: 9 Oct 91 18:20:03 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
> Subject: Re: ALA's "Intellectual Freedom Statement"
> I doubt if there are too many Libertarian librarians since I think the
> Libertarians oppose public libraries.
Funny you should mention this... there was just an, ah, polite discussion on
Libernet about public libraries. No consensus among libertarians, small
'l'. I grepped the '90 Libertarian platform for "libr" and found only
"Lagrange libration points". It's not a very big issue with
[Ll]ibertarians, as public libraries are perhaps the least-offensive
coercively-funded institution around. I think the strict libertarian
position would have to be that libraries should not be funded by taxes, but
that while they are they should not censor. Private libraries, of course,
can have whatever books they please.
> Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
> I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Eli Brandt ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: (none)
Message-ID: <199110091909.AA12324@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 11:09:29 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: daveh@csn.org (Dave Hughes)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <199110091857.AA27507@teal.csn.org>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 06:57:46 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
While many on this mail list are spending their time attacking
everything about Abernathy from the political-computer-correctness of
his knowledge to the way he blinks his cursor, I prefer to address the
issue he raises - that of how to cope with juvenile behavior on the
Internet. It is a wholly legitimate question and one which I have given
more than a few minutes thought to, for a number of years, and in
far broader terms than just user 'behavior.'
For I can't for the life of me figure out why there is this
unquestioned assumption that seems to permeate all the discussions about
"K-12 and the Internet" that the only way to serve the K-12 world is to
put all the kids directly 'on' the net, as distinct from getting them
most all the benefits of use 'through' the net. There is a huge
difference.
Thus I can partly agree with Tom Grunder's approach to the
problem in his suggesting that some classes of users of the Internet be
able to get to it only 'through' an interconnected system such as his
Cleveland Free Net, which itself can be set up to enable only that which
the local supervisors want enabled.
But I don't think Tom has gone nearly far enough. For he too is
talking about only the case where all users have to be able to rlogin
and telnet if the supervisors permit it - i.e. that they are still 'on'
the net in a TCP/IP sense.
I go much further. I think the only sensible answer to the
'behavior' *and* a host of other problems which 'access to the
Internet/NREN' will create is to develop - by progressive hooking-up -
a vast 'net of nets' using - or at the very least starting with - the
same distributed computing/conferencing model that Usenet has
represented - but extended right down through LANS, or Fido-type MSDOS
or Mac systems with one or more lines, to the last networked Apple II
'Fredmail' system - or even end-user Point software connections running
on a field HP laptop with packet radio.
While I am, and will remain the most vigerous, outspoken,
and unapologetically activist champion of the proposition that access
to any national, publically funded, regulated, or backed, data network
be made available at reasonable cost to all citizens of the US, from my
pre-school granddaughters to the President of the United States, I am
not so open minded or ignorant about the practical problems this will
pose that my brains have fallen out.
The other problems besides dealing with behavior while
anonomyous ftp'ing pornographic GIF files during study hall, using the
library computer are (1) the daunting logistical problem of extending
true TCP/IP nodes all the way down to every local-dial-code area with a
school in it in the US, and (2) the number of dial-in, as well as
directly-connected ports that would be required in every school
'community' to support direct student-user connection where the brain
I/O rate of the user will not be any 9,600 baud, and thus (3)the
practical economics involved in serving 16,000 school *districts* with
40 million students with access to NREN/Internet in a reasonable time
frame.
My answer has been for a long time 'distributed' conferencing,
e-mail, file transfer, which in the work I have done in Montana with Big
Sky Telegraph, is proving pretty satisfactory.
For of equal importance to solving these problems by technical
fixes or vague references to relying on 'personal responsibility' the
'distributed' model is not a static concept, but an ever-changing
progressive model - where power (and responsibility) is increased to the
users and small system operators progressively as they both learn how to
use more powerful features, how to behave while using them, and for
administrators, teachers, and network operators how to supervise online
social behavior, the same way they had to learn (and not overnight
either) how to handle grafitti in the lavatories and the use of school
xeroxes to copy porno comic books. And the systems themselves can and
will 'progress' from simple dial up systems to complex NSF net
powerhouses possible on even the smallest 486 today.
Thus when I set up Frank Odasz first Big Sky Telegraph Unix
system 5 years ago with both dial in and terminal access, it became
connected to 'the nets' first through my system (1,000 miles away, where
the cost of calls is cheaper than the 60 miles away to the university
city) and Usenet, then through my Old Colo City system to the Internet
(Colorado SuperNet) and finally - this year - directly to the Internet.
And it *may* go further to be SLIP connected to the Internet. But only
as everybody involved - supervisors, sysops, educators, and the 1,500
direct users of the system are ready for it - having had to learn a
whole range of technical skills, cultural norms, and behavior patterns
from terminal or modem control, CR/LF mapping, through e-mail, file
transfer computer-conferencing, mail addressing, *distributed* (new
group) conferencing, and mail-listing. And if they use SLIP there will
be plenty more to learn before serious use of ftp, rlogin, or telnet can
begin. Yet messages, conferences, mail, and files flow in and out of the
Internet from Big Sky and its users, and have been for 3 years.
That progressive network and 'online community' development
pattern took care of the 1,500 direct login users of BST. And beleive
you me they are still learning! But those not local to Western Montana
College (only maybe 25 users) were either direct long distance dial or
800 number. There was still a major economic problem, which Tom's
big-urban area Cleveland model does not address.
What about Butte, Montana, with its high school, 60 miles from
Dillon where Big Sky Telegraph is, and about the same from Helena, where
the closest direct connection to the Internet would be? A T-1 line to
Butte? Or even a 9.6 line? The $800 server Tom refers to is only a tiny
piece of the cost - the data link to the nearest gateway could cost
every two months as much as that server, not to speak of the labor costs
of administering it. Prohibitively expensive. (How many K-12 schools in
the US are a local-no-toll call to an Internet server?)
The answer was setting up a Fidonet, with V32 9,600 baud modem
in the Butte High School - which is local to both the school and town,
and linking it only once a night with compressed files by Fido protocol,
talking to 'Tiny Sky' Fido, across the room from 'Big Sky' and linked to
*it* by Ufgate <--> UUCP as often as needed to handle mail, files, and
conference/echo/newgroup comments.
This was used far less for 'behavior control' reasons that the
fundamental economic realities which will face every school not right
next to an Internet institution or with a server on their premises. The
cost of dial up access. When Dr. Johnston of MIT taught the first 'Chaos
Math' course through this net, the cost of the 5 Butte student access to
Big Sky Telegraph by direct dial was over $600 a month, but the minute
the Fidonet got going, it dropped to under $50. Instead of 5 students
dialing into Big Sky Telegraph staying online for 20-30 minutes apiece
several times weekly at $22 an hour long distance, they logged into
their local machine, which called up nightly at compressed 9,600 baud
and transferred their work and accepted the incoming messages in 5
minutes or less at $11 an hour.
Of equal importance, the school computer coordinator was able to
handle the technical challenge of running an MSDOS Fido system on a
school computer - itself hardly trivial for people just getting into
this telecom game - where I would have been reluctant to tell him he had
to run a TCP/IP server, or unix box for his first network outing.
Now that model has worked so well (6 distributed Fidos were
emplaced within 6 months) that (1) the State of Montana is equipping
over time, all 800 K-12 schools in the state with 9,600 baud V32 modems
and (2) the Office of Public Instruction level (dept of ed) is deploying
17 more 'Fidos' themselves across the state by their own staff AFTER we
installed a 4 line Remote Access Fido on one of their IBM Model 70s and
they learned step by step how to do it.
They knew their main frames and minis and I would not have
hesitated to put a TCP/IP server at that level. But for all their
professional computer background they were no more knowledgable about
how to set up and run (culturally as well as technically) a Fido net
than the elementary schools were able to set up and run a Unix system.
They could just learn faster (though I always have my doubts about such
professional-level DP shops being able to handle the BBS 'culture' any
better than BBS users use the Internet/Bitnet culture right off.)
We also introduced them to 'point' software which permits
end-user machines (PC, Mac or about any other flavor) to link to the net
(either to Fidos or Usenet/Internet servers) by fast modems without even
setting up a BBS.
All this has been done not only to tolerate the costs of
'network access' in rural, small town, or metered-call places where the
FIRST cost is reaching the server, whatever the NREN/Internet cost is
going to be for someone, but ALSO to deal with the unmentioned problem
of the number of ports, terminals, modems (and therefore phone lines)
required to be ON the server if everyone has direct access to it.
Example right here in Colorado Springs, where Colorado SuperNet
has a Internet server with both direct connections (such as Cray
computer company, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs) and dial up,
including SLIP, connections. With at least 75 K-12 schools, 40,000
students and probably 3,000 teacher/adminstrators (not to speak of the
10 or so higher-educational AND community/technical college level
institutions AND 'independent researchers, self-learning students NOT in
formal educational institutions - a genre which will grow in number
immensly in the future) in the local dial area, I have a hard time
thinking that the best solution is to have 500 ports on the local
server, or even a singular 'community' Cleveland FreeNet.
Scale. Scale. Scale.
But if you go 'distributed' - and certainly including MSDOS/Mac
TCP/IP software right on the end machine - ala that 'ftp' company's
products, OR, intermittent SLIP access - both to permit full use of
Internet features, and not just UUCP-Fido-Frednet-Point type exchanges,
I think you deal with the other end of the economic problem too. For as
I watch big institutions with big computers complain about their
operating costs per message, and compare it with the $$$ costs of
running a multi-port desk top Unix system, multi or single-port
networked BBS, I have a hunch there are NOT economies of scale at the
'number of direct ports' and 'number of login users on one machine'
level of computing.
There certainly are economies of scale in network traffic,
but at the point where numbers of 'people' log in to a system?
Finally there is the whole question of 'user interface' which
keeps being debated in terms that seem to me to imply that the only
solution is for some big grant to create some one centralized way of
users interfacing with the Internet/NREN, with some singular master
point-click, look and feel by all connected systems. I vehemently
disagree with that. I believe that decentralized distributed systems, so
long as the critical behind-the-crt technical interconnect standards are
paid attention to (and I know that the differences between Fidonet and
Usenet and Bitnet and Internet, not to speak of Frednet can give plenty
of gas pains) that the end user interfaces can and should be just as
decentralized. For that also permits, say a teacher in an overcrowded
school full of uncontrollable teen agers to enable, disable, functions
according to the social norms of that computer classroom, while the one
in a Jesuit private school with 6 students schools can be quite
different.
Not to speak of 'second language' and 'appropriate language'
interfaces. I know plenty of teachers of younger children who object to
the use of the term 'kill' on a menu, and the double-entendre of
'finger' on a unix machine. The LAST group of people I would turn over
the task of writing an interface to the Internet, would be system
programmers of TCP/IP. Technical 'functions' may have to be standarized,
but let the end users, teachers, sysops, and server-adminstrators
select the interface for their local users. One of the reasons Phil
Becker's TBBS multi-user MSDOS program is so highly regarded and
profitable for e-soft, is that the sysop can put any ascii language,
functions, permissions on the screen one wants -without have to code or
recompile the code. I was the first BBS outside Aurora to run that
software, circa 1982 - and my own system became rather famous partly
because I was able to carry out an 'Old Colorado City Main Street -
Rogers Bar' consistent metaphor, in ascii text only (before the Mac
point click desktop visual metaphor was around). Nobody ever got lost on
my system when they saw 'Go ack to Main Street' four menus deep in
the system. It was my 'mental picture' of a small town approach to
user-unfriendliness of functional computer terms. It is also why we
selected the Remote Access version of Fido-capable software (one of 11
versions). Because WE, and then later those whose systems we set up, not
the original programmer in hard-code, could create within very wide
limits - the 'look and feel' of the interface. (Including dual NAPLPS
graphic-Ascii sub-interfaces). Linguists, poets, video-producers and
artists know more about human information interfaces than programmers)
Jack Rickard of Boardwatch Magazine has long contended that one
great future role of 'BBSs' will be to be the 'front ends' of the
Internet/NREN. I think he makes a very important point, even though if
you think about it, that is nothing more than saying that the individual
tailoring which the owner of a personal computer can do, ought to be
extended to networks. We better think much more clearly about what has
to be 'standardized' and what should be left to the user or lowest-level
system administrator. Give them the tools to fashion their own interface,
not the already-carved electronic Totem Pole.
So when, say 8 high school students simultaneosly use a school
BBS, even a 8 port TBBS or Fido, or SCO/Interactive $5,000 Unix system
with one Digiboard, or connected to a classroom LAN - and 10 such high
schools are doing the same thing across a city or county - and then the
sum of all their work, or the selected-newsgroup feed, passes through
the local Internet/NREN server at 19.2 baud at intermittent times
sequentially, not simultaneously (thank goodness for auto-redial)
through 1 or 2 ports on the central 'community' server, it has always
struck me as more sensible, economic, and socially controllable than
adding 80 ports to that server to handle the same level of traffic.
That does not replace Tom Grunders Cleveland Free Net 'front
end' model, but simply extends it by other means and protocols to the
ends of the earth. When in Cleveland (or other large cities where
a powerful full-time administered, or institutional-affiliated,
Internetted machine can be supported) do as the Clevelanders do;
when in Wisdom, Montana, use the local Apple II running Fredmail,
as very small town Montana'ns can and have to ($$$) do.
In Montana - the model I have described is going to (and already
has, through Big Sky Telegraph's system itself) get a far percentage of
schools, teachers, and students on the international Internet line
faster and cheaper than anything the University of Montana is going to
do starting at the other end with their campus mainframe. Its already
got them - while the state wide 'higher education' network that can
interconnect to the Internet and Bitnet is still in the talking and
under-utilized T-1 line stage.
My own 13 years experience online 5 hours a day on systems from
early Source, Compuserve, one line, and multi-line BBSs, as well as
designing, running, adminstering hobby, educational non-profit, as well
as commercial such networks has told me that it is far easier to deal
with actual social misbehavior on many small systems than a few big
ones. In one three year period I had 50,000 logins by 8,600 different
users who left 26,000 messages on my TBBS BBS and it only cost me 30
minutes a day, and 1-2 hours a weekend, less than $10 a month phone
cost, to 'administer' the system and be active myself on it - as a wide
open, self-registering, unlimited use, and serious-purpose system. I
experienced virtually NO serious juvenile-behavior problems I couldn't
handle by more than the same observation-of-behavior I have as a
parent, or would as a teacher, or school computer coordinator. The
smaller the 'community' online or off, the easier it is to deal with
a-social behavior.
I was able, and did, read all posted messages. (The Electronic
Privacy Act of 1986 insured that *my* behavior as a Sysop with such
access would be kept within social bounds). Not possible on large
systems. Not even my Unix AKCS conferencing/some-news-group system.
All of which factors considered - user behavior, costs at all
points, progressive learning curve by all which will be required
(technical, economic, and online-cultural) - tells me that rather than
this willy-nilly movement toward directly connecting all K-12 kids
to the Internet, that a far broader, decentralized, distributed,
protocol, not 'rule' connected model is indicated and ought to be
the focus of discussion and planning.
Is it because so many of those debating this issue know *only*
the Internet that they can think only in its terms? (I have observed
similar thought-encapsulation among those who 'only' know BBSs, or
MacIntoshes, or Bitnet, or Dec Terminals, or LANS)
So come January we expect to have another 16 week formal course
in Chaos Math and Physics taught/learned online where Dr. Johnston of
MIT, directly on the Internet through the Plasma Fusion Center Vax will
be 'communicating' with 20-30 high and junior high school students in
Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, each of them on one of perhaps 8
different local systems, some Internet, some Usenet, some Fidonet, maybe
one Frednet, and Point net, where teachers will be able to
observe,participate, and where necessary intervene when social problems
involving their kids arise. And it will not be limited to ascii, but in
graphical (such as fractal images) and non-ascii symbol (calculus) form.
And during it the students may run, for one part of the course,
a supercomputer. (which, unless I don't know the limits as well as
capabilities of such utilities as remote executable functions of TCP/IP
and Unix - could also be done by sending command-messages and not just
by being logged directly into a TCP/IP machine - by long distance call
to Colorado from Wyoming/Montana).
So we certainly intend to have K-12 students 'use' the Internet,
and because of the decentralized and distributed method of access, don't
really worry excessively about rancher's kids running X-rated data
streams during parent's night at the Cody High School.
Anything really wrong with this model of ever-upgrading (people,
machines, and institutions) 'net of appropriate nets' approach to
massive future K-12 national networking?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Hughes Old Colorado City Communications
"Its better to light one pixel than cursor the darkness"
daveh@csn.org
dave%oldcolo@csn.org
Fidonet 1/128/67 or Point 67.1 719-636-2040 voice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110091938.AA13300@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 11:38:03 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: jpp@slxinc.specialix.com (John Pettitt)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110090846.AA29741@slxinc.specialix.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 15:46:36 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
> Michael C. Berch writes about Joe:
> with) me than the Baptists", but I wonder -- is there really a
> difference?>
>
> Amen to that. After watching this thread (and the others) I went down to a
> library and found some of Joe Abernathys articles. Ouch. Joe, you must have
> tremendously thick skin to write like that and come back to the Internet for
> more abuse. Do you receive ANY support from the net (and can you quote them
> here??) or are you a lone wolf?
I have written in support of Joe before. It's very easy to take
a position that finds fault with anything written about the net.
However the articles must be taken in context of the intended
readership and the need to sell papers. The net is BORING add
a little SEX and it gets much more interesting to Joe public.
The two articles I have seen by Joe whilst not 100% acurate
(what is ?) are close. More to the point they raise issues
which do not have simple answers on either side. To those
who say Joe is not objective: Fine show me any paper that is !
Objectivity depends on your view point, if he wrote in a manner
that this list considered `balanced' the Baptist's would probably
complain. The best test of objectivity seems to be that if both
sides are complaining then it's ok :-)
The issue is not sex on the net any more than it is sex on any
public media. It's the dual standard applied by `the US of A'
to all matters sexual. On the one hand material that would
land you in court in the UK is freely available. On the other
childrens programs like `Benny Hill' get put on late at night
and `edited' (that's censored for the mentaly challanged :-).
The net is no different to any other media it all respects
except one - it does not have well funded lobbying groups
protecting it's interests (cf TV, Radio, Telephones, Print).
--
John Pettitt
Specialix International
(jpp@specialix.co.uk or jpp%slxinc@uunet.uu.net)
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110092018.AA14366@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 12:18:27 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110091903.AA15760@magic322.chron.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 19:03:38 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Michael C. Berch writes:
> I have watched this discussion, without participation, for quite a
> while, since the original controversy involving your "computer
> porn" article for the Houston Chronicle. However, I find it difficult
> to stay out after this. Mr. Abernathy, you have finally overstepped
> the role of a reporter and assumed the role of an advocate. And from
> the courses in journalistic ethics I've taken (B.A. Journalism, Univ.
> of California, Berkeley, 1978) I learned that in doing so you have lost
> whatever claim of objectivity and fairness that you might have
> originally possessed.
> Sir: it is not your job to determine whether alt.sex.bestiality is or
> is not "an indefensible application of public funds", or "an
> indefensible thing to bring into the public schools". That is what we
> have school boards for, and elected officials, and others involved in
> the public policy process. Your role, or so you have claimed, is as a
> reporter -- to give fair and accurate accounts of events, and perhaps
> to analyze them, in areas of interest to your readers, under the
> direction of your editorial management. I was not aware that it was
> within your reportorial purview to render conclusions about
> controversial matters of public policy; perhaps before doing so,
> especially in a public forum, you should check with your editor (I
> certainly will).
It is most certainly my job to understand what is right, what is wrong,
and what is neither -- all of which is what is under discussion here.
There's nothing you can do to intimidate me or dissuade me from doing
my job in what I consider the most responsible fashion possible. And
my idea of responsible doesn't have to match yours.
I don't have a position. Read that twice. I don't have a cause. I
don't disapprove of erotica in adult hands. But when you bring it
into the community I cover, when you do it with government funds,
I'm gonna keep writing about it until somebody settles the issue.
Raging on at me isn't going to solve anything, and every time somebody
rages instead of reasons, it makes me wonder why.
Don't they sell Playboy where you live?
Joe Abernathy edtjda@chron.com
Special Projects P.O. Box 4260
The Houston Chronicle Houston, Texas 77210
(800) 735-3820 (713) 526-9711
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the (fwd)
Message-ID: <199110092035.AA14910@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 12:35:05 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: ellis@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (dick ellis)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer? (fwd)
Message-ID: <9110092010.AA29860@psi.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 20:12:16 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Recent notes led me to share this from Joe Abernathy. I'm not
interested in any ad hominen responses to it. I have given Joe my
support in the past, providing what I thought was relevant to a
well-informed view. I am hopeful that by educating the press we
can educate the public. I think in dealing with the press its
useful to think like a teacher, but as Joe points out, the rules are as
varied as the people you are dealing with.
Forwarded message:
> From chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET Tue Oct 8 18:39:14 1991
> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 18:11:00 CDT
> From: chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET (Joe Abernathy)
> Message-Id: <9110082311.AA14449@magic322.chron.com>
> To: uunet!bronze.ucs.indiana.edu!ellis@uunet.UU.NET
> Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
>
>
> Dick --
>
> I'm very careful to not use material without the consent of
> the contributor. We've actually expended a great deal of effort
> here at the Chronicle in developing methods for this. Whenever
> I post a message asking for comments, I will state explicitly
> if I want to use the material for a story and ask that users
> state if they don't want something used. (If you'll reread my
> post, such a message is contained in the last paragraph, unless
> it got cut off in a mailer somewhere. Let me know if you'd like
> a resend.)
>
> Occasionally, as with my recent spacemail articles, I'll want
> to use something I've come across in a newsgroup. In such a case,
> I send a note to the originator saying what I have in mind and
> asking for permission. In one or two cases, I haven't been able
> to reach the originator and went ahead, but it was nothing
> controversial or I probably would have dropped the quote rather
> than risk causing someone trouble.
>
> I absolutely won't quote from the material you sent, since you
> asked to opt out. And I still appreciate your writing; I need
> informed views in order to get a feeling for how best to handle
> an issue. We're really trying to approach this in a straightforward,
> heads-up fashion in the hope of performing a service for the
> community and our readers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joe
>
> (You may share this message with the list or any others who might
> share your concerns, but I hope it isn't misconstrued as implying
> that other newspapers will take this same approach with the net
> community. It's ours alone at this time.)
>
>
>
-------------------
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: Re: The answer
Message-ID: <9110092041.AA15922@magic322.chron.com>
Sender: edtjda@magic322.chron.com
Date: 9 Oct 91 20:41:21 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Mail server, list server, WAIS, NNTP, FTP, mailing
list, asking a friend in email ... oops. That's seven.
----- Begin Included Message -----
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 23:02:57 -0400
From: "Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <199110090302.AA15524@eff.org>
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: So what is the
Status: R
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: So what is the
References: <199110090244.AA14553@eff.org>
edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy) writes:
>That business of "so don't take those newsgroups" sounds good,
>if it worked. Of course, it doesn't. I can think of no less
>than four alternate methods to get to controversial material
>in the absence of a usenet feed. Shut 'em all down and you've
>got no net left.
Please elaborate. What are the four methods?
- Carl
----- End Included Message -----
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110092219.AA17115@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 9 Oct 91 14:19:36 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110091646.aa09471@looking.on.ca>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
References: <9110091903.AA15760@magic322.chron.com>
Distribution: eff
Date: 9 Oct 91 20:46:18 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
People rage at you instead of reason because you continue to focus in
your writing on what most people who are actually witness to the facts
consider a minor issue. They think you are being sensationalistic, and
appealing to the purient interest to the detriment of almost everybody.
People are building data networks and they aren't putting porn-detectors
in them. When you have unfettered media then the consequence is that
just about everything gets sent, including things that bother people.
You're concentrating extensively (excessively is the opinion of those who
rage against you) on this particular aspect.
They view it as though you are condemning the trucking industry or the
hiway system because trucks deliver Penthouse to stores. You can
ship anything on a road, you can send anything on a wire. You are
seen as concentrating almost exclusively on the truck with a copy of
Penthouse in it when you claim to be writing about the road system.
Doesn't it bother you that large numbers of educated and respectable
people who are much more aware of the facts than you are keep giving
you the same negative opinion of your pieces? Doesn't this raise any
warning flags? It should.
A balanced story always gets detractors, but if it is balanced it gets
similar amounts of support and opposition from those in the know, or even
better, mostly support. Is this true for you.
From kadie Sat Oct 12 09:39:33 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Oct 12 09:38:33 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
CHAVES@ccvax.unica : Objectionable material
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Joe Abernathy: Re: Not a flame, just the facts
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Use of Federal Funds
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : FYI: Electronic privacy precedents
brw@hertz.njit.edu : Re: FYI: Use of Federal Funds
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Electronic privacy precedents
tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu. : Re: FYI: Joe Abernathy: Re: Not a flame, just the facts
sean@sdg.dra.com : Re: So what is the
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: CHAVES@ccvax.unicamp.ansp.br (EDUARDO CHAVES -- UNICAMP)
Subject: Objectionable material
Message-ID:
X-Unparseable-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 22:28 GMT-03
Sender: CHAVES@ccvax.unicamp.ansp.br
Date: 11 Oct 91 01:57:06 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
I am a newcomer to this discussion list and a relative
newcomer to discussion lists altogether, although I have
been using Bitnet for a while. Perhaps because my access
is limited to Bitnet/Internet, I never received or even
saw any of the files that are the object of so much dis-
agreement and discussion. Are they text files, graphics
files? If text, do they contain stories, dialogue, or
what? Are they messages or ftp-able files?
In sum, could anyone please send me a sample or tell me
how to get one? Otherwise I will go on merely witnessing
a discussion about something the precise nature of which
somehow escapes me. This way I feel unable to form an
opinion.
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 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110111456.AA17528@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 11 Oct 91 06:56:15 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: sean@dsl.pitt.edu (sean mclinden)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110110328.AA21909@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 10 Oct 91 19:28:55 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Bill Sommerfeld writes in <9110110018.AA26286@psi.com>:
> ...Technical solutions to social problems generally don't work -- and
> the percieved "problem" of the transmission of Bad Ideas over the
> Internet into the Defenseless Minds of our children is a social problem,
> not a technical problem.
Perhaps. But society may have another idea. Practically since the Civil
War the view of society has been that technology exists to deal with social
problems. Look at the advertising, "Better Living Through Chemistry", "Labor
Saver", "Live Like A King", and many others tout technology as the great
equalizer. "The same X found in Y can now be found in *your* home." In some
way or aother, technology responds to societal needs, and sometimes shapes
them (do we all really need VCR's with 24-month advance programming,
Nintendos, and the ability to grind our own coffee beans, make our own
expresso, compose and replay our own keyboard music...?).
Society funds this work and tolerates it's mistakes (the Exxon Valdez?,
Three Mile Island, all of the destruction of the environment due to
plastic, glass, and metal containers), because it addresses something
of even greater social priority that what it destroys (or so we think).
And because of this society argues that technology should be accountable
to it.
Technology helps to mold society and, when left to natural forces, may
help to advance it. Where the problems occur is when we attempt to, through
restriction, regulation, and legislation, interrupt this ecological process
in order to effect an unnatural and untimely outcome. I would not argue that
a totally unrestricted system is, necessarily, benign. But regulation, if
and when it is indicated, must be carefully thought out (something that I
certainly wouldn't expect the courts or the legislatures to do well) and
the potential effects of any intervention measured against the predicted
effects of doing nothing at all. Frequently, as experience has taught us,
the treatment is worse than the disease.
Sean McLinden
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110111456.AA17609@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 11 Oct 91 06:56:47 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: becker!bdb@uunet.UU.NET (Bruce Becker)
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <123110@becker.UUCP>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
References: <9110082247.AA14436@magic322.chron.com>
Distribution: eff
Date: 11 Oct 91 02:15:02 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In article <9110082247.AA14436@magic322.chron.com> magic322.chron.com!edtjda@rutgers.uucp (Joe Abernathy) writes:
|
|Let's cut to the chase: alt.sex.bestiality is an indefensible
|application of public funds.
Let's cut even faster: you're being
a real jerk about this.
| It's an indefensible thing to bring
|into the public schools. It's equally unnacceptable to allow the
|government to serve as censor.
|That's a problem, and it's not gonna go away until reasonable people
|address it honestly. Better me than the Baptists, but if you'd rather
|wait six months until they get TENET accounts and take up the cause,
|more power to you. I'm sure it'll make an amusing article.
You are attempting to insert yourself into
a situation in such a way that you're only
doing harm by your actions.
Read my lips: IT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM.
--
,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario
a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
`\o\-e UUCP: ...!utai!mnetor!becker!bdb
_< /_ "'Vanadium', he said quietly." - The Coasters
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the
Message-ID: <199110111457.AA17691@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 11 Oct 91 06:57:16 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: jrugo@nic.near.net
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <9110111412.AA05761@psi.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 11 Oct 91 06:13:19 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Gentle readers,
I'm beginning to think that I was wrong when I decided not to take that speed
reading class in high school. Particularly when I read some of the
non-productive messages that have been sent to this list regarding this topic.
An observation from someone who is trying to figure out if K-12 access to the
Internet makes sense in my home state, is that we have run into the "fear of
the unknown". A commonly acknowledged problem with the Internet is that there
isn't a good directory service available, a problem felt most acutely by the
new user. There is alot of work being done to address this issue, however,
most users today face the "Internet Easter egg hunt" when they start their
Internet experience. Those of us who have been using the network for some
number of years don't have a complete knowledge of the information or services
that is available "out there".
It may be, however, that there should be an effort on a national basis to help
the K-12 community understand what is there so that they can make informed
decisions about use of the network. I presume that school personnel make
informed choices about cable channels they make availble to the students, why
not about data resources? By the way, I think of this in a positive sense,
such as the list of K-12 schools participating in international languge
education through e-mail with foreign countries. Wouldn't a brokerage house be
a nice function for that example? (By the way, I would be pleased rather than
embarrassed to learn that this is already going on and I don't know about it.)
So, rather than blathering on about Joe Abernathy's character, can't we pick up
a lesson or two and act on them?
- John Rugo
NEARnet Project Manager
BBN Systems and Technologies
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Joe Abernathy: Re: Not a flame, just the facts
Message-ID: <199110111458.AA17795@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 11 Oct 91 06:58:36 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
>Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
>Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
>From: mckenzie@BBN.COM (Alex McKenzie)
>Subject: [Joe Abernathy: Re: Not a flame, just the facts]
>Message-ID: <9110111314.AA04860@psi.com>
>Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
>Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
>Distribution: eff
>Date: 11 Oct 91 12:46:52 GMT
>Approved: usenet@eff.org
>Lines: 26
Joe Abernathy writes:
>To: com-priv@psi.com
>Subject: Re: Not a flame, just the facts
>
>I'm taking this thread to mail. Since it started publicly, message
>me if you would like to follow the discussion; I'll put you
>on an alias.
>
>Joe
I find this very curious. Joe introduced his subject in what I thought
was an extermely provocative way. Apparently members of the community
felt provoked and responded forcefully. Finally someone with actual
information (Connie Stout) published that information, and it seemed to
me to refute the premise of Joe's original posting. Joe responded with
an ad hominem attack on Ms. Stout and then announced (in the message
quoted above) that he has decided further discussion should be private.
It gives me the feeling Joe can't stand dealing with facts. Does anyone
else get this feeling?
Alex McKenzie
Copyright 1991 - Permission is given to quote the above only if quoted
in its entirety.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Use of Federal Funds
Message-ID: <199110111459.AA17897@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 11 Oct 91 06:59:18 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: mckenzie@BBN.COM (Alex McKenzie)
Subject: Use of Federal Funds
Message-ID: <9110111329.AA05053@psi.com>
Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com
Distribution: eff
Date: 11 Oct 91 12:59:11 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Barry Shein writes:
Or mail away for sexually explicit materials with a 29c stamp, if you
really want a "govt subsidy" spin on the whole thing.
Why couldn't your story just as easily flail against the postal or
phone system?
(Heck, ya ever see what happens when a kid wanders onto the federal
highway system in front of a speeding car? Amazing what trouble kids
can get into if left unattended.)
In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to find such info is contained in the
advertising carried by the Houston Chronicle. Do they let kids see the
Houston Chronicle Joe? No 900-SEX-LINE ads in the back, or, ahem,
those "personals"?
I think newspapers are delivered by the postal service at less than
cost. I think the US govenment subsidizes the postal service when it
runs in the red. Therefore it is likely that the government subsidizes
delivery of the Houston Cronicle. So surely it doesn't carry lingerie
ads or personal ads which anyone would find offesive; if it did Joe
would refuse to work there, right?
Alex McKenzie
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Electronic privacy precedents
Message-ID: <9110111503.AA12881@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 11 Oct 91 05:03:36 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: comrade@uniwa.uwa.oz.au (Peter Cooper)
Subject: Electronic privacy precedents
Keywords: electronic mail privacy precedents
Message-ID: <1991Oct11.082750.26185@uniwa.uwa.oz.au>
Date: 11 Oct 91 08:27:50 GMT
I am currently preparing a policy submission for the Guild of
Undergraduates at the University of Western Australia that will be
tabled at the UWA senate's information technology subcommittee.
As it stands at this university, there are no firm guidelines about mail
privacy (either paper OR electronic) and it is one of the issues that we
have decided to target.
What we need are some references to electronic privacy provisions at
other institutes of higher education to use as appropriate guidelines.
If you can give me some ideas about where I should look, or whom I
should talk to, it'd be really appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Pete
--
email: comrade@uniwa.uwa.oz.au snail: Peter Cooper, box 22
fax: +61 9 380 1041 c/- Guild of Undergraduates
phone: +61 9 380 3901 University of Western Australia
Constable Egg says: "Don't cook rice with a nuclear device!"
-------------------
From: brw@hertz.njit.edu (Brian White)
Subject: Re: FYI: Use of Federal Funds
Message-ID: <9110111623.AA27380@hertz.njit.edu>
Sender: brw@hertz.njit.edu
References:
Date: 11 Oct 91 08:23:52 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
}
} I think newspapers are delivered by the postal service at less than
} cost. I think the US govenment subsidizes the postal service when it
} runs in the red. Therefore it is likely that the government subsidizes
Unless I'm mistaken, these reduced rates have more to do with presorting by
zip codes. Manufacturers who send out catalogs get the same benfit. As to the
latter, why consumer have to subsidize "junk" mail is a mystery to me and a
subject for a different forum...
Brian White
System Manager
Computing Services Dept.
New Jersey Institute of Technology
brw@hertz.njit.edu
-------------------
Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4471 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1226
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Electronic privacy precedents
Message-ID: <1991Oct11.162530.19749@eff.org>
Keywords: electronic mail privacy precedents
References: <1991Oct11.082750.26185@uniwa.uwa.oz.au>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 16:25:30 GMT
comrade@uniwa.uwa.oz.au (Peter Cooper) writes:
>I am currently preparing a policy submission for the Guild of
>Undergraduates at the University of Western Australia that will be
>tabled at the UWA senate's information technology subcommittee.
[...]
>What we need are some references to electronic privacy provisions at
>other institutes of higher education to use as appropriate guidelines.
[...]
We talk about these issues in alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk. For
information on the mailing list version of the newsgroup, send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom caf
At my university, the University of Illinois, telephones can not be
tapped nor offices searched without a search warrent from a judge. A
committee is working on a disk space and email policy. The draft of
the policy that I've seen would require an OK for the head of a
college (the College of Education, the Colledge of Engineering, etc)
before a search could be conducted.
Here is the U. of Illinois office space policy:
"IV. Privacy
A. Members of the University community have the same rights of
privacy as other citizens and surrender none of those rights by
becoming members of the academic community. These rights of privacy
extend to residence hall living. Nothing in University regulations or
contracts shall give University officials authority to consent to a
search by police or other government officials of offices assigned or
living quarters leased to individuals except in response to a properly
executed search warrant or search incident to an arrest.
B. When the University seeks access to an office assigned or living
quarters leased to an individual to determine compliance with
provisions of applicable multiple-dwelling unit laws, ordinances, and
regulations, or for improvement or repairs, the occupant shall be
notified of such action not less that twenty-four hours in advance.
There may be entry without notice in emergencies where imminent
danger to life, safety, health, or property is reasonably feared and
for custodial service.
C. The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office
assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in
response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to
an arrest."
Here is the US Constituion (which applies to public universities):
"The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized."
And finally, the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students:
" 1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied
by students and the personal possessions of students should not be
searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For
premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an
appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom
application should be made before a search is conducted. The
application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects
or information sought. The student should be present, if possible,
during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution,
the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed."
The complete Joint Statement and U.S. Constitution, as well as more
excerpts from the U. of Illinois code are available via anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org. See file pub/academic/README. The material is also
available via email. For information on email access, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: FYI: Joe Abernathy: Re: Not a flame, just the facts
Message-ID: <1991Oct11.175208.31039@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu
References: <199110111458.AA17795@eff.org>
Date: 11 Oct 91 17:52:08 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
In article <199110111458.AA17795@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>
>I find this very curious. Joe introduced his subject in what I thought
>was an extermely provocative way. Apparently members of the community
>felt provoked and responded forcefully. Finally someone with actual
>information (Connie Stout) published that information, and it seemed to
>me to refute the premise of Joe's original posting. Joe responded with
>an ad hominem attack on Ms. Stout and then announced (in the message
>quoted above) that he has decided further discussion should be private.
>It gives me the feeling Joe can't stand dealing with facts. Does anyone
>else get this feeling?
>
>Alex McKenzie
Au contraire. It sounds quite the opposite--seems like Joe is trying to get
at the facts, and is switching from "chatting around the cracker-barrel"
mode back to professional journalistic mode. Fact-finding dialogue over
emotion-provoking issues is rarely effective in a public forum, especially
with flame-mongers dancing around.
I remain in awe at the ability of some net-folk to engage in personal
attacks without offering some constructive solution to issues.
-------------------
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Subject: Re: So what is the answer?
Message-ID: <1991Oct12.010612.42@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 12 Oct 91 01:06:12 CDT
This certainly isn't an Internet specific problem. The cable-TV industry
organization has a program to provide cable service to every school in
their service areas. They are of course being very careful and only having
educational and public affairs type programs piped into the schools.
Today (Friday, Oct 11) those public affairs channels had some very adult
material on them from the Senate hearings. And from the local newscasts
tonight a lot of minors were sitting in school auditoriums watching the
whole thing. One local newscaster called some of the testimony pornographic.
Most of the major networks plan to preempt Saturday morning children's
programming to continue their coverage of the hearings.
What should be done about about this?
I hope the Houston Chronicle has prepared a separate edition of the newspaper
for schools. You know those school boards...
>School boards don't care a whit for free speech if they
>think it might be a defense for something that has a
>potentially negative effect on young people.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
From kadie Sat Oct 12 09:50:46 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 12 09:50:37 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : (repost alt.bbs.allsysop) BBS's & the Law
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: [repost alt.bbs.allsysop] BBS's & the Law
Message-ID: <1991Oct11.204943.25746@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 20:49:43 GMT
[I've eliminated the left margin, turned double spacing to
single spacing, moved the footnotes to the end, removed
page breaks, and marked apperent typos with "[sic - cmk]" - Carl ]
THE ELECTRONIC PAMPHLET--COMPUTER
BULLETIN BOARDS AND THE LAW
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements of
Mass Communications
by
Michael H. Riddle
72446.3241@compuserve.com
Sysop on 1:285/27@fidonet
(c) Copyright 1990, by Michael H. Riddle. All Rights Reserved.
This paper may be freely distributed via electronic media
provided that the entire text remains intact, including this
first page,notice, and disclaimer, and further provided that
full credit is given.
DISCLAIMER: This paper was prepared by a law student as part
of a course of study, and should not be construed to represent a
legal opinion. Anyone with a need for a current legal opinion
relating to this material should contact an attorney licensed
to practice in their state.
---
THE ELECTRONIC PAMPHLET--COMPUTER
BULLETIN BOARDS AND THE LAW
Introduction--Bulletin Boards Then and Now
In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door
of the church in Wittenberg, Germany, an act which is gener-
ally considered the start of the Reformation, the Protestant
religious movement (Protesting aspects of the Catholic
church as it then existed). [FN1] The author remembers how
outrageous it seemed to him, the first time he heard the
story, that anyone would have the effrontery to nail even
one, let alone 95, documents to a church door. It was only
later, after much study of history and theology, that he
came to learn that the church door was routinely used for
this purpose. At a time before widespread publication of
newspapers, before telegraph, telephone, television, or CB
radio, the church door was the acknowledged location for
important notes or topics of discussion. [FN2]
Students at the University of Nebraska College of Law
use the "kiosk" inside the main entrance to the college to
pass notes to each other. Hexagonal in shape, one side of
the kiosk is reserved for general announcements and bulle-
tins. Sometimes the postings are as routine as announcement
of a meeting; at other times, they might be a call to action
to save the trees in a local park from the bulldozer.
Students are cautioned, during their first formal orienta-
tion at the College, to check the kiosk daily. [FN3]
Just inside the door at Baker's Supermarket in LaVista,
Nebraska, is a board where customers (and presumably others)
may post notes about items for sale, offers of employment,
and the like. Similar boards are found in other locations
around town, provided either as a public service by a busi-
ness, or perhaps as yet another advertising "gimmick,"
another way of increasing business at the store. [FN4]
During the Revolution, and when the Founding
Fathers [FN5] wrote the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights, similar functions were often fulfilled by "pamphle-
teers." Anyone with an idea and a little loose change could
buy or borrow a printing press, and soon be distributing
their ideas around the town. [FN6]
Today, another forum is increasingly available for
notices, reminders and discussions--the computer bulletin
board. [FN7] Listings of items for sale, notices of meet-
ings, and discussion about matters important or trivial may
be found in the world of electronics as well as groceries.
At one time the province of the technically and financially
gifted, bulletin boards are increasing available to Every-
man. [FN8] At least one commentator has directly compared
the bulletin board system of today with the pamphlet of
yesterday. [FN9]
In the simplest form, a bulletin board is a computer,
often a small personal computer (PC), connected to a tele-
phone line by a device called a modem. [FN10] While large
and expensive systems are possible, a person desiring to
enter the bulletin board arena may do so for a total invest-
ment less than $500. [FN11] At the simplest, the bulletin
board system acts as a "store and forward" system. Individ-
uals call the BBS one at a time, "log on" (typically using
some sort of entry code and password protection to insure
identity), read messages that have been left and post any
messages they desire. They then log off, and the system is
available to the next caller. [FN12]
"Networked" systems add an additional step, one which
greatly expands the nature of the forum. At pre-designated
times, the BBS scans the messages to see what has been
posted on the board since the last similar event, and pre-
pares "mail packets" with those messages. It then calls
other systems and forwards the packets to those systems,
receiving in turn any mail designated for it. In this
manner, messages may be entered in Lincoln or Omaha at no
expense to the user, and be sent literally around the
world. [FN13]
Static on the Lines?
While bulletin board systems may facilitate communica-
tion, they have a potential for misuse as well. Several
positive benefits of bulletin boards are that users may
express their opinions on matters of public interest, may
look for reviews of products they are considering buying,
and might ask specific questions about any number of mat-
ters. [FN14] Potential for abuse exists in both civil and
criminal areas, particularly for defamation (libel or slan-
der), theft of intellectual property (particularly software
piracy and copyright violations), and theft (credit card
abuse, telephone system fraud, and similar actions). [FN15]
Press coverage of this type of activity inevitably refers to
the use of bulletin boards, [FN16] and in the public mind
all bulletin board operators and users become associated
with "hackers" and "phreakers." [FN17] Recent news events
covered at some length the "Internet worm" propagated by
Robert Morris, which brought several national computer
networks almost to a complete halt. [FN18] The press
treatment of the event once again tended toward the sensa-
tional, using what have come to be pejorative terms, such as
"hacker," "phreaker", and the like. These reports also
frequently included what could easily interpreted as deroga-
tory references to bulletinboard systems ingeneral. [FN19] -
The United States Secret Service has been charged with
enforcement of federal laws relating to computer crime, and
a recent investigation known as "Sun Devil" has received
some publicity in the traditional media, and even more in
the electronic fora. [FN20] In the zealous pursuit of
their goal to eliminate computer crime, the Secret Service
is often trampling on toes and arguably chilling the free
expression of ideas. An example of what can happen occurred
recently when someone illegally (meaning without authoriza-
tion) entered a Bellsouth computer and downloaded (arguably
"stole") documentation about the "E911" enhanced emergency
communications system. (E911 is the system that calls the
emergency dispatcher when someone dials 9-1-1 and automati-
cally displays for the dispatcher the calling number and
address, and any other information that has previously been
filed, such as hazardous chemicals, invalids or small chil-
dren, etc.) One Robert Biggs plead guilty to the actual
theft, and a Craig Neidorf was charged along with Biggs.
Neidorf apparently was not charged directly with the theft
(assuming, arguendo, theft had occurred), but rather with
publishing the data in an electronic newsletter. Neidorf's
computer equipment, including that use for a bulletin board
system, was seized, even though it contained electronic
mail. [FN21]
The case against Neidorf was suddenly dismissed on the
fourth day, after it became apparent that nothing of value
(in the sense that it was already publicly available) had
been published by Neidorf. [FN22]
Legal Issues Relating to Bulletin Board Systems
Several legal issues remain unresolved, at least as
they pertain to bulletin board systems. [FN23] This paper
will survey what appear to be the most obvious ones at the
moment, briefly review the law as it appears to be on the
subject, and may occasionally suggest what the author advo-
cates as the "proper" rule on the issue. Briefly stated,
the emerging issues appear to be whether bulletin board
systems are protected by either the Speech or Press Clauses
of the First Amendment, and to what extent; whether the
bulletin board system operators are or should be liable for
illegal or actionable misdeeds of their users; what the
expected duty of care should be for the system operators as
a defense to such liability, and what protections might be
extended to bulletin board systems, directly or indirectly
through their operators, under the Fourth Amendment. This
paper will discuss four areas bearing on the legal rights
and responsibilities of system operators: whether a bulle-
tin board system is "press" for First Amendment purposes,
what rules of decision ought to apply for system operator
liability for defamation originally published by users, what
other liability might attach for contents of messages on the
system, and some limited concerns about privacy of electron-
ic mail vis-a-vis search and seizure rules.
Bulletin Board Systems and the First Amendment
In assessing what vicarious liability, for defamation
or for illegal or illegally obtained information, system
operators might have for information posted on their bulle-
tin boards by users, one is drawn to a comparison with the
press. While the analogy, like most analogies, breaks down
at some point, it is still helpful. At least one reported
decision has held that electronic information storage and
retrieval systems may in some circumstances be considered
"press." [FN24]
Access to Information
In Legi-Tech, Inc., v. Keiper, [FN25] a computerized
legislative information retrieval service was denied access
to a state-owned computer database of legislative materials.
In deciding for Legi-Tech, the court treated the service as
if it were a form of press, in that it existed to collect
and disseminate information about issues of public impor-
tance and interest. While Legi-Tech did not directly ad-
dress a bulletin board system, at least not in the sense
that the term is generally used, the comparison is clear
when the bulletin board system contains message areas of
public discussion in traditional areas of public concern,
such as government, politics, and laws. At least one com-
mentator, citing Legi-Tech, has concluded that for some
purposes [FN26] bulletins boards should be considered
press. [FN27]
Liability for Defamation
Deciding that a bulletin board system is "press" for
some purposes begs the question, what does it mean about
anything? One of the more common concerns among system
operators appears to be vicarious liability for libels
published by users. [FN28] While the seminal modern case
discussing liability of the press for libel, New York Times
v. Sullivan, [FN29] might suggest a stringent standard for
press liability, more recent cases call that into question.
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., [FN30]
might fairly be read to suggest there is no difference, in
the libel context, between press and non-press, but rather
the true distinction is between what is and is not a matter
of public concern worthy of heightened protection. Such an
interpretation would arguably be consistent with the interim
case of Robert Welch, Inc., v. Gertz, [FN31] which also
appeared to rest its holding on a public-private distinc-
tion.
Assuming, arguendo, that the New York Times v. Sulli-
van [FN32] decision established a special level of protec-
tion for the press, then the BBS operator clearly would
benefit from the extension of such a privilege. At the time
the message is entered by the user, the operator has no
knowledge whatsoever of the contents of the message, and
therefore cannot know it to be false. Later, when the
operator sees the message, the operator might arguably have
a duty to remove it if it were blatantly false; otherwise,
the issue would appear to become when failure to remove or
challenge a message would be "reckless disregard of whether
it was false or not." [FN33] In considering the question,
one might expect normally to find dispositive the holding in
St. Amant v. Thompson [FN34] that failure to investigate,
without more, could not establish reckless disregard for the
truth. [FN35]
The astute reader recognizes, of course, that the New
York Times holding concerned statements about public offi-
cials. The commentary found on bulletin boards certainly
talks about politics and public officials. [FN36] The
question remains, however, about private parties. Robert
Welch, Inc., v. Gertz [FN37] is generally cited as the
decision next addressing the subject. In Gertz, an attorney
had representing police officer's family in a murder inves-
tigation. The defendant made false statements about the
attorney in its monthly publication American Opinion. The
judge having ruled the attorney was not a public figure, the
jury returned a plaintiff's verdict for $50,000. The trial
judge later reconsidered his ruling, and entered a judgment
not withstanding the verdict on the theory that a discussion
about a matter of public concern deserved protection. The
issue on appeal appeared to be whether the attorney was a
public figure, not whether the issue was of public concern.
The Court ruled that the fact he was not a public figure
controlled. He had not "thrust himself into the vortex of
this public issue, nor did he engage the public's attention
in an attempt to influence the outcome." The Court then held
that as long as liability was not imposed without some basis
of fault, the states could write their own rules for "pri-
vate" libels. [FN38]
If New York Times [FN39] established a new standard of
"malice" for press publishing on public matters, and
Gertz [FN40] refused to extend that standard to private
parties, even when matters of public concern might be at
stake, then what about Dun & Bradstreet? [FN41] Dun &
Bradstreet, a private credit-reporting firm, published false
information about Greenmoss Builders, suggesting Greenmoss
had filed bankruptcy when in fact it was an Greenmoss em-
ployee who had filed. The Vermont Supreme Court found Gertz
inapplicable to nonmedia defamation actions, and sustained
damages to Greenmoss. The Supreme Court affirmed, but on a
different basis not involving a distinction between media
and nonmedia. The plurality opinion suggested that the
crucial distinction was whether the speech involved a "pub-
lic issue," "public speech," or an "issue of public con-
cern." While Gertz did not clearly draw the distinction, it
was clear to the plurality from the facts of Gertz that such
a limitation was implied. [FN42]
As applied to bulletin board systems, it would appear
then that if the BBS is press, New York Times malice would
be the rule for defamation involving public issues or public
officials. As long as the defamation was by one user about
another user, the defamed party could be held to have delib-
erately "thrust himself into the vortex of this public
issue" in an "attempt to influence the outcome." [FN43]
That the issue was of public concern [FN44] could fairly be
implied from the fact of discussion on a public message
base, subject to rebuttal. Of course, the possibility
always exists that a user inserted a defamatory statement
into a void, [FN45] in which case the system operator would
arguably at least have a duty to remove the offending state-
ment, absent a privilege to republish. [FN46]
One of the difficulties in discussing the defamation
issue lies in distinguishing the system operator as "vic-
tim," i.e., the innocent republisher of a defamation, from
the system operator as initial defamer. The operator may
be, but usually is not, the original publisher of an alleged
defamation. [FN47] The system operator is more generally a
republisher of information and, like the bookseller in Smith
v. California, [FN48] may not fairly be held to know in
advance the contents of messages left on the bulletin board,
let alone whether they are true or false. [FN49] In Smith,
the issue was whether the bookseller, absent knowledge of
the contents, could be held liable for obscene material in
his store. The Court held that he could not. "Every book-
seller would be placed under an obligation to make himself
aware of the contents of every book in his shop. It would
be altogether unreasonable to demand so near an approach to
omniscience...." [FN50] One must be careful, however, when
discussing the impact of Smith. At least one commentator
has suggested that the typical application of Smith is that,
in the totality of the circumstances surrounding an "adult"
bookstore, the bookseller can be inferred to know the con-
tents of his merchandise. [FN51] One could suggest that
the factual situation would be critical in the context of a
bulletin board system.
In manner similar to the Smith bookseller, the system
operator is not aware of the contents of a message at the
moment it is posted. While most system operators review the
contents of most messages left on their bulletin boards most
of the time, it is not always practical to do so, and to the
extent that the discussion centers on issues of obvious
public importance, such prescreening implicates serious
First Amendment concerns regarding censorship and chilling
debate on issues of public importance. [FN52]
While it is not reasonable to expect system operators
to be aware of the contents of every message, particularly
as it is posted, the question still remains of what duty
they owe once they become aware of an offending message.
Courts interpreting Smith [FN53] generally have applied
some element of scienter. Once system operators are aware
that offending messages have been posted on the board, they
arguably have a duty to remove the message. [FN54] Proof
of scienter might arguably be shown by the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the operation, such as limited
access, extensive password protection, or previous pattern
of abuse. [FN55]
Such a pattern might be shown if a bulletin board
system has, for example, 16 message areas, 15 of which are
generally available to the public at large, but one of which
is "hidden" and available only to close friends and associ-
ates of the system operator. Such a restricted sub-area
("sub"), if used for questionable activities, might more
easily be distinguishable from the generally accessible
subs. The operator, by exercising the control necessary to
keep the sub restricted and to grant access to the "chosen
few," could arguably be inferred to have personal knowledge
of the questionable activities. [FN56]
A question also arises about whether the system opera-
tors might be able to claim a privilege of republication.
The primary privilege normally mentioned in bulletin board
circles is that of the common carrier. The Restatement
(Second) of Torts acknowledges a privilege for a common
carrier to republish a defamation if the "public utility
[is] under a duty to transmit messages...." [FN57] A
careful examination suggests that a common carrier privi-
lege, however, is neither warranted nor wise. In National
Ass'n of Reg. Util. Comm'rs v. F.C.C., [FN58] the court
formulated a two-part test that would appear to apply to
bulletin boards and one which they could arguably pass. The
case involved cable television. The coaxial cable installed
for distribution of cable television is capable of carrying
signals in the reverse direction. FCC regulations required
such a reverse channel to be available. The FCC originally
had not completely foreclosed state and local regulation of
the reverse channel. When it acted to preempt such regula-
tion, the plaintiffs in this action sued to void the preemp-
tion. The court ruled that the reverse channel was an
intrastate common carrier, holding that to be a common
carrier an entity must first provide indifferent service to
all who request it. Many bulletin board systems will nor-
mally accept as a user anyone who applies, and many more
accept anyone who applies whose registration information is
not facially false; e.g., anyone who might provide a name
listed in the applicable telephone directory at the number
provided. Second, the system must be such that the custom-
ers can transmit information of their own choice. In the
case of the bulletin board system, by definition the infor-
mation is of the customer's own choice. The difficulty with
this approach, probably fatal if ever adjudicated, is that
no one has yet suggested a duty of bulletin board operators
to transmit any or all messages submitted to them, or even
to open their boards to the public. [FN59] Most bulletin
board systems, after all, are run as a hobby at a
loss. [FN60] It would be an absurd result to decide that
merely by operating a bulletin board system as a hobby, that
an operator mustprovide service to anyonewho asked. [FN61] -
Additionally, most system operators reserve the right to
edit or delete questionable messages, an action certainly
incompatible with the requirement that on a common carrier,
the information be of the customer's own choice. [FN62]
(Such a reservation of rights, however, is entirely consis-
tent with the editorial discretion inherent in a Press
Clause model, as is the discretion concerning which few
echoes or message areas, out of the extensive possibilities,
should be carried on the system. [FN63] ) In addition, the
bulletin board is not a common carrier as that term has been
interpreted by the FCC, and the courts will normally give
"great deference" to the interpretation given by the admin-
istrative agency. [FN64] The Federal Communications Com-
mission is authorized to regulate interstate commerce by
wire or radio. [FN65] Since bulletin board systems operate
by connection to the interstate telephone system, and since
many of them actually are connected [FN66] to an interstate
network of computerized bulletin board systems, and since it
seems well-settled that the term "interstate commerce" has
an extremely broad meaning, then it would follow that the
FCC could assert jurisdiction. While it would logically
follow, it seems to this author that it would exceed the
probable intent of the Congress which enacted the Communi-
cations Act of 1934. [FN67]
The FCC appears to agree with the author. In response
to the "increasing complexity and overlap of communications
systems in the 1970s," [FN68] the FCC conducted a series of
hearings which has become known as the Second Computer
Inquiry. [FN69] The Commission distinguished between
"basic" and "enhanced" services. Basic services act as a
pipe for information without significantly altering it--a
transparent path. Enhanced services combine basic service
with some sort of processing. The Commission retained its
traditional jurisdiction over basic services, but left
enhanced services essentially unregulated. Computerized
bulletin board services were specifically mentioned as
enhanced services. [FN70]
If it seems likely that bulletin board systems are not
common carriers, it also seems wise. We saw in the discus-
sion of defamation, supra, that bulletin boards might argu-
ably be characterized as press. While the discussion was
based on access to information, it was noted that a logical
extension could be made. One such likely extension is to a
privilege of republication. In 1977, the United States
Supreme Court denied certiorari to Edwards v. National
Audubon Society, Inc. [FN71] In Edwards, the editor of an
Audubon Society magazine characterized scientists using
Society data to support the continued use of the pesticide
DDT as "paid liars." [FN72] The New York Times accurately
reported the charges. Five scientists sued both Audubon
Society and the Times. The Second Circuit dismissed the
judgment against the Times, finding a privilege of neutral
reporting essential to the operation of the Press Clause of
the First Amendment. [FN73] While the precedential value
of "cert. denied" is of uncertain value, the decision stands
in the Second Circuit. The courts are split about whether
the "neutral reporting" privilege is valid. [FN74] Many
have accepted it and many have refused to accept it. [FN75]
If there is any validity to it, however, it should apply to
bulletin boards. The editors of the New York Times, after
all, had the option (editorial discretion) not to publish.
In contrast, inherent in the nature of the bulletin board is
immediate republication. The operator may only, once he
becomes aware of the libel, remove it. No editorial choice
is exercised immediately, and in the case of networked
systems, an intervening mail event will cause the question-
able matter to be republished widely before the system
operator has the reasonable opportunity to take any action.
At least to the extent that bulletin board systems facili-
tate discussion of matters of public importance, and at
least to the extent that the Edwards privilege is ever
valid, the neutral (fair) reporting privilege should apply
to bulletin boards. [FN76] This application of the
neutral/fair reporting privilege would, it seems to the
author, be a better solution to the problem of republication
than common carrier recognition, as it would leave the
system operator with the independence and discretion implic-
it in a hobby. [FN77]
Civil and Criminal Liability for Contents of Messages
In a similar manner, system operators have been charged
with various criminal violations based on the contents of
messages left on their bulletin boards. [FN78] One of the
earliest reported cases involved a Mr. Tcimpidis, who was
charged solely because of information posted on his bulletin
board containing stolen telephone credit card numbers. The
exact basis of the charge is missing from the reviews;
however, one can surmise that it was for aiding and abetting
or some similar theory, in that charges were later dropped
for lack of evidence of knowledge or intent. [FN79] Re-
cently, the "Sun Devil" investigation by the United States
Secret Service has resulted in the seizure of computer
equipment and at least the temporary cessation of activities
at several bulletin board systems. Boards operated by Mr.
Craig Neidorf and one outside Chicago, called "JOLNET" have,
for example, ceased operations. The JOLNET operator, a Mr.
Rich Andrews, initiated contact with the Secret Service when
he became aware of potentially illegal activity on his
board. Notwithstanding 18 U.S.C. 2703 et seq., which
appear to prefer solicitation of archival copies and backup
records of such systems, the Secret Service seized the
actual computer equipment as evidence, shutting down the
system. [FN80]
Such seizures would appear to be troublesome to the
extent that a bulletin board system may fairly be said to be
some kind of a forum provided for the public discussion of
matters of importance. [FN81] One cannot foresee a more
"chilling" effect on free speech than to be frozen to death-
-or shut down by seizure.
Privacy Concerns and the Fourth Amendment
The discussion above briefly mentioned that some bulle-
tin board systems had been seized, apparently without regard
to the presence of electronic mail. While search and sei-
zure and privacy issues are not directly pertinent to a
paper on mass communications law, they seem to the author to
be inextricably combined in any discussion of bulletin
boards. Virtually every bulletin board system provides
facilities forsome sort ofprivate, electronic mail. [FN82] -
One case in California involved a foundation known as
ALCOR, which practiced cryogenic preservation of people who
died from what they hoped would, in the future, be a treat-
able disease. ALCOR came under investigation on charges
they had preserved some people a little hastily, essentially
a charge of some kind of homicide. While no serious commen-
tator has suggested that the case should not have been
investigated, the problem appears to be that the founda-
tion's electronic mail system was seized with undelivered
mail still in storage. The system was apparently accessible
to the public. [FN83] ALCOR sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983
for the return of the system and damages, alleging, inter
alia, that the government violated the provisions of the
Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). [FN84]
A decision has not yet been reached in the case.
The only other known action involving the privacy
provisions of the ECPA is Thompson v. Predaina. [FN85] A
user accused a system operator, inter alia, of causing
private messages to be made public without the permission of
the sender or intended recipient, thereby violating the act.
The complaint was voluntarily dismissed prior to trial on
the merits. Predaina would have been an ideal opportunity
for judicial construction of the latest Congressional at-
tempt to define the privacy protections of the electronic
world.
As the technological complexity of society increasingly
draws us into the electronic world, privacy issues become of
more concern to more people. The responsibilities and duty
of care of a system operator to the users of the system,
regarding whatever reasonable expectation of privacy they
may have, would seem to be something each system operator
would want to know. Experience in both this class and in
the real world tells the prudent observer of the legal scene
that Congress passing an Act is but the first step in an
area filled with First and Fourth Amendment concerns. It
would have been helpful for a judicial construction of the
ECPA, but that will of necessity wait for another time.
There is, from empirical data, [FN86] a connec-
tion between the earlier discussion of liability for defama-
tion and illegal activities and liability for privacy. Many
From kadie Sat Oct 12 09:51:10 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 12 09:50:57 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
:
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
-------------------
sysops have difficulty in separating the two, and it seems
that to "normal" sysops "liability is liability." The
distinction as to the form of the action, and whether it is
brought by a citizen or the state, either eludes or does not
concern them.
Conclusion
The ever-increasing rate of change in the world around
us has eclipsed the state of the law in many ways. As we
have progressed from Luther's church door, to Paine's pam-
phlet, to the supermarket bulletin board, and to the comput-
erized BBS, the lines between mail and press and telephony
and public and private have often become unclear. The
application of traditional legal lines of demarcation and
tests for responsibility for defamation and criminal liabil-
ity appears unclear as well. The computerized bulletin
board system has become a fixture in a small but increasing
segment of our society, and that society needs the legal
system to sort out the rules so that everyone in it can play
the game on a level playing field--so that they both know
what they may reasonably expect of others and what others
may reasonably expect of them.
[Footnotes -cmk]
FN1. LINDBERG, MARTIN LUTHER: JUSTIFIED BY GRACE 24 (1988)
FN2. Id.
FN3. The author remembers well his orientation at the
beginning of the fall semester, 1988, and the admonition
given by (now assistant dean) Anne Lange. His experience
since then has borne out the wisdom of her words.
FN4. The author sees the board at Baker's all too frequent-
ly, as his meager income outgoes to the provider of suste-
nance.
FN5. In the spirit of inclusive language, should one, with
tongue in cheek, refer to them as the "Precipitating Par-
ents"? On a more serious note, to make the sentence struc-
ture as short and direct as possible, and consistent with
the generally accepted rules of construction for statutes
and legal texts, we have used the pronouns "he", "his," in
lieu of "he or she," or "his or hers," etc. Unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise, masculine pronouns
should be read as inclusive.
FN6. Pamphleteers were pervasive and almost certainly
within the intended coverage of the First Amendment's Press
Clause. Lange, The Speech and Debate Clauses, 23 U.C.L.A.
L. REV. 77, 106 (1975).
FN7. The terminology is far from standardized in discussing
computer bulletin board systems. The author, in researching
this paper and in general experience, has experienced com-
puter bulletin board systems (CBBS), remote bulletin board
system (RBBS), electronic bulletin board system, and just
"bulletin board system: (BBS). For simplicity, this paper
will use bulletin board, bulletin board system, or BBS as
the context dictates.
FN8. A 1985 law review article cited sources indicating
there were some 1500 active bulletin board systems in the
United States as of 1984; however, the authors indicated
some skepticism as the source cited 15 in the Denver area
and they personally knew of 50-60. Soma, Smith & Sprague,
Legal Analysis of Electronic Bulletin Board Activities, 7 W.
NEW ENG. L. REV. 571, 572 n. 3 (1985). Another article
suggests the number is between 1000 and 5000. Note, Comput-
er Bulletin Board Operator Liability for User Misuse, 54
FORDHAM L. REV. 439, 441 n. 12 (1985). The author is cur-
rently system operator ("sysop") of an bulletin board system
affiliated with networks known as "Fidonet," "Metronet," and
"OPCN." The current combined "nodelists," or addressing
information, list over 8500 independent bulletin boards
worldwide. Nodelist 222, Fidonet, available electronically
and from the author. In addition, several large commercial
networks exist. While it is apparently difficult to obtain
information about their subscriber base, one source lists
them as CompuServe (500,000 +), Dow Jones/News Retrieval
(275,000), and GEnie (General Electric Network for Informa-
tion Exchange) (150,000). Becker, Liability of Computer
Bulletin Board Operators for Defamation Posted by Others, 22
CONN. L. REV. 203, 204 n. 4 (1989).
FN9. Dembart, The Law Versus Computers: A Confounding
Terminal Case, L.A. Times, Aug. 11, 1985, at 3, col. 1.
FN10. "Modem" is a contraction of two terms, modulator and
demodulator, referring to two separate processes that must
occur to transmit computerized information over telephone
lines. At the present time, the modem is normally either a
small box set next to the computer and connected by cables,
or a small printed circuit card physically installed inside
the PC. In either instance the modem must be connected to
the telephone system for the bulletin board to operate.
Kahn, Defamation Liability of Computerized Bulletin Board
Operators and Problems of Proof 6 (1989) (electronically
distributed, available from the author of this paper).
FN11. Becker, supra n. 8 at 203 n. 2.
FN12. Becker, supra n. 8. See also, Soma, Smith and
Sprague, supra n. 8.
FN13. Attached to this paper are a partial current combined
system list for FidoNet, MetroNet and OPCN, and a list of
"echo" areas, by somewhat cryptic but at the same time
somewhat understand area "tags," that are available to him
as a system operator. Also attached is a brief description
of "echomail," and sample printouts of some recent discus-
sions. The cost of long distance transmission is usually
absorbed by the system operator as part of the cost of the
hobby. Occasional "pooling" arrangements allow for the
economical transmission between cities (several operators in
the Omaha area do this, for example).
FN14. Note, FORDHAM L. REV., supra.
FN15. Id.
FN16. Id., at 439, n. 4.
FN17. Soma, Smith and Sprague, Legal Analysis of Electronic
Bulletin board Activities, 7 W. NEW ENG. L. REV. 571, 572-
575 (1985). See also note 19, infra.
FN18. UPI, May 5, 1990, Computer hacker gets probation,
fine, LEXIS, NEXIS library, Current file.
FN19. Westbrook, User to user: the comms column; Bulletin
boards helpful for communication, PC User, LEXIS, NEXIS
library, Current file (1990).
Consider the following equation: Computer + Modem
= Illegal Activity. This is the basic formula
used by non-expert TV and radio programme editors
when examining the subject of data communications
and it's a view which has been encouraged by a few
pundits who're only too happy to take money to
talk about children playing noughts and crosses
with military computers. This attitude seems to
be the result of a few celebrated cases where
illegal activity has been brought to light involv-
ing a hacker, his computer and a modem. Yet the
same principle might be applied to all drivers of
Mk II Jaguars to identify them as getaway drivers
for bank robbers.
The suspicion that the modem/computer combination
can generate is nowhere more apparent than in the
public view of the bulletin board. To read, see
or hear the popular media in action, you could be
forgiven for thinking that bulletin boards are
used exclusively to disseminate pornography or
recipes for Molotov cocktails. At the very least,
such services are seen as havens for spotty,
adolescent, sex-mad anarchists rather than serious
computer users.
Id. Westbrook goes on to suggest that bulletin boards have
valuable uses as sources of information and discussion, but
that the general public can be forgiven for not realizing
this, given the nature of press coverage of computer crime.
FN20. In fact, the Internet/Usenet system, with which the
University of Nebraska is affiliated, carries a "newsgroup"
somewhat misleadingly labelled the "Computer Underground
Digest," which devotes a great deal of space to known cur-
rent investigations and debunking rumors and myths surround-
ing them. CuD Volumes 1.22 through 1.28, available from the
author.
FN21. Electronic mail is specially protected by 18 U.S.C.
2701 et seq., the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
of 1986 (ECPA). There is no indication that the officers
requesting any warrants or the judge or magistrate that
issued them paid any attention to the requirements of the
ECPA. See generally, CuD Vol. 1.23, available from the
author. A limited discussion of electronic mail privacy
issues as they interact with bulletin board systems will
follow infra.
FN22. The following electronic note was published in the
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom (Telecommunications Digest) on
Saturday, August 11, 1990. The accompanying header and
routing control information is deliberately left in place so
one may get a sense of the complexity and pervasiveness of
the electronic world:
From comp.dcom.telecom Sat Aug 11 09:47:24 1990
Path: hoss!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!
brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!
accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: colin@array.uucp (Colin Plumb)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Dial 1-800 ... For Bellsouth `Secrets'
Message-ID: <10698@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 10 Aug 90 17:41:07 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto,
Ontario, CANADA
Lines: 71
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 558, Message 5 of 11
{Computerworld}, August 6, 1990, Vol. XXIV, No. 32,
Page 8.
Dial 1-800...for Bellsouth `Secrets'
BY MICHAEL ALEXANDER
CW STAFF
CHICAGO --- The attorney for Craig Neidorf, a 20-year-
old electronic newsletter editor, said last week that
he plans to file a civil lawsuit against Bellsouth
Corp. as a result of the firm's ``irresponsible''
handling of a case involving the theft of a computer
text file from the firm.
Federal prosecutors dismissed charges against Neidorf
four days into the trial, after the prosecution wit-
nesses conceded in cross-examination that much of the
information in the text was widely available.
Neidorf, the co-editor of ``Phrack,'' a newsletter for
computer hackers, was accused by federal authorities of
conspiring to steal and publish a text file that de-
tailed the inner workings of Bellsouth's enhanced 911
emergency telephone system across none states in the
southeast [CW, July 30].
``What happened in this case is that the government
accepted lock, stock, and barrel everything that
Bellsouth told them without an independent
assessment.'' said Sheldon Zenner, Neidorf's attorney.
One witness, a Bellsouth service manager, acknowledged
that detailed information about the inner workings of
the 911 system could be purchased from Bellsouth for a
nominal fee using a toll-free telephone number.
A Bellcore security expert who was hired by Bellsouth
to investigate intrusions into its computer systems
testified that the theft of the file went unreported
for nearly a year.
Last week, a Bellsouth spokesman said the firm's secu-
rity experts delayed reporting the theft because they
were more intent on monitoring and preventing intru-
sions into the company's computer systems. ``There are
only so much resources in the data security arena, and
we felt that it was more urgent to investigate,'' he
said.
He also disputed assertions that the document was of
little value. ``It is extremely proprietary and con-
tained routing information on 911 calls through our
none-state [sic -cmk] territory as well as entry points into the
system,'' he said.
A quick ending:
The case unraveled after Robert Riggs, a prosecution
witness who had already pleaded guilty for his role in
the theft of the document, testified that he had acted
alone and Neidorf had merely agreed to publish the text
file in ``Phrack.''
Neidorf and his attorney agreed to a pretrial diver-
sion, a program under which the government voluntarily
dismisses the indictment but could reinstate it if
Neidorf commits a similar crime within a year.
The case has stirred up national debate on the rights
of computer users in the age of electronic information.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties
group set up by Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus Develop-
ment Corp., may participate in the filing of a lawsuit
against Bellsouth, and Terry Gross, an attorney at the
New York law firm of Rabinowitz Boudin Standard Krinsky
& Lieberman.
``The Electronic Frontier Foundation is concerned by
the
irresponsibility of Bellsouth of claiming from the
outset that this was confidential information when it
should have known that it was not,'' Gross said.
FN23. The unsettled state of the law may be discovered by
reviewing the current writing on the subject, at least some
of which is listed in note 28, infra.
FN24. Legi-Tech, Inc., v. Keiper, 766 F.2d 728 (2d Cir.
1985).
FN25. Id.
FN26. The narrow holding in Legi-Tech was that an electron-
ic information and retrieval service is "press" for the
purpose of access to government information. The commenta-
tor extends this holding from information retrieval to
bulletin boards, and suggests that it would extend at least
as far as defamation actions. He then appears to abandon
this line, as he reads Dun & Bradstreet, note 30, infra, and
accompanying text, as negating the need for such a distinc-
tion.
FN27. Comment, An Electronic Soapbox: Computer Bulletin
Boards and the First Amendment, 39 FED. COMM. L.J. 217
(1987) (authored by Eric L. Jensen).
FN28. The Jensen article, supra note 27, for example pays a
great deal of attention to the libel question. Liability
for defamation is also discussed in Soma, Smith & Sprague,
Legal Analysis of Electronic Bulletin Board Activities, 7 W.
NEW ENG. L. REV. 571 (1985); Becker, The Liability of Com-
puter Bulletin Board Operators for Defamation Posted by
Others, 22 CONN. L. REV. 203 (1989); and Comment, Computer
Bulletin Board Operator Liability for User Misuse, 54
FORDHAM L. REV. 439 (1985). The subject is frequently
discussed within the framework of bulletin board systems,
particularly in those message areas devoted to system opera-
tors, and at least one paper on the subject is electronical-
ly distributed: Kahn, Defamation Liability of Computerized
Bulletin Board Operators and Problems of Proof (1989),
available by anonymous ftp from the archives of the Internet
Telecommunications Digest, lcs.mit.edu, directory telecom-
archives, as sysop.libel.liability. It is also available
from the author of this paper.
FN29. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
FN30. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.,
105 S. Ct. 2939 (1985).
FN31. Robert Welch, Inc., v. Gertz, 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
FN32. 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
FN33. Id.
FN34. 390 U.S. 727 (1968). In St. Amant, a candidate read
on television statements received from a union official that
had been made under oath. The court found that the candi-
date's failure to investigate the statements' truth was not
reckless disregard for the purpose of "New York Times"
malice.
FN35. There "must be sufficient evidence to permit the
conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious
doubts as to the truth of his publication." 390 U.S. 727
(1968).
FN36. See generally, the samples from the POLITICS and
SERIOUS SIDE echoes attached at the end of this paper.
FN37. 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
FN38. The case was remanded for retrial, as the jury had
found liability without fault being established and had
awarded $50,000 without proof of damages. Id.
FN39. 376 U.S. 254.
FN40. 418 U.S. 323.
FN41. 472 U.S. 749 (1985).
FN42. 472 U.S. 749.
FN43. Gertz.
FN44. Dun & Bradstreet.
FN45. Dare I say, "amorphous void?"
FN46. See generally,the discussionof republication,notes 57
- 77, infra, and accompanying text.
FN47. See generally, Jensen, supra note 27.
FN48. Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959).
FN49. See both Jensen and Soma, supra note 28.
FN50. Smith v. California, 361 U.S. at 153-4.
FN51. Interview with Professor John Snowden, University of
Nebraska College of Law, August 4, 1990.
FN52. See Comment, Computer Bulletin Board Operator Liabil-
ity for User Misuse, 54 FORDHAM L. REV. 439, 447-9 (1985).
Attached at the end of this paper is a sample of the debates
recently carried in message echoes available in the Omaha
area.
FN53. Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959).
FN54. United States v. Mishkin, 317 F.2d 634 (2d Cir.),
cert denied, 375 U.S. 827 (1963).
FN55. In Gold v. United States, 378 F.2d 588 (9th Cir.
1967), the defendant knew the detailed shipping identifica-
tion of the parcel in question; in United States v. Mishkin,
317 F.2d 634 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 375 U.S. 827 (1963),
the defendant was held to have scienter of obscene contents
based on the clandestine nature of the transaction.
FN56. The hypothetical becomes real in the electronic
world. "Dr. Ripco" operated a bulletin board in Chicago,
one which included electronic mail (see generally, the
limited discussion of electronic mail, infra), which in-
cluded a restricted access sub called "phone phun." The
Secret Service recently executed a search warrant and seized
his system in an ongoing investigation, the details of which
have not yet been released. While Dr. Ripco has not yet
been charged, he relates the existence of the "phone phun"
sub was prominent when he was interrogated at the time of
the search and seizure. CuD, Vol. 1.28 (1990), distributed
electronically and available from the author. While Dr.
Ripco's knowledge, if any, was about illegal activities, one
can easily see a similar argument being made about libel.
If system operators carefully control access to an area, or
if the operators frequently participate in the discussion
where a libel is committed, then activities of the operator
could lead to a presumption of knowledge of the libel and
liability at least for failure to promptly remove, absent
some privilege. See the discussion of a possible Edwards
privilege, infra.
FN57. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 612 (1977).
FN58. 533 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
FN59. See Jensen, supra note 27, at 251.
FN60. See Soma, Smith & Sprague, supra n. 8.
FN61. "The Restatement privilege recognizes `that a [common
carrier], which with very limited exceptions extends its
facilities to all users, has exhibited no actual or implied
"malice" when it merely refuses to censor a particular
communication.'" 39 FED. COMM. L.J. 217 at 250, n. 173,
citing Anderson v. New York Telephone Co., 42 A.D.2d 151,
345 N.Y.S.2d 745 (1973) (dissenting opinion), rev'd 35
N.Y.2d 746, 361 N.Y.S.2d 913 (1974) (emphasis added). See
also note 59, supra.
FN62. 553 F.2d 601.
FN63. See generally, the listing attached to this paper of
message echo areas available to system operators in the
Omaha, Nebraska, vicinity.
FN64. Notwithstanding the ultimate holding adverse to the
FCC, the court in National Ass'n of Reg. Util. Comm'rs v.
F.C.C. went to some lengths to acknowledge the principle,
and then to distinguish it on the facts in the case at bar.
553 F.2d 601.
FN65. 47 U.S.C. 151 (1982).
FN66. They are connected in the logical sense, if not the
physical sense, as computer theorists use the terms.
FN67. June 19, 1934, c. 652, 48 Stat. 1064.
FN68. Comment, An Electronic Soapbox: Computer Bulletin
Boards and the First Amendment, 39 FED. COMM. L.J. 217, 220.
FN69. Second Computer Inquiry, Final Decision, 77 F.C.C.2d
384, 47 R.R.2d 669 (1980), reconsidered 84 F.C.C.2d 512, 50
R.R.2d 629 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Computer and Communica-
tions Indus. Assn'n v. F.C.C., 693 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir.
1982), cert. den., 461 U.S. 938 (1983).
FN70. "In an enhanced service the content of the informa-
tion need not be changed and may simply involve subscribed
interaction with stored information. Many enhanced services
feature voice or data storage and retrieval applications,
such as in a 'mail box' service." Id. at 421.
FN71. 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. den. sub nom.
Edwards v. New York Times Co., 434 U.S. 1002 (1977).
FN72. The pesticide DDT had been criticized as harmful to
many kinds of wildlife, particularly following the publica-
tion of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. The National
Audubon Society had for many years conducted periodic bird
counts. The counts could be interpreted to show that,
contrary to the anti-DDT concerns, bird life was increasing.
The Audubon Society felt that statistical reasons, not
actual wildlife increases, were responsible for the anoma-
lous count data and opposed the use of its data to support
DDT. 556 F.2d 113.
FN73. Id.
FN74. Magnetti, "In the End the Truth Will Out" . . . Or
Will It?, 52 MISS. L. REV. 299, 329-331 (1987).
FN75. Id.
FN76. The privilege of fair reporting, after all, should at
the minimum include the actual words of the original author,
nothing more and nothing less being said, which is exactly
what the bulletin board republishes.
FN77. The question would arise of what judgment was exer-
cised if anyone could post a message. The judgment arguably
would in the first instance be the exercise of discretion in
awarding access to the system. See Soma, Smith & Sprague,
supra. The final exercise of judgment would be when the
editor/system operator removed or left in place a potential-
ly offending message. Removal would be the exercise of
editorial judgment, leaving in place an exercise of neutral-
ly reporting what the individual already had said.
FN78. A Mr. Len Rose was recently indicted for the theft of
American Telephone and Telegraph Company software detailing
the operation of the "E911" emergency telephone system.
Several other individuals were charged because the software,
either without their knowledge, or with their knowledge but
without their knowing it was stolen, was stored or trans-
mitted by their systems. (This is the same theft where Mr.
Biggs was convicted. See n. 21, supra, and accompanying
text.) A final decision has not been reached in Mr. Rose's
case. A copy of the Rose indictment is available from the
author. Various versions of the other charges are available
in issues of the Computer Underground Digest available from
the author.
FN79. Soma, Smith & Sprague, Legal Analysis of Electronic
Bulletin Board Activities, 7 W. NEW ENG. L. REV. 571, 605
(1985).
FN80. Computer Underground Digest, various electronic
editions, available from the author. The parallel to a
pamphleteer would be the seizure of his printing press.
Particularly troublesome is that the warrants, apparently,
did not specify seizure of the electronic mail stored on the
system. An action is pending in a California case.
FN81. Public importance might not be the only First Amend-
ment concern--the Speech Clause, on its face, does not limit
itself to public importance--but would be applicable to most
bulletin board systems with which the author is familiar.
FN82. Hernandez, ECPA and Online Computer Privacy, 41 FED.
COMM. L.J. 17 (1989).
FN83. Copies of most of the pleadings to date in the ALCOR
case are available from the author.
FN84. The relevant portions of the Electronic Communica-
tions Privacy Act as recorded in the United States Code are
set out in an attachment to this paper.
FN85. Complaint, Thompson v. Predaina, No. 88-93C (S.D.
Indiana 1988), dismissed August 10th, 1988. One source
relates the dismissal was voluntary. Hernandez, ECPA and
Online Computer Privacy, 41 FED. COMM. L.J. 17 (1989).
Another source indicates the dismissal was caused by the
defendant's filing bankruptcy, thereby automatically staying
the prosecution of the suit. Wilson, message in Fidonet:LAW
echo (1990). An electronic copy of the complaint is avail-
able from the author.
FN86. By "empirical data" the author means that he continu-
ally receives questions from fellow sysops who, knowing him
to be a law student, verbalize questions about their liabil-
ity exposure over the range of issues discussed in this
paper.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
From kadie Sat Oct 12 09:51:36 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 12 09:51:34 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
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 Sat Oct 12 09:53:11 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 12 09:53:00 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : (repost from alt.bbs.allsysop) Legal Liability of Sysops
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: [repost from alt.bbs.allsysop] Legal Liability of Sysops for Defamation
Message-ID: <1991Oct11.211417.26389@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 21:14:17 GMT
[I've changed double spacing to single spacing. - Carl]
D E F A M A T I O N L I A B I L I T Y
O F
C O M P U T E R I Z E D
B U L L E T I N B O A R D O P E R A T O R S
A N D P R O B L E M S O F P R O O F
John R. Kahn
CHTLJ Comment
Computer Law Seminar
Upper Division Writing
February, 1989
---
D E F A M A T I O N L I A B I L I T Y
O F
C O M P U T E R I Z E D
B U L L E T I N B O A R D O P E R A T O R S
A N D P R O B L E M S O F P R O O F
John R. Kahn
CHTLJ Comment/Upper Division Writing/Computer Law Seminar
February, 1989
_________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
A computer user sits down at her personal computer,
turns it on, and has it dial the number of a local computerized
bulletin board service (BBS) where she has been exchanging
opinions, information, electronic mail, and amicable
conversation with other users. Upon connecting with the BBS, she
enters a secret "password", presumably known only to herself and
to the bulletin board operator, so as to gain access to the
system.
To her surprise, she finds herself deluged with lewd
electronic mail from complete strangers and hostile messages
from persons with whom she believed she was on friendly terms.
The messages read: "Why did you call me a worthless son-of-a ----
- yesterday? I really thought we could be friends, but I guess I
was wrong"; "Hey, baby, I liked your fetish you were telling me
about yesterday: call me at home, or I'll call YOU"; and, "Why
didn't you get around to telling me about your venereal disease
sooner?". Yet our user has not called this BBS in weeks and has
never made any of these statements. Dismayed and angered, the
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 2
----------------------
user comes to realize that she is the victim of computerized
bulletin board abuse.
A personal computer hobbyist (hereafter "SYSOP") who
operates a computerized bulletin board system notices a rash of
heated arguments, profanity and complaints being reported to him
by users on what had been a forum for the peaceful exchange of
ideas. Investigating the complaints, he discovers that
previously responsible users have suddenly and
uncharacteristically been leaving insulting, rude and false
messages about other users on the bulletin board. One user is so
enraged about a public message accusing her of sexual
misadventures that she is threatening to sue the computer
hobbyist in libel for having permitted the message to appear.
The SYSOP realizes that both he and his subscribers have
suffered computerized bulletin board abuse.
The aggravating force behind both the above situations
is most likely a third user (known hereafter as "the
masquerader") who maliciously exploits both his computer
knowledge and his access to BBSes. Since the masquerader has
discovered the password and name of the regular user, and uses
them to access bulletin boards, he appears for all intents and
purposes to be that regular user. The computer thus believes it
has admitted a legitimate subscriber to its database when it has
in fact given almost free reign to a reckless hacker. The
masquerader, posing as another legitimate user, is then free to
portray that user in whatever light he pleases and also to
harass other users of the bulletin board.
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 3
----------------------
When validated users later discover that someone else
has been impersonating them, they invariably cancel their
subscriptions to that BBS and often bring a defamation action
against its SYSOP for the smearing of their good names.
Conversely, the SYSOP, in an effort to avoid liability,
reluctantly engages in monitoring each and every piece of
information posted daily by hundreds of users. If the SYSOP
chooses instead to stop running his BBS altogether, another
efficient and valuable forum for ideas is lost.
What sort of defamation action may be maintained by the
wrongfully disparaged user? Is the computerized bulletin board
offered by the SYSOP subject to the stricter self-scrutiny of
newspapers, or does it operate under some lesser standard? How
may the initial party at fault - the masquerader - be held
accountable for his computerized torts?
The scope of this Comment will be to examine the
defamation liability of computerized BBS operators and
evidentiary proof issues that arise in tracing computerized
defamation to its true source. Other possible Tort causes of
action - intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion
of privacy, trespass to chattels - are not addressed. It is
assumed throughout that the plaintiff is a private person and
that the issues involved are not matters of "public interest" as
defined in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.1
A. Background
Computerized BBSes exist as a quick, easy and efficient
way to acquire and exchange information about the entire
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 4
----------------------
spectrum of interests.2 The growing popularity of these
electronic forums was demonstrated in a recent study which
numbered BBSes at more than 3,500 nationwide.3 The size and
complexity of computerized BBSes range from relatively simple
programs, run on privately-owned microcomputers with a few
hundred subscribers, to vast, multi-topic database systems with
nationwide lists of subscribers and operated for profit.4
The process of reaching, or "accessing" one of these
bulletin boards is quite simple: all that is required is a
computer, a computer program that allows the computer to
communicate over the phone lines, and a "modem" (a device which
converts the computer's electrical signals into acoustic
impulses, defined infra).5 Once she has accessed the BBS, the
caller is free to trade useful non-copyrighted computer
programs, exchange ideas on a host of topics, post electronic
mail for later reading by others, and much more.6 The ease with
which most BBSes may be accessed and the wealth of interests to
be found there ensure that they will continue to be important
sources of information and discourse.
However, the speed and efficiency of computerized BBSes
also subject them to serious, wide-ranging civil and criminal
abuse. Recently a young computer user paralyzed several major
computer systems across the nation by sending a harmful computer
program (or "worm") to them over telephone lines. The worm
quickly replicated itself in the computers' memories and thus
decreased their output capacities.7 Further, certain computer
abusers (known as "hackers") use the power of the computerized
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 5
----------------------
forum to ply illegal copies of copyrighted programs, bilk
hundreds of millions of dollars annually from credit card and
phone companies, and to wrongfully access others' data files.8 A
minority of other BBSes exist mainly to circulate racist
ideologies.9
What is more, it now appears that the ancient tort of
defamation is actively being practiced through the use of
computerized BBSes.10 Due to the almost ethereal way
computerized BBSes operate - one person may conveniently leave
an electronic message for others to respond to at their leisure
and there is no need for the parties to converse directly or
even to know each other11 - the risk of detection when the BBS
is abused is lower than that for defamation practiced in the
print media.12 Difficulties arise with identifying the true
party at fault and with authenticating the computer records as
evidence of the defamation.13 Adding to this problem is an
uncertainty in the laws concerning the appropriate liability of
SYSOPs for defamatory messages on their BBSes of which they were
unaware.14
B. Definitions
The following are brief definitions of some important
technical terms connected with electronic BBSes:
SYSOP: An abbreviation for "System Operator", this is
the individual generally responsible for organizing information
and for trouble-shooting on a computerized bulletin board. On
larger bulletin boards covering hundreds of topics, several
SYSOPS may be in charge of maintaining information contained in
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 6
----------------------
separate discrete fields.15 But when the BBS is privately owned
and operated, a single SYSOP may very well oversee all aspects
of the board's operations, in addition to being able to access
all his users' passwords and personal information.16
Modem: An abbreviation for "Modulator/Demodulator".
This is a device which links a computer to an ordinary phone
line and converts computer signals to auditory phone signals. A
computer modem on the other end of the transmission then
reverses the process. Computers using modems transfer data
rapidly across phone lines and thus share information.17
Validation: Basically this is a set of procedures used
by responsible SYSOPs to do everything reasonably possible to
verify that the personal information supplied by a user is true
and correct. Common sense and emerging legal standards dictate
that the SYSOP should not merely rely on the name provided by a
potential user when the SYSOP does not personally know that
individual. The SYSOP may be required to independently
corroborate the prospective subscriber's information by first
asking the potential user's name, address and phone number and
then by checking that information with directory assistance.18
These procedures will hopefully aid the operator in identifying
wrongdoers if misuse occurs;19 however, as will be seen, these
procedures are by no means foolproof.
Database: Any collection of data in a computer for
purposes of later retrieval and use, i.e., names, addresses,
phone numbers, membership codes, etc.
User: Anyone who accesses a computerized bulletin board
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 7
----------------------
system and is exposed to the information stored there. Users may
be identified by their true names, by an assigned numerical
code, or by colorful "handles", or "usernames."20
Operating System: This is a program which controls the
computer's basic operations and which recognizes different
computer users so that their actions do not interfere with one
another.21 For example, most multi-user operating systems will
not allow one user to delete another's data unless the second
user gives explicit permission.22 BBS system software programs
perform this function through their use of "accounts" and
"passwords":23 private electronic mail sent to a particular user
may not be read or deleted by others. The BBS' operating system
is also designed to deny access to those attempting to log on
under an unvalidated or unrecognized name.24
Account/Username: As another part of BBS system
security, each user chooses an "account", or "username",
consisting of one to eight letters or numbers.25 The BBS'
operating system then will not allow commands issued by one user
of one account to modify data created by another account;26 nor
will it grant access to an account that has been terminated or
invalidated.
Password: Yet another aspect of BBS system security is
the use of "passwords" as a prerequisite to accessing the
computer system. Most operating systems require the user to
enter both her account name and password to use the account.27
Because electronic mail cannot be sent without the username to
which it is being addressed, and because the account cannot be
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 8
----------------------
used without knowledge of the password, usernames are generally
public knowledge while passwords are a closely-guarded secret,
known only to the user and the operating system.28
Teleprocessing: This is defined as accessing a computer
from a remote location, usually over a telephone line or similar
communications channel.29
Uploading/Downloading: For purposes of exchanging
computer programs or electronic mail over the phone lines, the
process of transferring information from one's personal computer
to the bulletin board is called uploading. The reverse process -
transferring information from a bulletin board to a personal
computer - is known as downloading.30
II. DEFAMATION LIABILITY OF COMPUTERIZED BBS OPERATORS
A. Computerized Defamation: Libel or Slander?
Libel is the "publication of defamatory matter by
written or printed words, by its embodiment in physical form, or
by any other form of communication that has the potentially
harmful qualities characteristic of written or printed words."31
Publication of a defamatory matter is "its communication
intentionally or by a negligent act to one other than the person
defamed."32 A communication is defamatory if it "tends to so
harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation
of the community or to deter third persons from associating or
dealing with him."33 The difference between libel and slander
has traditionally depended upon the form of the communication:
oral defamation generally is considered slander, while written
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 9
----------------------
defamation is generally considered libel.34 The distinction is
important, because libel requires no proof of special damages
and is actionable by itself, while slander generally requires
proof of special damages in order to be actionable.35
However, with the advent of electronic media, the
traditional libel/slander distinctions as they apply to sight
and hearing are no longer valid. For example, passing defamatory
gestures and signals, though visible to sight, were considered
slander;36 an ad-libbed statement on a telecast impugning a
person's financial status was found to be libel.37
It has been suggested that the real distinction between
libel and slander is the threat and magnitude of harm to
reputation inherent in the form of publication.38 Libel has been
historically associated with writings because (1) a writing is
made more deliberately than an oral statement; (2) a writing
makes a greater impression to the eye than does an oral
statement to the ear; (3) a writing is more permanent than
speech; and (4) a writing has a wider area of dissemination than
speech.39 These four qualities inherent in a writing made the
possible harm to reputation greater than mere spoken words. In
applying libel to the new form of computerized communication
used on BBSes, the potentiality for harm to reputation is
significant, and should again be considered the controlling
factor.
In our hypothetical situation, the user discovered that
another user (the masquerader) had usurped her account name and
password, causing her great embarrassment and humiliation. The
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 10
----------------------
act of prying into and taking another's computer information to
misuse it elsewhere would indicate a certain deliberation on the
actor's part to spread defamatory messages. Secondly, the
defamatory message is displayed to other users on their computer
monitors in the form of electronic characters, making a visual
impression. Third, this electronic defamation is more permanent
than mere words because it is stored in the BBS' memory until
erased by the user or SYSOP. Finally, the message arguably has a
wider area of dissemination than a one-to-one spoken defamation
because, as a message on an electronic BBS, it has the potential
of being viewed by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of users each
day. Based on these four criteria, the capacity for harm to our
user's reputation due to the masquerader's activities is indeed
great enough to be considered libellous.
B. Defamation Liability of the SYSOP
Having established the electronic message as being
libellous, the next issue is to determine the extent of
liability for the SYSOP who unknowingly permits the message to
be communicated over his BBS. Case law indicates that the
SYSOP's liability depends upon the type of person defamed and on
the subject matter of the defamation.
1. Degree of fault required
The United States Supreme Court has addressed modern
defamation liability in two major decisions. Both conditioned
the publisher's liability on the type of person defamed and on
the content of the defamation. In New York Times v. Sullivan,40
the Court determined that in order for a public official to
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 11
----------------------
recover damages in a defamation action, the statement must be
shown to have been made with "actual malice", i.e., with
knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its
truth.41 Due to society's interest in "uninhibited, robust and
wide-open" debate on public issues, neither factual error nor
defamatory content sufficed to remove the First Amendment's
shield from criticism of an official's conduct.42
The Supreme Court further elaborated on defamation
liability standards in the private and quasi-private sphere when
it decided Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.43 In Gertz, the publisher
of a John Birch Society newsletter made certain false and
inaccurate accusations concerning an attorney who represented a
deceased boy's family. The family had civilly sued the policeman
who murdered the boy. In rebutting what he perceived to be a
secret campaign against law and order, the publisher labelled
the family's attorney a "Leninist" and "Communist-fronter".44 In
addition, the publisher asserted that the attorney had been a
member of the National Lawyers Guild, which "'probably did more
than any other outfit to plan the Communist attack on the
Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic Convention.'"45 In
publishing these statements throughout Chicago, the managing
editor of the Birch Society newsletter made no effort to verify
or substantiate the charges against the attorney.46
The Supreme Court held in Gertz that while First
Amendment considerations protect publications about public
officials47 and about "public figures"48, requiring a showing of
"actual malice" before defamation damages could be recovered,
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 12
----------------------
the same was not true for defamation suits brought by private
citizens49, a group to which the attorney was held to belong.50
Private citizens were seen as deserving more protections from
defamation than public officials or public figures, so they were
not required to show "actual malice" as a precondition to
recovery.51 The Court then left it to the states to decide the
precise standard of liability for defamation of private
individuals, so long as liability without fault was not the
standard.52
By Gertz, then, the appropriate standard of liability
for publicizing defamation of private parties falls somewhere
below actual malice and above strict liability. The problem with
defining the defamation standard for computerized BBS operators,
however, is a lack of uniform standards. In such circumstances,
the objective "reasonable person" standard will likely be
applied to the SYSOP's actions.53 Several cases may be usefully
applied by analogy.
The court in Hellar v. Bianco54 held that a bar
proprietor could be responsible for not removing a libellous
message concerning the plaintiff's wife that appeared on the
wall of the bar's washroom after having been alerted to the
message's existence.55 The court noted that "persons who invite
the public to their premises owe a duty to others not to
knowingly permit their walls to be occupied with defamatory
matter.... The theory is that by knowingly permitting such
matter to remain after reasonable opportunity to remove [it],
the owner of the wall or his lessee is guilty of republication
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 13
----------------------
of the libel."56 The Hellar court then left the ultimate
determination of the bar owner's negligence to the jury.57 This
holding seems to be in accord with the Restatement of Torts,
which provides:
PUBLICATION:
(2) One who intentionally and unreasonably
fails to remove defamatory matter that
he knows to be exhibited on land or
chattels in his possession or under his
control is subject to liability for its
continued publication.58
Contrarily, however, the Ohio court of appeals in Scott
v. Hull59 found that the building owner and agent who had
control over a building's maintenance were not responsible for
libel damages for graffiti inscribed by an unknown person on an
exterior wall.60 The court distinguished Hellar by noting that
in Hellar the bartender constructively adopted the defamatory
writing by delaying in removing it after having been expressly
asked to do so:
"It may thus be observed from these cases
that where liability is found to exist it is
predicated upon actual publication by the
defendant or on the defendant's ratification
of a publication by another, the ratification
in Hellar v. Bianco...consisting of at least
the positive acts of the defendants in
continuing to invite the public into their
premises where the defamatory matter was on
view after the defendants had knowledge of
existence of same."61
The Scott court held that defendants could only be
responsible for publishing a libellous remark through a positive
act, not nonfeasance; thus, their mere failure to remove the
graffiti from the building's exterior after having it called to
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 14
----------------------
their attention was held not to be a sufficient basis of
liability.62
A situation similar to Scott arose recently in Tackett
v. General Motors Corporation.63 There, an employee brought a
libel suit against his employer for, inter alia, failing to
remove allegedly defamatory signs from the interior wall of its
manufacturing plant after having notice of their existence. One
large sign remained on the wall for two to three days while a
smaller one remained visible for seven to eight months.64
Instead of focussing on the Scott malfeasance/nonfeasance
test,65 the Tackett court considered defendant's implied
adoption of the libellous statement to be the correct basis of
liability.66 While saying that failure to remove a libellous
message from a publicly-viewed place may be the equivalent of
adopting that statement, and noting that Indiana would follow
the Restatement view "when the time comes,"67 the Tackett court
held that the Restatement view could be taken too far. Citing
Hellar, the court wrote:
The Restatement suggests that a tavern owner
would be liable if defamatory graffiti
remained on a bathroom stall a single hour
after the discovery [Citation to Hellar]. The
common law of washrooms is otherwise, given
the steep discount that readers apply to such
statements and the high cost of hourly
repaintings of bathroom stalls [Citation to
Scott]. The burden of constant vigilance
exceeds the benefits to be had. A person is
responsible for statements he makes or
adopts, so the question is whether a reader
may infer adoption from the presence of a
statement. That inference may be unreasonable
for a bathroom wall or the interior of a
subway car in New York City but appropriate
for the interior walls of a manufacturing
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 15
----------------------
plant, over which supervisory personnel
exercise greater supervision and control. The
costs of vigilance are small (most will be
incurred anyway), and the benefits
potentially large (because employees may
attribute the statements to their employer
more readily than patrons attribute graffiti
to barkeeps).68
According to this reasoning, then, the location and
length of time the libel is allowed to appear plays an integral
part in determining whether a given defendant has adopted the
libel, and thus has published it.
An application of the foregoing analysis to the issue
at hand highlights the need for greater care in allowing the
posting of electronic mail messages on a BBS. The Tackett court
noted that while the content of graffitti scrawled on bathroom
walls might be subject to healthy skepticism by its readers, the
same might not be true for other locations such as interiors of
subway cars or manufacturing plant walls.69 If this is true,
then it is reasonable to assume that a defamatory message
displayed in a forum for the exchange of ideas is more apt to be
taken seriously by its readers - especially when the libellous
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 16
----------------------
message purports to be written by the subject of the libel.70
Further, the Tackett court indicated that the high cost
of repainting bathroom stalls by the hour outweighed its
perceptible benefits. The same is not true for electronic BBSes,
where the costs of prevention are minimal in light of the threat
of widespread harm to users' reputations.71
2. Damages
Once the plaintiff establishes that the SYSOP failed to
act reasonably in removing statements known to be libellous from
his BBS or in negligently failing to prevent their appearance
there,72 no proof of special damages is necessary as libel is
actionable per se.73 The state's interest in protecting private
reputations has been held to outweigh the reduced constitutional
value of speech involving matters of no public concern such that
presumed and punitive damages may be recovered absent a showing
of actual malice.74
The proper gauge of liability has again raised some
questions.75 One writer has noted that if the burden of proof is
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 17
----------------------
to rest on the plaintiff, she may be at a disadvantage in
producing sufficient evidence to demonstrate negligent conduct
on the part of the SYSOP.76 Solutions to this problem have
ranged from a rebuttable presumption of negligence in favor of
the plaintiff77 to adoption of a set of standards similar to
those set out in the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.78 In
either event, damage awards for computer abuse have been
addressed both by federal and state law.79
3. Suggestions
Because computerized BBSes are still a relatively new
technological phenomena, consistent standards for SYSOPs' duties
have yet to be developed.80 However, at least one users' group
has adopted a voluntary code of standards for electronic BBSes,
applicable to both users and SYSOPs of boards open to the
general public:
SCOPE:
This Minimum Code of Standards applies to
both users and SYStem Operators (SYSOPs) of
electronic bulletin boards available to the
general public.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND IDEAS
Each user and SYSOP of such systems shall
actively encourage and promote the free
exchange and discussion of information,
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 18
----------------------
ideas, and opinions, except when the content
would:
- Compromise the national security of the
United States.
- violate proprietary rights.
- violate personal privacy,
- constitute a crime,
- constitute libel, or
- violate applicable state, federal or
local laws and regulations affecting
telecommunications.
DISCLOSURE
Each user and SYSOP of such system will:
- disclose their real name, and
- fully disclose any personal, financial,
or commercial interest when evaluation
any specific product or service.
PROCEDURES
SYSOPS shall:
- review in a timely manner all publicly
accessible information, and
- delete any information which they know
or should know conflicts with this code
of standards.
A 'timely manner' is defined as what is
reasonable based on the potential harm that
could be expected. Users are responsible for:
- ensuring that any information they
transmit to such systems adheres to this
Minimum Code of Standards, and
- upon discovering violations of the
Minimum Code of Standards, notifying the
SYSOP immediately.
IMPLEMENTATION
Electronic bulletin board systems that choose
to follow this Minimum Code of Standards
shall notify their users by publishing this
Minimum Code, as adopted by the [Capitol PC
Users Group], and prominently display the
following:
'This system subscribes to the Capitol PC
Users Group Minimum Code of Standards for
electronic bulletin board systems.'81
While non-binding on publicly-accessible BBSes, the
above guidelines furnish sound basic policies that all SYSOPs
might use in shielding themselves from defamation liability. Our
hypothetical at the beginning of this Comment described a
situation where a malicious intruder was able to access and
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 19
----------------------
masquerade as a validated user on a BBS; the following are some
additional computer security measures that the reasonable SYSOP
could conduct to avoid that situation:
a. Special "screening" software: One writer has
suggested discouraging potential BBS misuse through programming
the BBS to reject those messages containing common defamatory
and obscene language;82 such a program would discard a message
containing any of those terms and would presumably notify the
SYSOP of their presence. Drawbacks to this procedure are that
computer programs cannot understand all the nuances of libellous
messages83 and would thus lead to the rigid deletion of many
otherwise legitimate messages.84
b. Unique passwords: A more fundamental and
economical approach would be for the SYSOP to both notify all
new users about the potential for computerized BBS abuse and to
encourage their use of a unique password on each BBS they call.
This would have the practical effect of keeping a masquerader
from using the names and passwords found on one BBS to
wrongfully access and masquerade on other BBSes. A drawback to
this procedure is that the truly malicious masquerader may still
discover a BBS' most sensitive user records by way of a renegade
computer program called a "trojan horse".85 However, one could
speculate that the SYSOP acts reasonably in informing potential
users of the existing threat and in helping them avoid it.
c. Encryption: This is essentially a way for the
SYSOP to make the users' passwords unique for them. The power of
the computer allows complex algorithms to be applied to data to
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 20
----------------------
encode it in such a way that, without the key to the code, it is
virtually impossible to decode the information.86 This technique
would have the added benefit of forcing the masquerader, upon
accessing the BBS with a trojan horse program, to search for the
secret decoding algorithm in addition to the BBS' secret user
files. Indeed, it is conceivable that a special encryption or
password could be devised to allow only the SYSOP access to the
BBS' decoding algorithm. However, encryption involves a
significant overhead - impractical for most small, privately-
operated BBSes - and is more frequently used to protect messages
from one system to another where the data is vulnerable to
interception as it passes over transmission lines.87
d. Prompt damage control: In accord with Hellar,88
the Restatement (Second) of Torts,89 and possibly Tackett,90 a
SYSOP acts reasonably in promptly assisting the libelled user to
partially reverse the effects of the masquerader's actions.
Recall that in those instances a defendant was held to have
impliedly adopted a defamatory statement by acting unreasonably
slowly in removing it from his property once having been made
aware of it.91 While it may be unreasonable to expect the SYSOP
to monitor each message posted every day - especially where the
defamatory message appears to have been left by the true user -
it is not too much to require the SYSOP to quickly remedy
security flaws in his BBS as they are pointed out to him.92 To
this end, the SYSOP has several options. In situations where the
defaming user libels another without masquerading as the
libelled party, the SYSOP could simply delete the defamer's
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 21
----------------------
account. In situations where a user masquerading as another
posts a libellous message, the SYSOP could publish a retraction
to all his subscribers, urging them to use a different password
on each BBS they call. Further, where a masquerader published
the libel, the SYSOP should offer his full cooperation to the
maligned user in tracking down the time and date the libellous
message was posted93 in order to better limit the SYSOP's
liability.
Certain BBS SYSOPs claim that holding them liable for
information appearing on their BBSes violates their First
Amendment rights by restricting their right to free speech94 and
by holding them responsible for the libel perpetrated by the
From kadie Sat Oct 12 09:53:46 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 12 09:53:27 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
:
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
-------------------
masquerader. It has been suggested that the SYSOP should be held
to the same standard of liability as a neighborhood supermarket
which furnishes a public bulletin board:95 just as the
supermarket would not be liable for posting an advertisement for
illicit services, so should the BBS SYSOP escape liability for
libellous messages left on his board, especially when its poster
appears to be a validated user.96
However, this comparison lacks merit for the reasons
given by the Seventh Circuit in Tackett v. General Motors
Corporation.97 The defendant's liability in that case rested on
its publication of libel by implicitly adopting the statement.98
Defendant's failure to remove a defamatory sign painted on one
of the interior walls of its factory for seven or eight months
after discovering its presence was such that "[a] reasonable
person could conclude that Delco 'intentionally and unreasonably
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 22
----------------------
fail[ed] to remove' this sign and thereby published its
contents."99
There would certainly be accomplice liability if the
supermarket unreasonably delayed removing an advertisement for
illegal services from its bulletin board once it was made aware
of it. The market could be seen as having adopted the ad's
statements by not acting responsibly to its viewing public.
Similarly, a SYSOP would be liable for defamatory messages
posted on his BBS - even by what appears to be the true user -
if he fails to act reasonably by using his computer skill to
eviscerate the libel.100 While the computerized BBS may be
nothing more than a hobby of the SYSOP, the speed with which it
can disseminate potentially damaging information among its users
demands the standards of responsibility described above.
C. Defamation Liability of the Masquerader
1. Degree of fault required
It should be noted that the liability and proof issues
concerning the SYSOP and masquerader are inverse. As to the
SYSOP who allows libellous messages to be posted on his BBS, his
liability may be inferred simply by those messages having
appeared there;101 however, his degree of fault - actual malice
or simple negligence - is subject to debate.102 Conversely,
while the masquerader's degree of fault is clearly evident,103
tracing that fault back to him is a more elusive matter.104 The
requisite degree of fault for masqueraders is set out in federal
and state law.105
2. Damages
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 23
----------------------
Assuming arguendo that the masquerader's defamatory
publications have been successfully traced back to him by the
plaintiff, actual and punitive damages may then be recovered
from him based on his knowledge of the publication's falsity or
reckless disregard for its truth.106 Federal and state law have
also specified certain remedies.107
III PROBLEMS OF PROOF
A. Proof of SYSOP's Actions
We have seen that while the appropriate degree of fault
for a SYSOP to be liable for defamatory messages appearing on
his BBS is subject to dispute,108 a showing that the defamation
appeared there due to the SYSOP's negligence is much more
capable of resolution.109 The jury should be made aware of the
actual validation/security procedures practiced by the SYSOP and
should weigh them in light of the prevailing practice.110
Several facets of an emerging standard of care for SYSOPs have
already been suggested in this Comment,111 and the SYSOP's
adherence to them could be shown through users' testimony.
B. Proof of Masquerader's Actions
In contrast with the degree of fault required to
establish the SYSOP's publication of the libellous message, the
degree of fault for the masquerader is much less subject to
debate. The masquerader's actions are not likely to be
considered merely inadvertent or negligent.112 However, because
the masquerader has intentionally discovered and usurped the
user's name and password, he appears to be that user on all
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 24
----------------------
computer records. Tracing the masquerader's defamatory
publication back to him thus encounters some important
evidentiary barriers: the maligned user is forced to rely on
computerized records produced by the BBS and phone company in
trying to link the masquerader's libellous publication back to
him.113 We turn now to consider the evidentiary hurdles to be
overcome in tracing the libellous communication to its true
source.
1. The Hearsay Rule & Business Records Exception
The first evidentiary obstacle to connecting the
masquerader with his libellous publication is the hearsay rule.
As defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is "a
statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying
at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth
of the matter asserted";114 as such, it is inadmissible as
evidence at trial.115 Computer-generated evidence is subject to
the hearsay rule, not because it is the "statement of a
computer", but because it is the statement of a human being who
entered the data.116 To the extent the plaintiff user relies on
computer-generated records to show that a call was placed from
the masquerader to the BBS at the time and date in question,
then, her evidence may be excluded.
However, numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule have
developed over the years such that evidence which might
otherwise be excluded is deemed admissible. The most pertinent
hearsay exception as applied to computerized evidence is the
"business records exception", which admits into evidence any
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 25
----------------------
records or data compilations, so long as (1) they were made
reasonably contemporaneously with the events they record; (2)
they were prepared/kept in the course of a regularly conducted
business activity; and (3) the business entity creating these
records relied on them in conducting its operations.117 The
veracity of the computer records and of the actual business
practices are shown by the record custodian's or other qualified
witness' testimony, unless the circumstances indicate lack of
trustworthiness.118 The term "business" as used in this rule
includes callings of every kind, whether or not conducted for
profit.119
Statutes and judicial decisions in several states have
gradually recognized that the business records exception extends
to include computer-generated records.120 This is largely due to
(1) modern business' widespread reliance on computerized record-
keeping, (2) the impracticability of calling as witnesses every
person having direct personal knowledge of the records'
creation, and (3) the presumption that if a business was willing
to rely on such records, there is little reason to doubt their
accuracy.121
Using this exception to the hearsay rule, plaintiff
user would most likely seek to admit the BBS' computer-generated
username/password log-in records plus the phone company's call
records to establish the connection between the masquerader's
telephone and the BBS at the precise instant the libellous
message was posted.122 As an initial matter, however, plaintiff
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 26
----------------------
must first lay a foundation for both the BBS' and phone
company's computer-generated business records.
A sufficient foundation for computer-generated records
was found recently to exist in People v. Lugashi.123 There, the
California Court of Appeal affirmed a conviction of grand theft
based on evidence adduced from computer-generated bank records.
Defendant, an oriental rug store owner, had been convicted of
fraudulently registering thirty-seven sales on counterfeit
credit cards. The issuing banks became suspicious of criminal
activity when charge card sales data from defendant's store
showed 44 fraudulent uses of charge cards at defendant's store
within only five weeks.124 As each fraudulent credit card
transaction was completed, defendant registered the sale
simultaneously with the banks' computers.125 Each night, as
standard bank practice, the banks then reduced the computer
records of credit card transactions to microfiche. Information
gleaned from these microfiche records was entered against
defendant at trial.126
The California Court of Appeal recognized the trial
court judge's wide discretion in determining whether a
sufficient foundation to qualify evidence as a business record
has been laid.127 It held that defendant's allocations of error
were without merit since defendant himself had acknowledged that
the bank's computer entries memorialized in the microfiche
record were entered simultaneously as they occurred in the
regular course of business.128 Further, the Court of Appeals
dismissed defendant's claim that only a computer expert could
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 27
----------------------
supply testimony concerning the reliability of the computer
record:
Appellant's proposed test incorrectly presumes computer
data to be unreliable, and, unlike any other business
record, requires its proponent to disprove the
possibility of error, not to convince the trier of fact
to accept it, but merely to meet the minimal showing
required for admission....
The time required to produce this additional [expert]
testimony would unduly burden our already crowded trial
courts to no real benefit.129
The Lugashi court then followed the bulk of other
jurisdictions adopting similar analyses and upholding admission
of computer records with similar or less foundational showings
over similar objections.130
As to admission into evidence of telephone companies'
computer-generated call records under the business records
exception, courts have evinced a similar attitude to that in
Lugashi. In State v. Armstead,131 a prosecution for obscene
phone calls, the trial court was held to have properly admitted
computer printouts showing that calls had been made from
defendant's mother's telephone, despite defendant's contention
that the witness who was called to lay the foundation had not
been personally responsible for making the record.132 Because
the printout represented a simultaneous self-generated record of
computer operation, the court held it was therefore not
hearsay.133
In an Ohio prosecution for interstate telephone
harassment, it was held no error was committed in admitting
defendant's computerized phone statement under the Business
Records exception which showed that telephone calls had been
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 28
----------------------
made from defendant's phone in Ohio to various numbers in
Texas.134 A sufficient foundation for the admission of business
records under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) was established
when a telephone company witness identified the records as
authentic and testified they were made in the regular course of
business.135
Applying the foregoing analyses to BBSes, the plaintiff
user would establish a foundation for the correlated BBS136 and
telephone company phone logs by showing that (1) they were made
contemporaneously with the posting of the libellous message;137
(2) they were prepared/kept in the course of a regularly
conducted business activity, since both the BBS and telephone
company consistently maintain accounts of all persons who use
their services; and (3) the BBS and telephone company relied on
those records for billing purposes.138 Once such a foundation is
laid, the trial court has wide discretion in admitting business
records into evidence.139
2. Authentication & the Voluminous Records Exception
The second evidentiary barrier encountered in tracing
the masquerader's libellous messages back to him is proving his
authorship of the libel, or "authenticating" the computerized
records.140 The computer-generated phone and BBS records showing
that a call from a certain phone number at a particular date and
time resulted in a libellous message being published must
somehow be linked to the masquerader.
The Federal Rules of Evidence provide in pertinent
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 29
----------------------
part:
(a) General provision. The requirement of
authentication or identification as a condition
precedent to admissibility is satisfied by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what its proponent claims.
(b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and
not by way of limitation, the following are
examples of authentication or identification
conforming with the requirements of this rule:...
(6) Telephone conversations. Telephone
conversations, by evidence that a call was
made to the number assigned at the time by
the telephone company to a particular person
or business, if
(A) in the case of a person, circumstances,
including self-identification, show the
person answering to be the one called,
or
(B) in the case of a business, the call was
made to a place of business and the
conversation related to business
reasonably transacted over the
telephone....141
The question of whether a writing is properly
authenticated is primarily one of law for the court; if the
court decides the question affirmatively, it is ultimately for
the jury.142 The court will make no assumptions as to the
authenticity of documents in deciding their initial
admissibility.143 The difficulty presented here is that the
Federal Rules of Evidence seem to require authentication of
telephone calls by reference to their specific content.144 The
specific content of a given phone call is not demonstrated by
phone logs showing merely the date and time the call occurred.
The authentication of extrinsic documents may be
subject to a "best evidence rule" objection. As stated in
Federal Rule of Evidence 1002:
REQUIREMENT OF ORIGINAL: To prove the contents of a
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 30
----------------------
writing, recording, or photograph, the original of that
writing, recording, or photograph is required, unless
provided otherwise in these rules or by an act of
Congress.145
Since its introduction in the 18th century, various
rationales have been posited for this rule.146 While earlier
writers asserted that the rule is intended to prevent fraud,
most modern commentators agree that the rule's main purpose is
to convey to the court the exact operative effect of the
writing's contents.147
However, at least one jurisdiction has implicitly
equated compliance with the business records exception with the
Best Evidence Rule. In Louisiana v. Hodgeson,148 the defendant
in a manslaughter trial contended that a printout of her
telephone bill, offered to show communications between her and a
third party, was not authenticated.149 The court, while making
no specific reference to the authentication point, rejected
defendant's contention, noting that the information from the
computer's storage was the company's business record and that it
was accessible only by printout.150
Similarly, in an Indiana bank robbery prosecution,151
the state offered microfiche copies of the telephone company's
computerized records showing certain telephone calls from
defendant. On appeal, defendant argued that these documents were
not authenticated because they were not the "original or first
permanent entry," and that they therefore should not have been
admitted into evidence. The court disagreed, saying that a
duplicate was admissible to the same extent as an original
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 31
----------------------
unless a "genuine issue" were raised as to the authenticity of
the original.152
By these precedents, then, provided plaintiff user
establishes that both the telephone and BBS user records were
prepared in accordance with the business records exception,153
the fact that a call from the masquerader's phone is shown to
have occurred at the same instant the libellous message was
posted may be sufficient to authenticate that the call was made
by the masquerader. Other circumstantial evidence adduced by
plaintiff user would strengthen this inference.154
Another authentication hurdle in plaintiff's case is
the requirement that the entire original record sought to be
authenticated be produced.155 This requirement can prove highly
impractical in situations where there are vast numbers of
individual records extending over long periods of time.156
Requiring plaintiff to produce the entire body of these records
would be unduly expensive and time-consuming. What is more, if
plaintiff were to attempt to summarize vast computerized
business data compilations so as to introduce those summaries
into evidence without producing the complete body of computer
records, such summaries might not be admissible on the grounds
that they were not made "in the regular course of business."157
However, an exception to strict authentication
requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence has been
developed. Rule 1006 provides:
The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or
photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in
court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary,
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 32
----------------------
or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be
made available for examination or copying, or both, by
other parties at reasonable time and place. The court
may order that they be produced in court.158
In Cotton v. John W. Eshelman & Sons, Inc.,159
summaries of certain computerized records were held properly
admitted into evidence on the theory that "[w]hen pertinent and
essential facts can be ascertained only by an examination of a
large number of entries in books of account, an auditor or
expert examiner who has made an examination and analysis of the
books and figures may testify as a witness and give summarized
statements of what the books show as a result of his
investigation, provided the books themselves are accessible to
the court and to the parties."160 Under this precedent,
plaintiff user would only need to produce the pertinent parts of
the computerized records, as determined by an impartial auditor.
IV. CONCLUSION
It is difficult to overestimate the ease with which
computers now enable us to compile and exchange information.
Computerized "bulletin boards" run on personal microcomputers by
private persons and businesses are examples of this enhanced
form of communication. Users can trade computer programs and
exchange a wealth of ideas, opinions, and personal information
through such forums.
The advantages of this process break down, however,
when malicious users abuse the system and BBS SYSOPS
intentionally or negligently allow this to occur. The nature of
computerized data is such that tortious misinformation may
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 33
----------------------
easily be spread to thousands of users before it is discovered.
Because the potential for harm to reputation is so tremendous,
appropriate standards of liability and methods of proof must be
addressed.
The requisite degree of fault in libelling private
persons is less than that for libelling public officials/public
figures, and may be established as against a SYSOP by a simple
showing of his negligent failure to observe reasonably minimal
computer security measures. The basis of liability for a
masquerader who intentionally misappropriates another's private
information is even less subject to debate.
Two main evidentiary hurdles face the plaintiff seeking
to link the masquerader with his libellous message through
reliance on computer-generated records. First, the hearsay rule
automatically excludes all evidence produced out-of-court that
is being offered to prove the truth of the matter at hand.
Second, the authentication requirement demands that the
masquerader's connection to the entire body of proffered
computer records be established.
However, certain exception to both of these limitations
ease the plaintiff's burden. First, the business records
exception to the hearsay rule admits computer records into
evidence if they (1) were made reasonably contemporaneously with
the events they record; (2) were prepared/kept in the course of
a regularly conducted business activity; and (3) the business
entity creating these records relied on them in conducting its
operations. Both BBS and telephone company records may come
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 34
----------------------
under this exception. Second, the voluminous writings exception
allows the contents of voluminous computerized records which
cannot conveniently be examined in court to be presented in the
form of a summary. So long as the original records or duplicates
thereof are available for examination by other parties at
reasonable times and places, the entire data compilation need
not be produced. Plaintiff should employ both of these
exceptions in an effort to convince a jury by a preponderance of
the evidence that the masquerader has abused his computer skills
and has damaged plaintiff's reputation.
==============================================
Resent-Message-Id: <9004210506.AA15278@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU>
id AA20305; Fri, 20 Apr 90 12:46:45 PDT
~Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 12:42:02 PDT
~From: Lang Zerner
Message-Id: <9004201942.AA08069@khayyam.EBay.Sun.COM>
~Subject: Sysops and libel liability -- endnotes
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 0:05:23 CDT
Resent-From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
Resent-To: ptownson@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU
Status: RO
Here are the endnotes to the paper I submitted in a separate message.
Be seeing you...
==Lang
=======
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 35
----------------------
ENDNOTES
1. 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974).
2. These interests can cover anything from science fiction
to gourmet cooking. Uyehara, Computer Bulletin Boards:
Let the Operator Beware, 14 Student Lawyer 28 (1986).
3. Id., at 30.
4. The data service Compuserve is one such national BBS
run for profit by business organizations. Uyehara, at
28. Other examples of large databases of interest to
the legal profession are computerized research services
such as LEXIS and WESTLAW.
5. Uyehara, at 28; Manning, Bulletin Boards: Everybody's
Online Services, Online, Nov. 1984, at 8,9. "Modem" is
defined infra, note 17 and accompanying text.
6. "...computer bulletin boards offer their users
important benefits. An individual can use a bulletin
board to express his opinion on a matter of public
interest. He may find a review of a product he is
considering buying. He may find a useful piece of
software. An individual might also use the bulletin
board to ask a technical question about a specific
computer program." Note, Computer Bulletin Board
Operator Liability For User Misuse, 54 Fordham L.Rev.
439, 440 (1985) (Authored by Jonathan Gilbert); see
also Lasden, Of Bytes And Bulletin Boards, N.Y.Times,
August 4, 1985, sec. 6, at 34, col. 1, where the author
notes computer users may now use BBSes to voice their
opinions directly to State Senators' offices.
7. "Virus" Hits Nation's Research Computers, San Jose
Mercury News, Nov. 4, 1988, at 1, col. 1.
8. "It is estimated that the theft of long-distance
services and software piracy each approximate $100
million a year; credit card fraud via computers costs
about $200 million annually." Pittman, Computer
Security In Insurance Companies, 85 Best's Rev. - Life-
Health Ins. Edition, Apr. 1985 at 92.
9. Schiffres, The Shadowy World of Computer "Hackers,"
U.S. News & World Report, June 3, 1985, at 58.
10. Pollack, Free Speech Issues Surround Computer Bulletin
Board Use, N.Y. Times, Nov. 12, 1984, note 1, at D4,
col. 6.
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 36
----------------------
11. Note, 54 Fordham L.Rev. 440-441 (1985).
12. Poore and Brockman, 8 Nat'l L.J. 14, (1985).
13. See infra, Topic III, Problems of Proof.
14. The uncertainty revolves around how to define BBSes.
When viewed as analogous to newspapers and other media,
SYSOPS would be responsible for any message posted on
their systems, much as newspaper editors are
responsible for articles appearing in their medium.
Uyehara, 14 Student Lawyer 30 (1986). But when BBSes
are compared to a bulletin board found in a public hall
or supermarket, the liability issue is focused more on
those actually posting the messages rather than on the
board's owner. Id., at 30. This Comment suggests that
BBS SYSOPs be held to a reasonable standard of care
emerging specifically for their endeavors. See infra,
Topic II.
15. Poore and Brockman, 8 Nat'l L.J. 14, (1985). Another
writer has noted that Compuserve now has over 200,000
users making use of nearly 100 diverse databases.
Lasden, Of Bytes And Bulletin Boards, N.Y. Times,
August 4, 1985, sec. 6, at 34, col. 1.
16. Poore and Brockman, 8 Nat'l L.J. 14 (1985).
17. 14 Am Jur. POF 2d Computer-Generated Evidence Sec. 11
(1977).
18. Note, 54 Fordham L.Rev. 439, 446 (1985).
19. Id.
20. See "Account," infra, note 25 and accompanying text.
21. Garfinkel, An Introduction to Computer Security, 33
Prac. Law.41-42 (1987).
22. Id.
23. See infra, notes 25 and 27 and accompanying text.
24. Some more sophisticated operating systems provide
greater access control by (1) recording unauthorized
attempts at entry; (2) recording those attempts and
sending a warning to the perpetrator; and (3) keeping
the perpetrartor off the system permanently until
he/she is reinstated by the computer's security
administrator or SYSOP. Balding, Computer Breaking and
Entering: The Anatomy of Liability, 5 Computer Lawyer,
Jan. 1988, at 6.
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 37
----------------------
25. Garfinkel, An Introduction to Computer Security, 33
Prac. Law. 42 (1987).
26. Id.
27. Id. "A password is a secret word or phrase that should
be known only to the user and the computer. When the
user first attempts to use the computer, he must first
enter the password. The computer then compares the
typed password to the stored password and, if they
match, allows the user access."
28. Id., at 42 and 46.
29. 14 Am. Jur. POF 2d Computer-Generated Evidence Sec. 11
(1977).
30. 54 Fordham L.Rev. 439, note 2 (1985).
31. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 568(1) (1976).
32. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 577(1) (1976).
33. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec.559 (1976).
34. Veeder, The History and Theory of the Law of
Defamation, 3 Colum. L.Rev. 546, 569-571 (1903).
35. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 622 (1976).
36. Restatement, Torts Sec. 568, comment d (1938).
37. Shor v. Billingley, 4 Misc.2d 857, 158 N.Y.S.2d 476
(Sup. Ct. 1956), aff'd mem., 4 App.Div. 2d 1017, 169
N.Y.S.2d 416 (1st Dep't. 1957).
38. Torts: Defamation: Libel-Slander Distinction:
Extemporaneous Remarks Made on Television Broadcast:
Shor v. Billingley, 4 Misc. 2d 857, 158 N.Y.S.2d 476
(Sup.Ct. N.Y. County 1957), 43 Cornell L.Q. 320, 322
(1957) (Authored by Stephen A. Hochman).
39. Id.
40. 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964),
motion denied 376 U.S. 967, 84 S.Ct. 1130, 12 L.Ed.2d
83.
41. 376 U.S. 254, 273.
42. 376 U.S. 254, 280.
43. 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974).
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 38
----------------------
44. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 326.
45. Id.
46. Id., at 327.
47. "...those who hold governmental office may recover for
injury to reputation only on clear and convincing proof
that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge
of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the
truth." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342.
"An individual who decides to seek governmental office
must accept certain necessary consequences of that
involvement in pubic affairs. He runs the risk of
closer public scrutiny than might otherwise be the
case." Id., at 344.
48. "...[A]n individual may attain such pervasive fame and
notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all
purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an
individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into
a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a
public figure for a limited range of issues. In either
case such persons assume special prominence in the
resolution of public questions." 418 U.S. 323, 351.
49. "Even if the foregoing generalities do not obtain in
every circumstance, the communications media are
entitled to act on the assumption that public officials
and public figures have voluntarily exposed themselves
to the increased risk of injury from defamatory
falsehood concerning them. No such assumption is
justified with respect to a private individual. He has
not accepted public office or assumed an 'influential
role in ordering society.' Curtis Publishing Co. v.
Butts, 388 U.S., at 164 ...He has relinquished no part
of his interest in the protection of his own good name,
and consequently he has a more compelling call on the
courts for redress of injury inflicted by the
defamatory falsehood. Thus, private individuals are not
only more vulnerable to injury than public officials
and public figures; they are also more deserving of
recovery." Id., at 345.
50. "...[P]etitioner was not a public figure. He ...
plainly did not thrust himself into the vortex of this
public issue, nor did he engage the public's attention
in an attempt to influence its outcome." Id., at 352.
51. Justice Powell noted for the Court that
"[T]he communications media are entitled to act on
the assumption that public officials and public
figures have voluntarily exposed themselves to
increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehood
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 39
----------------------
concerning them. No such assumption is justified
with respect to a private individual. He has not
accepted public office or assumed an 'influential
role in ordering society....' He has relinquished
no part of his interest in the protection of his
own good name, and consequently he has a more
compelling call on the courts for redress of injury
inflicted be defamatory falsehood. Thus, private
individuals are not only more vulnerable to injury
than public officials and public figures; they are
also more deserving of recovery." Id., at 345.
52. Id., at 347.
53. Keeton, Dobbs, Keeton and Owen, Prosser and Keeton on
Torts, sec. 32, p.174. See also Vaughn v. Menlove, 3
Bing. (N.C.) 467, 132 Eng.Rep. 490 (1837).
54. 111 Cal. App. 2d 424, 244 P.2d 757, 28 ALR2d 451
(1952).
55. 111 Cal. App. 2d 424, 427.
56. Id., at 426.
57. Id, at 427.
58. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 577(2) (1976).
59. 22 Ohio App.2d 141, 259 N.E.2d 160 (1970).
60. Scott v. Hull, 259 N.E.2d 160, 162 (1970).
61. Id., at 161.
62. Id., at 162.
63. 836 F.2d 1042 (7th Cir. 1987).
From kadie Sat Oct 12 09:54:35 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 12 09:54:16 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
:
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
-------------------
64. Id., at 1047.
65. The Court of Appeals noted the Restatement view and
observed that Indiana law had neither embraced nor
rejected that approach. Id., at 1046.
66. Id.
67. Id.
68. Id., at 1046-47.
69. Id.
70. Recall that in our hypothetical a third user
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 40
----------------------
masquerading as another is transmitting messages to
others, revealing embarassing and false information.
71. BBS systems security and other preventative measures
are discussed more fully infra, Topic 3.d.
72. Issues in proving the SYSOP's role in publishing the
libellous statement are discussed more fully in Topic
III. A., infra.
73. Sydney v. MacFadden Newspaper Publishing Corp., 242
N.Y. 208, 151 N.E. 209, 44 A.L.R. 1419 (1926). See also
Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 621 (1976) ("One who
is liable for a defamatory communication is liable for
the proved, actual harm caused to the reputation of the
person defamed.")
74. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472
U.S. 749, 86 L.Ed.2d 593, 105 S.Ct. 2939 (1985).
75. See supra, note 53 and accompanying text.
76. Note, Protecting the Subjects of Credit Reports, 80
Yale L.J. 1035, 1051-52, n.88 (1971).
77. Gertz did not rule out an assumption of defendant's
negligence. See Eaton, The American Law of Defamation
Through Gertz V. Robert Welch, Inc., and Beyond: An
Analytical Primer, 61 Va. L.Rev. 1349 (1975).
78. 15 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1681 et seq. (1974). Two standards are
proposed there: the first, willful noncompliance, is
defined as equivalent to the New York Times "actual
malice" standard, and violators are liable for actual
and punitive damages. Sec. 1681(n), supra. Presumably
this would apply to the situation where the SYSOP is
dilatory in removing the libellous message. The second
proposed standard, negligent noncompliance, occurs in
the absence of willfulness and results in liability
only for actual damages. Sec. 1681(o), supra.
Situations where the SYSOP failed to adopt reasonable
computer security measures might come under this
category.
79. 18 U.S.C.S. Sec. 2707(b),(c) (Law. Co-op 1979 & Supp.
1988) provides in pertinent part:
(b) Relief. In a civil action under this section,
appropriate relief includes -
(1) Such preliminary and other equitable or
declaratory relief as may be appropriate;
(2) damages under subsection (c); and
(3) a reasonable attorney's fee and other
litigation costs reasonably incurred.
(c) Damages. The court may assess as damages in a
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 41
----------------------
civil action under this section the sum of the
actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and
any profits made by the violator as a result
of the violation, but in no case shall a
person entitled to recover receive less than
the sum of $1,000.
18 U.S.C.S. Sec. 2707(e) (Law. Co-op 1979 & Supp. 1988)
limits the civil action under this section to two years
after the date upon which the claimant first discovered
or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the
violation.
As to damage provisions supplied by state law, see
California Penal Code 502(e)(1),(2) (West Pub. 1988):
(e)(1) In addition to any civil remedy available,
the owner or lessee of the computer, computer
system, computer network, computer program, or data
may bring a civil action against any person
convicted under this section for compensatory
damages, including any expenditure reasonably and
necessarily incurred by the owner or lessee to
verify that a computer system, computer network,
computer program, or data was not altered, damaged,
or deleted by the access. For purposes of actions
authorized by this subdivision, the conduct of an
unemancipated minor shall be imputed to the parent
or legal guardian having control or custody of the
minor, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1714.1
of the Civil Code.
(2) In any action brought pursuant to this
subdivision the court may award reasonable
attorney's fees to a prevailing party.
80. A lawsuit recently filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana may break
new ground in enunciating precisely what BBS SYSOPs'
reasonable duties of care are. Thompson v. Predaina,
Civil Action #IP-88 93C (S.D. Ind. filed 1988). The
complaint alleges, inter alia, invasion of plaintiff
user's privacy, libel, and wrongful denial of access to
the BBS in violation of U.S.C. Title 18, ss 2701
(a)(2). As to statutory damages available, see infra,
note 105.
81. Gemignani, Computer Law 33:7 (Lawyers Co-op 1985, Supp.
1988) (quoting Capitol PC Users Group Minimum Code of
Standards for electronic Bulletin Board Systems,
reprinted in 4 Computer Law Reptr. 89).
82. Note, 54 Fordham L.Rev. 439, 449 (1985) (Authored by
Jonathan Gilbert).
83. Id., at 449.
84. Id., at 449-50.
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 42
----------------------
85. A "trojan horse" program takes control of the BBS and
allows its sender to access and steal its most
sensitive information. Fites, Johnston and Kratz, The
Computer Virus Crisis, Van Nortrand/Reinhold (1989), at
39 and 45.
86. Balding, Computer Breaking and Entering: The Anatomy of
Liability, 5 Computer Law. (January 1988), at 6.
87. Id.
88. Hellar v. Bianco, 244 P.2d 757. See supra, note 54 and
accompanying text.
89. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 577(2) (1976). See
supra, note 58 and accompanying text.
90. Tackett v. General Motors Corporation, 836 F.2d 1042
(7th Cir. 1987). See supra, note 63 and accompanying
text.
91. See note 53, supra, and accompanying text.
92. It has been suggested that this would be the rough
equivalent of a newspaper publishing a retraction after
discovering what it had printed was defamatory. Note,
54 Fordham L.Rev. 439, note 55 (1985). BBS operators
should not be held liable in this situation insofar as
they did not know of the nature of the statement at the
time it was made. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec.
581 (1977).
93. Proving the masquerader's actions is discussed more
fully infra, Topic III. B.
94. Stipp, Computer Bulletin Board Operators Fret Over
Liability for Stolen Data, Wall St. J. Nov. 9, 1984, at
33, col. 1.
95. Id.
96. See Topic I., supra, where the masquerader has
discovered and uses the password and name of the
regular user; he appears for all intents and purposes
to be that regular user.
97. 836 F.2d 1042 (7th Cir. 1987).
98. Id., at 1047.
99. Id.
100. Indeed, U.S.C. Title 18, Sec. 2702 (Law. Co-op 1979 &
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 43
----------------------
Supp. 1988) proscribes the knowing dissemination of an
electronically stored communication by the SYSOP:
Sec. 2702. Disclosure of contents
(a) Prohibitions. Except as provided in subsection
(b)-
(1) a person or entity providing an
electronic communication service to the
public shall not knowingly divulge to any
person or entity the contents of a
communication while in electronic storage
on that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote
computing service to the public shall not
knowingly divulge to any person or entity
the contents of any communication which
is carried or maintained on that service-
(A) on behalf of, and received by means
of electronic transmission from (or
created by means of computer
processing of communications
received by means of electronic
transmissions from), a subscriber or
customer of such service; and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing
storage or computer processing
services to such subscriber or
customer, if the provider is not
authorized to access the contents of
any such communications for purposes
of providing any services other than
storage or computer processing.
A similar provision is embodied in Cal. Pen. Code sec.
502(c)(6) (West Pub. 1988), which provides:
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (i),
any person who commits any of the
following acts is guilty of a public
offense:
(6) Knowingly and without permission
provides or assists in providing a
means of accessing a computer,
computer system, or computer network
in violation of this section.
101. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, or "the thing speaks
for itself" warrants the inference of the SYSOP's
negligence, which the jury may draw or not as its
judgement dictates. See Sullivan v. Crabtree, 36
Tenn.App. 469, 258 S.W.2d 782 (1953).
102. See discussion under Topic II. B., supra.
103. As someone who intentionally accesses confidential
password information to masquerade as other users on
other BBSes, the masquerader falls well within the pale
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 44
----------------------
of "actual malice" defined in Gertz v. Robert Welch,
Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342, supra, note 43 and
accompanying text (a defamatory falsehood was made with
knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for
the truth).
104. Evidentiary problems involved with proving the
masquerader's actions are discussed more in Topic III.
B., infra.
105. 18 U.S.C.S. Sec. 2707(a) (Law. Co-op 1979 & Supp. 1988)
describes the masquerader's fault thus:
(a) Cause of action. Except as provided in section
2703(e), any provider of electronic
communication service, subscriber, or customer
aggrieved by any violation of this chapter in
which the conduct constituting the violation
is engaged in with a knowing or intentional
state of mind may, in a civil action, recover
from the person or entity which engaged in
that violation such relief as may be
appropriate.
California Penal Code sec. 502(c) et seq. (West Pub.
1988) is even more specific:
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (i), any
person who commits any of the following acts
is guilty of a public offense:
(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission
alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or
otherwise uses any data, computer,
computer system, or computer network in
order to either
(A) devise or execute any scheme or
artiface to defraud, deceive, or
extort, or
(B) wrongfully control or obtain money,
property or data.
* * *
(3) Knowingly and without permission uses or
causes to be used computer services.
(4) Knowingly accesses and without permission
adds, alters, damages, deletes, or
destroys any data, computer software, or
computer programs which reside or exist
internal or external to a computer,
computer system, or computer network.
* * *
(7) Knowingly and without permission accesses
or causes to be accessed any computer,
computer system, or computer network.
106. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342.
107. In addition to the remedies set forth in note 105,
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 45
----------------------
supra, the following federal and state penalties may
apply:
18 U.S.C.S. Sec. 2701(b),(c) (Law. Co-op 1979 & Supp.
1988):
(b) Punishment. The punishment for an offense
under subsection (a) of this seciton is -
(1) if the offense is committed for purposes
of commercial advantage, malicious
destruction or damage, or private
commercial gain -
(A) a fine not more than &250,000 or
imprisonment for not more than one
year, or both, in the case of a
first offense under this
subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or
imprisonment for not more than two
years, or both, for any subsequent
offense under this subparagraph; and
(2) a fine of not more than $5,000 or
imprisonment for not more than six
months, or both, in any other case.
(c) Exceptions. Subsection (a) of this section
does not apply with respect to conduct
authorized-
(1) by the person or entity providing a wire
or electronic communications service;
(2) by a user of that service with respect to
a communication of or intended for that
user; or
(3) in section 2703, 2704, or 2518 of this
title.
For an example of state-mandated damages provisions on
this subject, see California Penal Code sec. 502(d) et
seq. (West Pub. 1988).
108. See discussion under Topic II. B., supra.
109. See note 101, supra.
110. "Custom...bears upon what other will expect the actor
to do, and what, therefore, reasonable care may require
the actor to do, upon the feasibility of taking
precautions, the difficulty of change, and the actor's
opportunity to learn the risks and what is called for
to meet them. If the actor does only what everyone else
has done, there is at least an inference that the actor
is conforming to the community's idea of reasonable
behavior." Keeton, Dobbs, Keeton and Owen, Prosser and
Keeton on Torts, sec. 33, p.194. See also James,
Particularizing Standards of Conduct in Negligence
Trials, 5 Vand. L. Rev. 697, 709-714 (1952); Ploetz v.
Big Discount Panel Center, Inc., 402 So.2d 64 (Fla.
App. 1981).
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 46
----------------------
111. See notes 80-93, supra, and accompanying text.
112. See note 103, supra.
113. See Pfau and Keane, Computer Logs Can Pinpoint Illegal
Transactions, Legal Times of Washington, vol. 6, p.16
(May 14, 1984): "Computers can monitor their own use.
Unlike other such forms of physical evidence such as
guns, computers can keep track of individual users and
other identifying data. Imagine a gun that logs every
instance it is fired or even handled, and shows the
date, time, and activity. Recovery of such a weapon
would be essential to the prosecution.
"Most computers have long had built-in logging
capabilities....The log function was designed to
facilitate billing for the use of computer resources
rather than to assist crime detection. To the extent
that the owner of a smaller computer does not charge
for its use, he or she has no incentive to purchase a
self-executing log. Still, such logs keep surprisingly
accurate records of who is using the computer."
114. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
115. Fed. R. Evid. 802: "Hearsay is not admissible except as
provided by these rules or by other rules precribed by
the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by
Act of Congress." Exclusion of hearsay evidence is
grounded on: (1) nonavailability of the declarant for
cross-examination and observance of demeanor; (2)
absence of an oath by the person making the statement;
amd (3) significant risk that the person that the
witness may report proffered statements inaccurately. 2
Bender, Computer Law, sec. 6.01[2].
116. Gemignani, The Data Detectives: Building A Case From
Computer Files, 3 Nat'l L.J. 29 (1981).
117. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). See also 2 Bender, Computer Law,
sec. 6.01[4] (1988).
118. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).
119. Id. In current practice records kept by nonprofit
organizations, such as churches, have long been held to
be admissible. Ford v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 638, 200
S.W. 841 (1918). It is at least arguable that a
computerized BBS, although run as a hobby, falls under
the same classification.
120. See Iowa Code Ann. Sec. 622.28; People v. Lugashi, 252
Cal.Rptr 434 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1988).
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 47
----------------------
121. See 14 Am.Jur. POF2d Sec. 15 (1977, Supp. 1988). Cf.
United States v. De Georgia, 420 F.2d 889, 2 CLSR 479,
484 (1969, CA9 Ariz), where it was held that it is
immaterial whether a business record is maintained in a
computer rather than in company books regarding
admissibility of those records, so long as (1) the
trial court requires the proponent of the computerized
records to lay a foundation as to their
trustworthiness, and (2) the opposing party is given
the same opportunity to inquire into the computer's
accuracy as he would have to inquire into the accuracy
of written business records.
122. The BBS program run on the SYSOP's computer ordinarily
"stamps" the date and time of day each user logs onto
the BBS. A corresponding record is automatically
affixed to each piece of electronic mail posted so that
the reader knows when it was added to the database.
Similarly, the telephone company maintains copious
records of the date and time each phone call is
connected in its dialing area. The caller has no
control over either of these processes.
123. 252 Cal.Rptr. 434 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1988).
124. Id., at 437.
125. Id.
126. Id.
127. Id., at 439.
128. Id., at 437.
129. Id., at 440.
130. Id., at 442. See also United States v. Russo, 480 F.2d
1228 (CA6 Mich, 1973), cert den 414 U.S. 1157, 94 S.Ct.
915, 39 L.Ed.2d 109; Capital Marine Supply, Inc. v. M/V
Roland Thomas II, 719 F.2d 104 (1983 CA5 La), 104 Fed
Rules Evid Serv 731; Peoples Cas & Coke Co. v. Barrett,
118 Ill.App.3d 52, 73 Ill. Dec. 400, 455 N.E.2d 829
(1983).
131. 432 So.2d 837 (La., 1983).
132. Id., at 839-40.
133. Id., at 839.
134. United States v. Verlin, 466 F.Supp. 155 (ND Tex,
1979).
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 48
----------------------
135. Id., at 158.
136. The reasonable SYSOP should offer his full cooperation
in aiding the maligned user to regain her good name by
providing her with his BBS' phone-in records made at
the time the libellous message appeared. See note 93,
supra.
137. See note 123, supra.
138. Cf. note 118, supra. As to an electronic BBS being
classified as a "business" for hearsay purposes, see
note 120, supra.
139. See note 128, supra.
140. Authentication has been broadly described thus: "[W]hen
a claim or offer involves impliedly or expressly any
element of personal connection with a corporeal object,
that connection must be made to appear...." Wigmore,
Evidence, Sec. 2129 at 564 (2d ed. 1972). This
requirement is also known as the "Best Evidence Rule."
141. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a),(b)(6).
142. 2 Bender, Computer Law, sec. 5.03[1][a] (1988).
143. Id.
144. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(6): "(6) Telephone
conversations. Telephone conversations, by evidence
that a call was made to the number assigned at the time
by the telephone company to a particular person or
business, if *** (B) in the case of a business, the
call was made to a place of business and the
conversation related to business reasonably transacted
over the telephone...." (emphasis added).
145. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
146. E.W. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence, sec. 231 (2nd. Ed.
1972).
147. Id. Further rationales for the rule are risks of
inaccuracy contained in commonly used copying
techniques and heightened chances of witness'
forgetfulness through oral testimony. Id., sec. 231.
148. 305 So.2d 421, 7 C.L.S.R. 1238 (La. 1974).
149. 305 So.2d 421, 427.
150. Id., at 428.
---
Defamation Liability of Computerized BBS Operators
& Problems of Proof (C) 1989 John R. Kahn 49
----------------------
151. Brandon v. Indiana, 396 N.E.2d 365 (Ind. 1979).
152. Id., at 370.
153. See note 121, supra, and accompanying text.
154. Other circumstantial evidence might include, among
other things: possible motive for the masquerader to
defame plaintiff; plaintiff's own inability to call
from the phone number from which the defamatory message
is shown to have originated; or even an electronic
"fingerprint" left by the particular computer from
which the defamatory message originated. Pfau and
Keane, Computer Logs Can Pinpoint Illegal Trasactions,
Legal Times of Washington, vol. 6, p.16 (May 14, 1984).
155. Fed. R. Evid. 1002 provides:
REQUIREMENT OF ORIGINAL. To prove the content of
a writing, recording, or photograph, the original
of that writing, recording or photograph is
required, unless provided otherwise in these
rules or by an Act of Congress.
156. Examples of this situation are the telephone company's
keeping of hundreds of thousands of individual
computerized records of each telephone call made within
a certain dialing area, or a BBS' extensive history of
subscriber use compiled for billing purposes.
157. See Harned v. Credit Bureau of Gilette, 513 P2d 650, 5
CLSR 394 (1973).
158. Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
159. 137 Ga.App. 360, 223 S.E.2d 757 (1976).
160. 223 S.E.2d 757, 760.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
From kadie Sun Oct 13 13:35:19 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Oct 13 13:33:44 EDT 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]
In this issue:
szabo@techbook.com : Re:
-- disclaimers lie (or at least sometimes stretch :-)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : FYI: Some original LBJs
kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: Moderation in all things
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Help improve reposts
edtjda@magic322.ch : Administrivia
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Administrivia
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Help improve reposts
MCNAB PD@DARWIN.NT : The Hackers' Conference
kadie@eff.org (Car : The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brack vi
kadie@eff.org (Car : The information that led Ohio State U. to start proceedin
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brac
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brac
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.30
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
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1231 alt.censorship:1883
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: disclaimers?
Summary: disclaimers lie (or at least sometimes stretch :-)
Message-ID: <1991Oct12.093915.3775@techbook.com>
Date: 12 Oct 91 09:39:15 GMT
References: <9110071420.AA09435@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <1991Oct7.150934.15231@ms.uky.edu>
In article <1991Oct7.150934.15231@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>I'm sure that we've all seen the famous Usenet "I think you're a jerk,
>so I'm going to send mail to your admin" ploy at work. I think that
>disclaimers are just a preemptive move against the effect of such postings.
>It's nothing more than an attempt to separate our private opinions from our
>official positions as employees.
The second statement goes beyond the scope of the first.
Many government and commercial organizations actively edit/moderate/suppress/
censor (pick your favorite) the postings of their employees. Many official
restrictions (proprietary or classified information, scientific priority
to data, etc.) go hand in hand with often unwritten but just as ubiquitous
biases to protect the organization's image, punishing whistle-blowing, etc.
The mere fact that your boss or co-worker may read what you post tends to
"moderate" opinionating on some topics.
As a result many postings, especially those related to the work of the
organization (eg a defense contractor in sci.military, a computer company
in the comp.sys.* groups, NASA in sci.space, etc.) reflect, to one degree
or another, the opinions of that organization, disclaimers notwithstanding.
It does not follow that the organization is responsible for said opinions.
But we should not interpret the posts as purely "private opinions",
and posters should not pretend that they are.
Two examples with which I have first-hand experience:
Sequent strongly requests that no employees post to comp.sys.sequent without
first sending the post to two "moderators". Unless a mistake is made in
this process, every *@sequent.com post there reflects the opinions of
Sequent.
At least one IBM site actively monitored all employee netnews postings. If
you posted something "unprofessional" it was forwarded to your manager,
who would then give you a lecture on "professional language".
In neither case were the policies included in poster's disclaimers or
otherwise communicated to netnews readers.
That is two out of two companies I have worked for, so I assume similar
practices are widespread outside of academia.
Disclaimers may have a legal use, and/or may be useful in protecting
the poster from hate mail to his/her boss, but for posters to claim
independence of all posted opinions from their organization's is often
not credible.
--
szabo@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Some original LBJs
Message-ID: <9110121508.AA18878@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 12 Oct 91 05:08:37 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
From: mycroft@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Some original LBJs
Keywords: computer, smirk
Message-ID:
Date: 11 Oct 91 23:30:05 GMT
Approved: funny@looking.on.ca
> Q: How many system administrators does it take to change a light bulb?
> A: None, just remove the rights of everybody allowed to go into the room.
Q: How many users does it take to change a light bulb?
A: All of them, to whine at the sysadmin in unison.
--
Selected by Brad Templeton. MAIL your joke (jokes ONLY) to funny@looking.ON.CA
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible. A Daemon will auto-reply.
Remember: Always give your jokes a descriptive "Subject:" line.
Don't use "joke" or "submission" or "joke submission," please.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYI: Re: Moderation in all things
Message-ID: <199110121513.AA18428@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 12 Oct 91 07:13:55 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Message-Id: <199110120216.AA01239@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 22:17:33 -0500
Sender: Consortium for School Networking Discussion Forum List
From: Beverly Hunter
Subject: Re: Moderation in all things
X-To: Consortium for School Networking Discussion Forum List
X-Cc: lbarrett@nsf.gov, gstrawn@nsf.gov, jcavines@nsf.gov
Status: RO
Bob, I have been assured by our NSFNET people that there is NO policy
obstacle to the provision of for-fee educational or research services on
the NSFNET. This is essential to the creation of viable and productive
online communities.
I am responding to the following question from Bob Carlitz in regard to the
critical roles of human moderators in online communities:
>
>I think that as we discuss and develop model networks and model
>interfaces, we need to give equal attention to the structure of model
>information services. This requires paying attention to how such
>services can be funded on a continuing basis. The Dept. of Education
>might play a useful role in funding the development of model information
>services. For more mature services I presume it will be possible to
>develop mechanisms with low-cost unit prices but wide enough
>distribution to make the operation financially viable.
>
>This leads to a question which recurs in all discussions of the future
>of the NSFnet. If one develops an information service for the
>educational community, can one recover costs for this service and go on
>using NSFnet as a transport mechanism? The NSF's acceptable use policy
>requires users to restrict their activities to research and education.
>My present example obviously involves education, but it is necessarily a
>commercial activity. Does that mean that it's banned from the NSFnet, or is
>there a role for such services under their present usage policy?
>
>It seems to me that this is a critical question. If no self-sustaining
>services will be allowed on the NSFnet, then is this net the right place
>for educational users? I presume that people at NSF have considered
>this sort of thing and have a simple answer to offer. At least I hope
>so.
>
>Cheers!
>Bob Carlitz
------------------------------------
/ Beverly Hunter
/ Program Director
/ Applications of Advanced Technologies
/ National Science Foundation
/ 1800 G Street NW
/ Washington DC 20550
/ (202) 357-7071
/ FAX 202 357-7009
/ bhunter@nsf.gov
-------------------------------------
-------------------
Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1234 alt.censorship:1884
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: disclaimers?
Message-ID: <1991Oct12.152228.18624@eff.org>
References: <9110071420.AA09435@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <1991Oct7.150934.15231@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct12.093915.3775@techbook.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 15:22:28 GMT
szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
[...]
>Many government and commercial organizations actively edit/moderate/suppress/
>censor (pick your favorite) the postings of their employees. Many official
>restrictions (proprietary or classified information, scientific priority
>to data, etc.) go hand in hand with often unwritten but just as ubiquitous
>biases to protect the organization's image, punishing whistle-blowing, etc.
>The mere fact that your boss or co-worker may read what you post tends to
>"moderate" opinionating on some topics.
[...]
I would like to see this kind of disclaimer on such notes (and email):
"The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily
those of CORP corp. This note has, however, be screened and cleared by
officials of CORP corp."
- 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: Help improve reposts
Message-ID: <1991Oct12.161955.19444@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 16:19:55 GMT
I repost articles from other groups piping them into a little program
called "fyi" that does a little reformatting and then mail the result
to caf-talk@eff.org.
The program could be improved by 1) eliminating many of the header
lines 2) putting the name of the original group in the subject line,
for example, "Subject: [alt.censorship] Newsgroup censorship at Big U.".
If anyone would like to improve the program, I would be grateful.
I'm enclosing the current programs.
- Carl
---
---------------fyi-------------------------
#!/bin/csh
cat > $HOME/fyitemp
set subject = `getsubject $HOME/fyitemp`
foreach i ($*)
cat $HOME/fyitemp | mail -s "$subject" $i
end
---------------getsubject------
#
grep "^Subject:" $1 | head -1 | sed "s/^Subject/FYI/"
----------------
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: Administrivia
Message-ID: <9110122017.AA19712@magic322.chron.com>
Sender: edtjda@magic322.chron.com
Date: 12 Oct 91 20:17:34 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
There has been some misunderstanding regarding a recent missive.
To clarify, the only thread of discussion that I intended to
take private is the thread started by Sean whatsisname at Unix Today!
It has been resolved for now, I think, so it's too late to honor
any requests to let you listen in. If he chooses to renew the
matter, I'll be happy to share with you the entire contents of our
mail for the past four months.
On another matter, I'm receiving a large number of requests for
copies of old articles. To accommodate you, we'll be putting
up a mail server shortly, and posting directions for its use.
Joe Abernathy
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Administrivia
Message-ID: <1991Oct12.210436.23497@eff.org>
References: <9110122017.AA19712@magic322.chron.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 21:04:36 GMT
edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy) writes:
[...]
>On another matter, I'm receiving a large number of requests for
>copies of old articles. To accommodate you, we'll be putting
>up a mail server shortly, and posting directions for its use.
[...]
One of Mr. Abernathy's articles was posted to the net a while
back and is in the CAF archive.
To get copies of the article and a parody of it, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom library.porn.real
send acad-freedom library.porn
--
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: Help improve reposts
Message-ID: <1991Oct12.211220.23778@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct12.161955.19444@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 21:12:20 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I repost articles from other groups piping them into a little program
>called "fyi" that does a little reformatting and then mail the result
>to caf-talk@eff.org.
[...]
>If anyone would like to improve the program, I would be grateful.
[...]
Frank Peters, fwp1@Ra.MsState.Edu, has send me a great
little perl programs that does just want I wanted.
He says that after a little more beta testing, he will make it more
generally available.
(I mostly used my FYI program to email newgroup articles to friends.
Because the subject line is distinctive, they know I don't
expect a reply.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: MCNAB_PD@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark Neely)
Subject: The _Hackers' Conference_
Message-ID: <911013122329.20201004@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Sender: MCNAB_PD@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Date: 13 Oct 91 12:23:29 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Readers,
I am posting this document for your perusal.
The Hacker Conference is about to announce itself to the general Internet
community. What we are essentially about is information gathering. Its members
have spent the last 5-6 months combing the Internet for information regarding
hacking and hacking related issues. The group does _NOT_, itself, participate
in or advocate/condone hacking.
The information gathered, if accepted, will eventually be deposited on a
publically available FTP site.
The members of the Conference are, primarily, located in the US. I am writing
from Australia. My interest in the group encompasses the legal liability of
hackers.
The purpose of this posting is threefold:
(a) To announce our existence and invite comment/criticisms from the Internet
community;
(b) To declare the bona fides of our existence; and
(c) To solicit any information which members of the Internet community wish
to submit for consideration for the Hacker Conference site.
Mark Neely Mail: PO Box 43194
Research Student Casuarina, Darwin
Northern Territory Univ. Law School NT Australia,
Darwin, NT Australia. 0810
mcnab_pd@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Disclaimer: My participation in the conference shall not be taken to be
supported or condemned by the Law School. Nor do they necessarily share
any opinions or viewpoints which I may from time to time express.
_____
CHARTER
This is the official charter of "The Hacker Conference".
This organization will be run on a volunteer basis - both manpower and
resources shall be provided voluntarily, and at no time will the
organization incur financial obligations or maintain any cash resources.
The Conference shall engage in the following activities:
(a) Collecting information (stored or storable via electronic medium)
regarding Hacking(1) and related activities(2);
(b) Maintaining a repository of such information deemed by Conference
members to be of sufficient quality, having regard to both
readability and accuracy
(i) It is anticipated that the repository will be a publically
available FTP site. All information (except that in the
process of selection) will be available to all who
have the facilities to access the FTP.
(ii) Where material is available elsewhere, and its storage on
the Conference's FTP site would constitute a waste of
storage(3), its availability will be documented in an Index
giving the location of the information.
(c) Finally, it is intended that the Conference will maintain an
Index to list all information stored on it's site.
Signed,
The Jester
President of the Hacker Conference
(1) Hacker
For the purpose of this Declaration, "Hacker" shall mean "a person
who breaks into computers without authorisation, either for malicious
reasons or just to prove it can be done."
Taken from _The Dictionary of Computer Terms_ (2nd Ed.), by Barron's
Business Guides.
(2) Related Activities
This is, of necessity, a vague area.
It includes, but is not limited to, (a) a discussion of laws enacted to
facilitate the prosecution of hackers (for example, the Electronic
Comunications Privacy Act), (b) articles detailing hacker activites
(such as the Robert Morris Jnr Internet Worm), (c) and "hacker
hysteria" - the media and law enforcement's response to hacking (for
example, Operation SunDevil).
(3) Duplicate files
Storage of certain information would constitute a waste of resources. It
is not intended, for example, to duplicate the CuD FTP sites. Instead,
an index file will be maintained indicating other sources of
information.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brack violated
Message-ID: <1991Oct13.140940.14103@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 14:09:40 GMT
[According to Steven Brack, this is the text of a letter he received
from OSU. Except as marked, all typo are his own. Reposted with
Steven Brack's permission. - Carl]
[BEGIN QUOTE]
T H E Office of Student Life Student Life Services
O H I O 2060 Drake Union
S T A T E 1849 Cannon Drive
UNIVERSITY Columbus, OH 43210-1267
Phone 614-292-0748
June 7, 1991
Steven Samuel Brack
222 Taylor Tower
50 Curl Drive
CAMPUS
Dear Mr. Brack:
I have received information that you may have been involved in conduct
violative of the _Code of Student Conduct_. I would like to discuss
this matter with you in order to determine if the alleged violation of
Rules 3335-25-01 (E), (F), (G), (J), and (K) did, indeed, occur. The
Rules are concerned with (E) Dishonest conduct, including, but not
limited to, knowingly reporting a false emergency; knowingly making
false accusation of misconduct; misuse or falsification of University
documents by actions such as forgery, alteration, or improper
transfer; submission to a University official of information known by
the submitter to be false; (F) Theft or attempted theft, or the
unauthorized use or possession of University property or services, or
the property of others while on University premises; (G) Failure to
comply with directives of authorized University officials, identified
as such, in the performance of their duties, including failure to
identify oneself when so requested; or, violation of the terms of a
disciplinary sanction; (J) Disorderly conduct that interferes with
University-authorized activities, including teaching, research,
administration, or other activities conducted, sponsored, or permitted
by the University; (K) Violation of other published University
regulations, policies, or rules, or any other violation of state or
federal law committed on University premises. This alleged violation
resulted from an incident on or before May 26, 1991, involving use of
Academic Computing Services facilities, equipment, and programs.
Although this will be an informal inquiry, you should understand that
the information ascertained may be used in a subsequent formal
hearing. It also may be used to determine whether a disciplinary
sanction should be imposed. You have the right to be accompanied by
an advisor, if you so choose.
I would appreciate you contacting David Eeles in the Judicial Affairs
office (292-0748) by June 21, 1991, so we can complete this interview
in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
[SIGNATURE]
Michael D. Russel
Judicial Hearing Officer
MDR:cde
[END QUOTE]
--
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: The information that led Ohio State U. to start proceedings.
Message-ID: <1991Oct13.141903.14234@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 14:19:03 GMT
[According to Steven Brack, this is the text of a letter he received
from OSU. Except as marked, all typo are his own. Posted with
Steven Brack's permission. - Carl]
[BEGIN QUOTE]
T H E Office of Student Life Student Life Services
O H I O 2060 Drake Union
S T A T E 1849 Cannon Drive
UNIVERSITY Columbus, OH 43210-1267
Phone 614-292-0748
June 28, 1991
Mr. Steve Brack
2021 Roanwood Drive
Toledo, OH 43613-1605
Dear Mr. Brack:
As I indicated on the telephone today, enclosed is a copy of the _Code
of Student Conduct_ and below is a summary of the information we have
which lead to charges of possible Code violation. Since copies of
information are not routinely released to students until a decision is
made to continue a case into the hearing (or hearing investigation)
stage, I can only summarize this information. Once the hearing
officer decides that enough information exists to support a hearing,
he will make copies available to you.
Essentially the allegations are in the area of abuse of the computer
system. Two staff members, Bill Miller and Clifford Collins sent over
a packet of information documenting the contact they had with you in
their attempts to have you comply with ethical computer use. The
information suggests that:
1. While on the HPUXA computer, you attempted to send a command that
would shut the system off. Your account was suspended. You met
with Collins and Miller and signed a "Ethical Standards of
Conduct" form and agreed to abide by the policies of the [sic]
Academic Computing Services (ACS).
2. You allegedly posted an obscene message on a bulletin board and
copied it to several other networks. The contents of the message
was [sic] in conflict with established standards of practice for
most of the additional networks.
3. Collins and Miller met with you again and suspended your account
indicating that you would no longer have access to HPUXA or any
other network at the University.
4. Allegedly you continued the same practices using an account
provided to you through the College of Engineering. They issued
you a restricted account that was to be used for academically-
related [sic] work only. You were specifically advised not to
use the computer system to access national bulletin boards.
5. Your social security number showed up on the account of another
person during sessions which used national networks.
6. It was confirmed that you used another studentUs account to
access a computer system at the University of Denver [sic]. This
was in direct opposition to your instructions not to use the
UniversityUs system to access national networks.
7. Additionally, allegedly you were keeping a number of non-academic
files on a microcomputer system in the Central [sic] Biology
system [sic]. You were advised against abusing your privileges
on this system and excess files were removed. Several times you
were allegedly warned to use only one computer at a time
(apparently you may have been using more than one). This
practice continued despite this warning.
8. Apparently you copied 24 copies [sic] of a mathematics program
[sic] to the hard disk of the Central [sic] Biology Computer lab
computer [sic]. This used up a considerable amount of the hard
disk space. This was allegedly done in retaliation against the
administrators of that system.
9. Toward the end of May, after being banned from all ACS computers,
you used the MAGNUS system to connect with the University of
Denver [sic] computer.
I am not familiar with mainframe computer networks and national
bulletin boards. If there is an apparent illogical statement in these
9 items, it is likely that my interpretation of the information
provided is inaccurate. I encourage you to arrange a meeting with the
judicial hearing officer to discuss this matter. Please contact this
office by August 15, 1991 to arrange that meeting. Failure to do so
may result in having your academic records place [sic] on disciplinary
hold.
Sincerely,
[SIGNATURE]
Michael D. Russel
Interim Coordinator,
Office of Judicial Affairs
[END QUOTE]
--
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: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brack violated
Message-ID: <1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org>
References: <1991Oct13.140940.14103@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 15:06:13 GMT
(This is my critique of the OSU charges against Steven Brack. A
version of this note was posted on July 15th. I've revised it in light
of the letters Steven Brack released.)
One of most important lessons I have learned from our discussions on
the Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list is that good
communications between users and sys admins is critical. As Sanjay
Kapur, a sys admin at SUNY Stony Brook, wrote on June 20th:
"My experience has taught me that ALL problems of abuse etc. come
about due to lack of communications between the Systems staff and the
users. Direct access to the systems staff who actually manage the
system in addition to access to a front office (e.g. an accounts
office, a user support office, Student assistants) has to be a central
element of any policy."
The Ohio State affair could be a case study in what happens when
communications breaks down and all actions are ascribed to malice.
Remember how this all started. Mr. Brack reformatted the system manual
pages on an HP workstation.
Academic Computer Services's (ACS) viewpoint: Mr. Brack vandalized the
system.
Brack's viewpoint: It was an accident; I assumed it would only
reformat only my personal manual pages. If reformatting is such a
terrible thing to do, why are the file permissions set so that anyone
can do it?
In the next event, Mr. Brack got into a heated argument in alt.flame.
He replied to someone else's note with the message "fuck you". (This
is exactly the kind of message for which alt.flame was designed.) The
note that Mr. Brack replied was set so that by default all replies
would go to not only alt.flame but also rec.aquaria. Thus, Mr. Brack
posted the message "fuck you" to the aquarium newsgroup.
ACS's viewpoint: Mr. Brack "posted an obscene message."
Brack's viewpoint: I was tricked into posting to rec.aquaria. I didn't
even know that replies could be directed to other groups.
So how can ACS and Mr. Brack view the same events so differently?
William Murray's note of June 29 addresses this question:
"The student knows that systems are robust. 'Pac-Man' never broke.
'King's Quest' never broke. You could push as hard as you wanted to;
it never broke. You could not get out of the 'land.' It did not
break. Yet. Push! Problems are related to hardware and software,
not users. The rules of the game are implicit in the game. If you
can do it, it is legitimate. The way you 'win the game' is to explore
the land to its outermost boundaries."
"The system administrator knows that systems are fragile. Most have
come about by elaboration of earlier systems. They were not designed
of a piece. Even when we do a major upgrade, we often include
function from earlier systems, usually as an accommodation to users.
This functionality often includes gratuitous generality and
flexibility. The systems have often been extended to support user
populations which are much larger and less orderly than the ones for
which the systems were conceived. The result is systems which are not
as robust as might be indicated or expected for their current use and
user populations. The system administrator knows this."
Here are my comments on the specifics of the Ohio State affair. [I'm
quoting from my previous note.] Recall that the Joint Statement
on Rights and Freedoms of Students says that "[t]he burden of proof
should rest upon the officials bringing the charge."
"1. While on the HPUXA computer, you attempted to send a command that
would shut the system off. Your account was suspended. You met
with Collins and Miller and signed a "Ethical Standards of
Conduct" form and agreed to abide by the policies of the [sic]
Academic Computing Services (ACS)."
He is not accused of actually executing this command; as an ordinary
user it would be impossible for him to execute this command.
"2. You allegedly posted an obscene message on a bulletin board and
copied it to several other networks. The contents of the message
was [sic] in conflict with established standards of practice for
most of the additional networks." (i.e. posting the phrase "fuck
you" to national the alt.flame and rec.aquaria newsgroups.)
The phrase "fuck you" is rude, but protected speech. It is not
obscene. The posting to rec.aquaria was accidental. The posting
to alt.flame was consistent with the purpose of that newsgroup.
"3. Collins and Miller met with you again and suspended your account
indicating that you would no longer have access to HPUXA or any
other network at the University."
This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack
without due process, they have committed an offense. Moreover, ACS has
no authority to restict Mr. Brack from, for example, the Library's
network.
"4. Allegedly you continued the same practices using an account
provided to you through the College of Engineering. They issued
you a restricted account that was to be used for academically-
related [sic] work only. You were specifically advised not to
use the computer system to access national bulletin boards."
Without more specific information this is not an offense.
"5. Your social security number showed up on the account of another
person during sessions which used national networks."
The other student charged a *free* print job to Mr. Brack's social
security number with Mr. Brack's permission. They did this because
the file that contained the other student's SSN was corrupted.
"6. It was confirmed that you used another student's account to
access a computer system at the University of Denver [sic]. This
was in direct opposition to your instructions not to use the
University's system to access national networks."
The other student accessed Mr. Brack's account at the University of
Denver. This violates no Ohio State rules (or rules of the University
of Denver system).
"7. Additionally, allegedly you were keeping a number of non-academic
files on a microcomputer system in the Central [sic] Biology
system [sic]. You were advised against abusing your privileges
on this system and excess files were removed. ..."
This violated no Ohio State rules. (Rather than ask
Mr. Brack to remove his files; all his files were deleted.)
... "Several times you
were allegedly warned to use only one computer at a time
(apparently you may have been using more than one). This
practice continued despite this warning."
This is a petty accusation. Using multiple Macs when the lab is nearly
empty violated no Ohio State rules. When asked to move to one Mac
(because a class was expected), Mr Brack did.
"8. Apparently you copied 24 copies [sic] of a mathematics program
[sic] to the hard disk of the Central [sic] Biology Computer lab
computer [sic]. This used up a considerable amount of the hard
disk space. This was allegedly done in retaliation against the
administrators of that system."
This is false. Mr. Brack used 24 meg of disk space, but did
not store 24 copies of any programs. This violated no Ohio State
rules. When asked to free up disk space, Mr. Brack did.
"9. Toward the end of May, after being banned from all ACS computers,
you used the MAGNUS system to connect with the University of
Denver [sic] computer."
Same as #6.
In sum, you may not like Mr. Brack. You may have found his "fuck you"
note offense and his subsequent defense of himself whinny. But whether
you like him or not, the pettiness and weakness of the so-called
charges against Mr. Brack (he is not accused of causing any actual
damage), support the conclusion that this whole affair has more to do
with poor communications than with computer vandalism.
I say "so-called charges" because these are not really even charges.
A charge is an alleged action paired with the rule(s) that it
violates. Mr. Brack was sent a list of vague rules like the Other
Rule: "(K) Violation of other published University regulations,
policies, or rules, or any other violation of state or federal law
committed on University premises." In a separate letter, and only
after it requested it, he was send information about his alleged
actions. The actions were NEVER paired with the rules to form charges.
How, for example, can he defend himself against the Other Rule if he
doesn't know which alleged actions violate it?
The letters suggest that such unfairness might be OK for an informal
inquiry. Note, however, that the purpose of the inquiry is to "to
determine if the alleged violation of Rules 3335-25-01 (E), (F), (G),
(J), and (K) did, indeed, occur."
I would hope that Ohio State actually bothers to try to write up the
charges against Mr. Brack and that the charges are then dropped and
that his computer expulsion is ended. In the future, I hope that ACS
will handle problems less hysterically and more professionally by:
1) working with the user community to create and implement a good
written policy
2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when
necessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing.
- 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: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brack violated
Message-ID: <1991Oct13.160123.28995@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 91 16:01:23 GMT
References: <1991Oct13.140940.14103@eff.org>
In article <1991Oct13.140940.14103@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[According to Steven Brack, this is the text of a letter he received
>from OSU. Except as marked, all typo are his own. Reposted with
>Steven Brack's permission. - Carl]
[Letter removed]
Fascinating. This letter is nearly identical to the letter I received at
an entirely different university, though it looks like OSU has three
catch-all charges (failure to comply, disrupting university activities, and
failure to follow other (unstated) rules), rather than just two.
For Mr. Brack's sake, I hope the process which follows is not similar.
--
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:1244 comp.admin.policy:1029 comp.org.eff.talk:4513 alt.censorship:1890
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 1.30
Message-ID: <1991Oct13.172208.16372@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 17:22:08 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-news). Information about CAF-news followings the
abstract. The full CAF-news is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n30
--- begin abstract 1.30 ---
[Best of the month of September, 1991
The first and second notes are a critique of the policy of Computing
Services at Central Michigan University. In the policy, Computing
Services asserts ownership on all "user" files on its system. The
critique calls this assertion an attempt of theft, pointing out that
University ownership would mean that the University could sell user
files to outsiders. The critique calls a new policy, created with user
participation.<1991Sep2.192241.1731@eff.org>
<1991Sep4.003030.2331@eff.org> The third note agrees that user
participation is desirable, but observes that users are often
apathetic and uninterested in policy.
<202C75A18080B52F@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
The next two notes concern the application of library policy to
computers. The first note reports that the American Library
Association (ALA) says that access restrictions can be censorship. The
note includes the ALA's definitions of censorship and related terms.
<1991Sep23.151518.18589@eff.org> The next note tries to clarify the
analogy between a traditional library and a computer. The note says
that Netnews should compared to a library, rather it should be
compared to the set of publications from which a library selects. The
note also includes the Hypothetical Netnews Bill of Rights, a
modification of the ALA's Library Bill of Rights.
<1991Sep18.152828.6297@eff.org>
In the next note, Mike Godwin, legal staff for the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) says that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA) could be reasonably construed to protect university email.
<1991Sep23.190848.24422@eff.org>
The next note says that allowing some personal and recreational use of
computers that are mostly for instructional use, works fine in
practice.<1991Sep26.041948.27809@visix.com>
The next note concedes that an owner can do most anything he, she, or
it wishes with his, her, or its computer. When that owner is an
organization, however, it must act within the bounds of its charter.
Thus, the U.S. Government must act within the bounds of its charter,
the Constitution.<1991Sep18.200431.12028@eff.org>
The next two notes are about magazine/newsgroup selection. The first
note says that contrary to what they may say, many librarians avoid
the selection of material that offends them.
<6665D4606E821004@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The second note highlights the
ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing. The Workbook covers
everything from developing a selection policy to handling challenges
to controversial materials.<1991Sep21.215316.833@eff.org> The full
Workbook is available on-line; just send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
Recently, someone at the University of Illinois posted a note that
some found offensive. Some of the offended said that the poster could
be punished by the University. The penultimate note is an explanation
of why a state university such as the University of Illinois cannot
legally punish a student for being offensive.
<1991Sep17.195000.9335@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
The last note is a discussion of rules that balance an individual
user's rights with the need to keep the computer system running
smoothly. The note includes six real-life problems, possible rules
might cover the problems, and a report about how the problems were
really solved.<1991Sep5.205747.17426@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- Carl]
--- end abstract 1.30 ---
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-news is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to listserv@eff.org.
Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index".
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
