From comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Nov 12 08:22:05 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 21:28:13 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 21:27:34 EST 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Computer policy (was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agre
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Critique of Ohio State ACS policy
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. W
stricher@masig3.oc : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
mnemonic@eff.org ( : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
langfod@atlantis.c : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
sa114984@longs.LAN : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
allens@yang.earlha : Re: Rights of Readers/Posters
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: Computer policy (was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.151557.7203@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov10.215610.17212@eff.org> <2740@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 15:15:57 GMT
marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
[...]
>I would ask the readers of this group to help formulate a generic
>draft on "Acceptable Use of Computing Resources". It seems to me that
>we will benefit more from debate/discussion of this than to go on and
>on about something that none of us (except for the afflicted parties)
>have the COMPLETE story for examination. We can start off assuming a
>university environment but I don't think that has to be a restriction.
>Points to consider:
> 1. Respect for individual rights/privacy
> 2. Assumption of responsibility/liability for misuse
> 3. Enforcement/Education procedures
> 4. Scope of authority
> 5. Appeal processes
[...]
Here is an unofficial, draft Statement on Computers and Academic
Freedom. It is not a full Computers Policy (or a full Acceptable Use
Policy or a full Appropriate Use Policy), but it might be useful as a
tool for those developing such a policies.
I've been collecting comments and suggestions about this policy in
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf-statement. To get this file
by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include
the lines:
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom README
----------------------------------------------------
Subject: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF)
Message-ID: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:07:22 GMT
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It is made up of two kinds of
statements. The first, labeled as principles, are premises. The
second, labeled as interpretations, are conclusions drawn from the
principles.
The two kinds of statements can be thought of as axioms and theorems.
An axiom (principle) is most likely to be criticized for being
unreasonable. A theorem (interpretation) is mostly likely to be
criticized for not following from the principles.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). On the documents referenced are available on-line. Access
information is at the end of this note.
- Carl
-------------------------------------------
I. General
Principle: The principles of academic freedom apply to academic
computer systems. Computer polices should be consistent with general
university codes and widely accepted statements on academic freedom
such as the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
II. Policy Formulation
Interpretation: "The institution has an obligation to clarify those
standards of behavior which it considers essential to its educational
mission and its community life. These general behavioral expectations
and the resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable
regulation of [user] conduct, but the [user] should be as free as
possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his
education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and
interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles
of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be
instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with
significant [user] participation and published in advance through such
means as a [user] handbook or a generally available body of
institutional regulations." [Joint Statement]
II. Student and Faculty Discipline
Principle: Suspension or expulsion from a computer is a serious
penalty. Users facing these penalties should be given due process
protection similar to that given to those facing other serious
penalties such as a formal disciplinary warning, a failing grade for
cheating, or suspension from class.
Interpretation: "Pending action on the charges, the status of a [user]
should not be altered, or his [or her] right to be present on the
campus and to attend classes [and use computers] suspended, except for
reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being,
or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students,
faculty, or university property." [Joint Statement]
III. Privacy
Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
protections as private communications via telephone.
IV. Computer Expression
Interpretation: "Academic institutions exist for the transmission of
knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the
general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth." [Joint Statement]
Principle: The principles of intellectual freedom developed by
libraries should be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select
newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and
books.
Interpretation: "Every [academic computer] system should have a
comprehensive policy on the selection of [information] materials."
[ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing]
Interpretation: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because
of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" [Article 2, Library Bill of
Rights].
Principle: The principles of academic freedom applicable to student
and faculty publication in traditional media, apply to student and
faculty publication in computer media.
Interpretation: An article or note posted by a student to a newsgroup
is a student publication.
Interpretation: "Student publications [and the publications of other
users] 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 [...]
concerns to the attention of the faculty and the institutional
authorities and of formulating [...] opinion on various issues on the
campus and in the world at large." [Joint Statement]
Interpretation: "The institutional control of campus facilities should
not be used as a device of censorship." "[User publications] should be
free of censorship and advance approval of copy ..." [Joint Statement]
Interpretation: "All university published and financed [user]
publications should explicitly state [...] that the opinions there
expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or
student body. [Joint Statement]
-----------------------
References
Documents may be accessed via ftp (see the first line after the
document title). They may also be accessed via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note include the second
line after the document title.
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights
send acad-freedom student.rights
Library Bill of Rights
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
Freedom to Read Statement
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala
send library-policies freedom-to-read.ala
Intellectual Freedom Statement
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
CAF Archive's README file
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/README
send acad-freedom README
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agreement
Message-ID: <9111111608.AA26811@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 11 Nov 91 04:08:38 GMT
From: emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti)
Date: 11 Nov 91 03:23:57 GMT
In article <1991Nov9.000038.2379@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
> How readily is this permission granted?
Permission is very readily granted. In fact, to my knowledge, no
one who has sought permission has ever been refused. The purpose
of the permission is to have some modicum of assurance that the
student is aware of the issues involved in using the Internet, and
the students' responsibilities in using it.
Since the students are signing some other documents along the way, it
would seem to me that you could spare some extra effort and time by
simply giving them access straight away. Students have to put up with
enough of a paper chase as is to get effective use out of university
resources.
It is simply asking that the student acknowledge that they are
aware of their responsibilities and that their use of the net be
reasonably connected to education, which is one of the purposes of
the net.
"The net" has many purposes and many rules. Some parts of the net
have no restrictions at all on apprpriate use; other pieces are
strictly limited to mission-critical efforts. Tracking just exactly
what is and is not allowed, permitted, encouraged, or required for all
possible uses of the net could easily be a full time job. You would
serve your purposes just as well by providing easy on-line access to
the appropriate rules, responsibilities, and the plethora of
netiquette and appropriate use guidelines.
> Imagine getting expelled for signing onto the card catalog at
> another school!
You can imagine it, but a student is more likely to win the state
lottery than to be expelled for something that trivial.
But how is that to be guaranteed? If it is in fact so trivial then
I'd think it would be best to back down from rules which you don't
intend to enforce and come up with a code that is meaningful.
Otherwise, students run the risk of being punished arbitrarily and
selectively for "infractions" which go unnoticed most of the time.
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
--
Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, MSEN Inc. emv@msen.com
MSEN, Inc. 628 Brooks Ann Arbor MI 48103 +1 313 741 1120
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Critique of Ohio State ACS policy
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.161317.12947@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 91 16:13:17 GMT
References: <1991Nov9.140334.9055@eff.org> <1991Nov9.152336.10203@eff.org>
In general, I agree with Carl's critique. However, some of his suggestions
might be rather difficult to implement.
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>> o Respect the finite capacity of systems, and limit your own
>> use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of
>> other users.
>
>What is unreasonable? Who decides? Is any warning given?
"Unreasonable" is an adjective whose application will change "on the fly".
For instance, a user running 15 background jobs at 3 in the morning is
causing fewer problems than one who runs 15 background jobs at 1 in the
afternoon. A user writing experimental TCP/IP programs on a one-user
workstation is causing fewer problems that one running identical programs
on a 200-user system.
I think that, once again, user education is the answer to this particular
problem. I have found that users, once they are made aware of the "system
impact" of background jobs and memory-intensive programs, are more than
willing to limit their own use, in order to help their fellow users.
The same rationale applies to disk quotas. Many of our users have dis-
covered /tmp and /usr/tmp, using them as "freebie" disk space. After I
explain the importance of those directories, they have invariably adjusted
their use. All it takes is information.
>> o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
>> system.
>
>What procedures? How are they decided? Are they posted?
Administrative procedures are extremely liquid. If the network is sick,
we may arbitrarily (and temporarily) limit the number of inbound/outbound
TCP/IP connections. If we have disk drive problems, we may arbitrarily
(and temporarily) move users around on the file systems or change their
quotas. If we find a collision in the user namespace, we may even have
to change their userid. None of these ad hoc procedures are subject to
debate or modification; we make every effort to inform our users, but we
are often forced to make these decisions on the fly.
I certainly agree that certain administrative procedures should be clearly
explained to the users from the beginning. Electronic mail management, Usenet
management, and such things as CPU/connect time/disk quotas should be clearly
understood by all users.
Almost all administrative procedures should be made available to users
on a "by request" basis. Our "users' policy" should be relatively con-
cise; it should, of course, direct the user to sources of more informa-
tion. With the discussion in this newsgroup, it seems that the policy
document handed to a user should cover almost every contingency and every
possible situation. I don't really see any good in passing out some 20-page
policy statement to users. We should certainly tell them how to get more
information, but we certainly don't want to flood them; most students are
flooded with enough bureaucratic crud as it stands today.
Perhaps we should be creating a "Policy Roadmap", which would direct stu-
dents to the individual policy statements. Since much of computing policy
is derived from general University policy, this would be a much more effec-
tive approach.
It might look something like this (All rules are fictitious):
- Abuse of Computer Systems
Paragraph X.Y(a) of the University Rules and Regulations
states that "Students shall not misuse or abuse University
property, facilites, or computer systems". This Computing
Center determines those actions which constitute "misuse
or abuse". Those actions include, but are not limited to:
- Game playing
- Violation of CPU/connect time/disk quotas
- Sharing your userid/password with other people
- Sending (or attempting to send) anonymous elec-
tronic mail.
- Harassing users through either electronic mail
or interactive messages.
Naturally, there are many possible means of misuse or abuse.
What is appropriate on one system may not be on another.
For a complete list of inappropriate actions, please contact
a computing center staff member. If you believe that your
action may be in violation of these rules, you are expected to
contact the computing center staff *before* initiating the
action. We will do our best to accomodate your needs.
Some actions normally considered to be abusive may be
necessary in an academic environment. For instance,
a class in probability theory might use a game as an
instructional tool. If you believe that you have an
academic need for a normally prohibited activity, you
are expected to contact the computing center for per-
mission BEFORE the activity is initiated. We are pre-
pared to make exceptions to our policies for legitimate
academic needs, but we must be informed of those needs.
--
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: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.181153.8133@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 18:11:53 GMT
References: <8702F5953E41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <8702F5953E41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
>>> o Respect the privacy and rules governing the use of any
>>> information accessible through the computer system or
>>> network, even when that information is not securely
>>> protected.
>>
>>Makes users liable for any complaint from any foreign system administrator,
>>even if they were not aware of the rules which the foreign sysadmin claims
>>they have broken-- even if they accessed the system through an unpassworded
>>"guest" account.
>>
>
>Just because someone leaves the doors to their house open does not mean you
>can enter and take a shower or eat from the pantry. You still need the
>homeowner's permission. Just because the doors are open does not mean you can
>go in and break open the jewellery box and admire the jewellery.
>
>The assumption that any unpassworded guest account is an invitation to enter is
>totally unwarranted. Even more unwarranted and illegal is the assumption that
>entry made through such an account is an open invitaion to attempt to break
>security.
I agree with your second statement, but not with the first-- but we've had
this argument before, I think, and are not going to get anywhere arguing it
again.
>>> o Respect the finite capacity of systems, and limit your own
>>> use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of
>>> other users.
>>
>>This looks like license to punish for _ANYTHING_! (WHAT! You were running
>>TWO copies of gnuemace while compiling your program? CPU HOG!)
>
>The operating word here is "unreasonably".
>
>This clause seems to be meant for a fair distribution of resources. I guess
>some people do not believe in fairness if you object to this clause.
Define "unreasonably". The definition of this word is left entirely up to
the discretion of the punishing official. What a sysadmin considers
unreasonable will likely be different than what a user considers unreasonable,
and the sysadmin is not necessarily right.
>>> o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
>>> system.
>>
>>This is a blank check-- means the users have to abide by any policies
>>unilaterally established in the future.
>If you do not like this, what would you propose every time a new operating
>system version or hardware release came along?
What does new hardware/system versions have to do with it? My objection has
not been answered.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <5406@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 91 17:23:50 GMT
References: <8C3218E5BE41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu
Distribution: na
Sanjay Kapur writes
+ >
+ >Maybe. On the other hand, as I understand it, this agreement was signed as
a
+ >condition for Mr. Brack getting his account back at ACS-- if ACS did not
+ >have the authority to suspend it in the first place, and the account was
+ >necessary for Mr. Brack's school work, then the agreement could probably be
+ >considered to have been made under duress.
+
+ Duress applies ONLY when there is threat of physical harm.
No, that's not true. It doesn't have to be *physical*. I could say to
you "have sex with that dog or I fire you for insubordination". No
physical harm done, but still it would be duress. Besides, you can
find another job so you don't have to starve.
Char
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.181835.8264@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 18:18:35 GMT
References: <89E3FE00BE41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <89E3FE00BE41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>Administrators are supposed to run their systems-- their job is not to order
>>students around-- that is beyond their authority. If the head of the library
>>ordered a student not to use the group study rooms, the student would not be
>>in the wrong if he ignored the order-- same goes for administrators ordering
>>a student not to use certain parts of a computer system.
>>
>
>I strongly suspect that you have absolutely no idea of how Systems
>administrators are supposed to run their systems. For that matter you have no
>idea of how group study rooms are assigned in a library either. (Does the
>word "reserved room" and "closing time" ring a bell?)
The library admins can set closing times, and remove students who violate
them-- they CANNOT tell Joe Student that he cannot use a room that anyone else
may use. They may not do this even if Joe Student has been a pain in the neck
in the past-- if they want to restrict someone from the library, they have
to go to Judicial Programs.
>>>>3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
>>>
>>>Up to the point where that freedom of expression infringes on the freedoms
>>>of others, in this case the freedom to read messages about fish without
>>>having them interspersed with inanities.
>>
>>I think *.aquaria users gave up any semblance of that when they polluted
>>news.groups, myself.
>
>So you want to deny others (all *.aquaria users ) rights just because some of
>them offend you?
No, I simply don't believe in any "freedom to read messages about fish without
having them interspersed with inanities", not on Usenet. I was merely pointing
out the hypocrisy of the sitation.
>>He is the only one being held to these norms; these norms are not part of any
>>code of conduct; he was punished by an agency without the authority to do
>>so. As to what it has to do with computers and Usenet and networks-- tha
>>seems to be central to the case?
>
>The only real punishment he was given was by the judicial hearing body. Please
>get your facts straight.
You still don't think being restricted from the computers is a punishment?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.182518.8349@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 18:25:18 GMT
References: <8B2EC67BDE41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <8B2EC67BDE41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
>>>
>>>One of the reasons why politicians and bureaucrats have the power they have is
>>>that they are very skilled in the art of obfuscation.
>>
>>And also avoidance-- this is the major reason I distrust account suspension
>>pending meeting with some official-- the official may make himself unavailble
>>to the suspended student.
>
>The proper approach at that point is for the student to approach the dean/
>department chair/faculty advisor.
Dean of what? Which department chair? Faculty advisor? The computer
administrators are not necessarily part of any academic department-- in fact,
I got the impression that ACS at OSU was not. Did you ever try, as an
undergrad, to arrange a meeting with the head of ANYTHING? They will give you
the runaround, shunt you to subordinates who claim that they cannot do anything
for you. When you ask them for their superior, they name another subordinate--
eventually, it comes full circle and you realize you've been taken.
>These people, being bureaucrats themselves
>in a modern University, know how to get the attention of the official who
>suspended the account.
But they have no REASON to-- they are bureaucrats, and as such, ignoring the
problem is easier than solving it. (This, of course, is the same reason the
sysadmin will make himself unavailable-- once the account is suspended, HIS
problem is solved. It is now the student's problem)
>You may not like it, but account suspension is currently the only realistic
>way for a system admnistrator to be able to do his job in most cases.
That kind of absolute power is too dangerous to put into the hands of an
offical without some established formal recourse.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.182817.8437@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 18:28:17 GMT
References: <8C3218E5BE41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <8C3218E5BE41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>
>>Maybe. On the other hand, as I understand it, this agreement was signed as a
>>condition for Mr. Brack getting his account back at ACS-- if ACS did not
>>have the authority to suspend it in the first place, and the account was
>>necessary for Mr. Brack's school work, then the agreement could probably be
>>considered to have been made under duress.
>
>Duress applies ONLY when there is threat of physical harm.
>
>Your agreement to pay the phone company for your phone usage would, under your
>defintion be duress, because they will refuse to reconnect the phone which may
>be necessary for school work and a lot more.
If I was a company which depended on phone service on Christmas day, and I had
already contracted for it, and the phone company representative came to me
December 24 and told me that if I didn't sign an agreement to pay them
additional money, they would cut me off, ruining my business, I would sign--
and no court in the country would uphold the agreement.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.192758.12833@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov8.031314.2174@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1991Nov8.173421.9613@eff.org> <1991Nov9.015928.192@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: North America
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 19:27:58 GMT
In article <1991Nov9.015928.192@leland.Stanford.EDU> elsonliu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Liu) writes:
>
>Obviously, student speech is protected under the First Amendment
>provided that speech is given in a public forum. However, if OSU did not
>create the *Lantern* as such a forum, but rather as part of an academic
>program, the university administration retains the right to regulate the
>content of the paper. The fact that it had not done so previously does not
>necessarily mean it had surrendered that right.
Typically, the university administration discovers that it had created
a student newspaper "as part of an academic program" rather than as
"a public forum" only *after* the newspaper has printed something
controversial--often about the administration in question.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, | "So why are we here?
mnemonic@eff.org | "We are here to decipher the digital messages
(617) 864-0665 | from our sponsors."
EFF, Cambridge | --Timothy Leary
-------------------
From: langfod@atlantis.cs.orst.edu (Maggot_Muncher)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.074256.20430@atlantis.cs.orst.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 91 07:42:56 GMT
References: <9111090128.AA25494@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
> Will you reimburse me the cost of procuring one from OSU?
> They won't simply give me one, I have to buy it from them.
>
> -- Steve
Heck- I will reimburse you for a copy. :-)
David Langford
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Langford - Corvallis, OR | `Let the sweet breezes heal me |
| | As they rove around the girth |
| langfod@atlantis.cs.orst.edu | Of our lovely mother planet, |
| langfod@jacobs.cs.orst.edu | Of the cool green hills of Earth.' |
| | _Green Hills of Earth_ -Heinlein |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
-------------------
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <19255@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>
Date: 11 Nov 91 22:17:22 GMT
References: <1991Nov1.224101.22705@unislc.uucp> <1991Oct28.145842.10094@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> <1991Oct29.214224.10346@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sender: news@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Gosh, guys, I really don't know what it is with all this knocking
Republicans. Heck, even Libertarians are only Republicans who thought
the GOP was soft on individual rights. Compared to the Democrats, we're
heaven. they've adopted so many rights for so little good reason that
they mean nothing anymore; moreover, many of these bogus "rights"
violate the true rights all people possess.
Myself, I'm a real conservative Republican, and I believe that the
right to life, liberty, property and self-defense are all ABSOLUTE,
except of course that you can't use them to violate someone else's
rights. So, for example, if a murderer violated someone else's right to
life, then the murderer, by a VOLUNTARY act, WAIVES his own right to
life. Therefore he can be executed.
But if you don't waive your own rights, no government has the right to
violate them -- for ANY reason.
I think you guys are worried about the religious right. Fine. But
don't adopt false stereotypes of ALL Republicans -- many of us are more
staunchly for human rights than you think.
(c) 1991, All Rites Reversed. Eat right, exercize regularly, die anyway.
Steve
-------------------
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu
Subject: Re: Rights of Readers/Posters
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.163455.13902@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 91 21:34:55 GMT
References: <9111072231.AA05575@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
In article <9111072231.AA05575@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
> In reply to the mail from ...
>>
>>Let me clarify myself. I don't think that an individual on any site has any
>>"rights" wrt what comes over the net, and what other people on other sites
>>do. Thus, you don't have the "right" not to be offended, or the "right"
>>not to have to read innapropriate posts (as a *READER*), etc.
>>
>>The only right I think you should have on USENET is the right to freedom
>>of speech, and thus only posters have rights, not readers. Just like the
>>readers of a newspaper have only the right to pitch the thing or write a
>>letter into the editor (and thereby become a "poster"...)
>>>you need to think about what you're saying. One of the major obligations
>>>of the legal system is the determination of points at which individual rights
>>>become secondary, in favor of group or "societal" rights. The most common
>>>analogy is the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" maxim. Your rights to
>>>free assembly/speech stop at the other person's doorstep. While the "right
>>>to privacy" has never been explicitly given (it has been constructed from a
>>>broad range of decisions), it most certainly exists, even in an arbitrary
>>>state.
As far as I can tell, the only constitutional basis for group
rights is rights of a group as the individuals who make up that group have
rights. In other words, the persons in the theater have the right not to
have someone falsely shouting "fire" at them, thus causing at minimum an
inconvenience. The Bill of Rights mentions no groups whatsoever except
States and the Federal Government.
>
> But there is no right-not-to-be-offended.
>
>>>whether you like it or not. There is a point at which the reader's rights
>>>can override those of the poster.
>
> No, No, a thousand times no!!!
>
> I as a reader have absolutely no right-not-to-be-offended. If I'm offended by a
> particular idea, that's my problem. I have no legal recourse, unless I can
> fulfill the legal requirements for libel. Just because I don't like, or am
> offended by, certain speech does not mean that I have the right to silence it.
> Universities and colleges that do so in the name of "political correctness"
> or to combat any of the currently-in-vogue "isms" are wrong. The instant you
> begin censoring speech for content you commit the worst abomination known to
> to civilizization: the supression of ideas. The free flow of ideas is the
> essense of frredom, both academic, economic, and political. It is absolutely
> essential that we allow the free flow of ideas.Even ideas we may personally
> find repugnant have worth. Notice I did not say value, just worth. We cannot
> suppress ideas. If I am offended by an idea, I would suggest that I examine
> my own thoughts and ideas to see why.
>
Agreed.
>
>>
>>>I am not commenting on this particular incident, nor am I saying that the
>>>"reader's rights" are preeminent in this case. I just wanted to point out
>>>that readers DO have rights, within the context of Usenet.
>>
>>Currently, they really don't. They have the right to express their opinion,
>>but thats about it (and of course, they have the right to change the system,
>>but then then we wouldn not be considering the current situation). IMHO,
>>this shouldn't change much. Right now USENET is an absolutely free forum
>>to express any idea that you wish, and I would rather that didn't change
>>-- if that means we have to deal with a few idiots like Yahweh, then thats
>>the price we have to pay...
>
> I agree wholeheartedly.
>
Readers do have the right to skip reading articles, if they can
tell they're not what the reader wants to read. I have the right not to
-Allen
Standard Disclaimers
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Tue Nov 12 08:22:05 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 20:45:41 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 11 20:42:07 EST 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. W
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet and
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM : Re: RICE's Owlnet (Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
-- RICE's Owlnet doesn't permit undergrads to send off-campus Email
john@anasaz (John : Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. W
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
CAWR@CATCC.bitnet : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
sean@ms.uky.edu (S : Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. W
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: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.045906.26633@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 04:59:06 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org>> <1991Nov9.140334.9055@eff.org>
In article <1991Nov9.140334.9055@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>If Academic Computer Services (ACS) can't comment on particular cases,
>perhaps they will discuss on their relatively new policy instead.
>
>Here is the policy (first posted to CAF-talk on July 24th):
>
>The following specific principles of computer and network systems operated
>under the direction of the Office of Academic Computing are applicable to Ohio
>State students, faculty, staff, and contract employees. As users we must:
>
> o Respect the privacy and rules governing the use of any
> information accessible through the computer system or
> network, even when that information is not securely
> protected.
Makes users liable for any complaint from any foreign system administrator,
even if they were not aware of the rules which the foreign sysadmin claims
they have broken-- even if they accessed the system through an unpassworded
"guest" account.
> o Respect the ownership of proprietary software. For example,
> do not make unauthorized copies of such software for your
> own use, even when that software is not physically protected
> against copying.
No problem with this one.
> o Respect the finite capacity of systems, and limit your own
> use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of
> other users.
This looks like license to punish for _ANYTHING_! (WHAT! You were running
TWO copies of gnuemace while compiling your program? CPU HOG!)
> o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
> system.
This is a blank check-- means the users have to abide by any policies
unilaterally established in the future.
>Those who cannot accept these standards of bahavior may be denied access to
>the relevant computer systems and networks. Violators may also be subject to
>penalties under the regulations of the University and under laws of the State
>of Ohio or the United States of America to the extent applicable.
With no procedure established for determining who is a violator, this document
gives the admins everything and the users nothing. There is no value to the
users for signing this document (except that ACS will deny access to those
who refuse to sign-- which in itself is a violation of the OSU rules (as
reported) which state that every student gets an email account).
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.051033.26860@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 05:10:33 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov7.160237.29438@eff.org> <1991Nov09.122028.4781@cavebbs.gen.nz>
In article <1991Nov09.122028.4781@cavebbs.gen.nz> clear@cavebbs.gen.nz (Charlie Lear) writes:
>In article <1991Nov7.160237.29438@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>How many others have OSU suspended for similar offences? Hundreds? Dozens?
>A few? None?
Someone has to be first.
>How many thousands of students are there at OSU? Doesn't it seem odd that
>you are publicly championing someone who, by espousing terms of injured
>innocence, is trying to convince The World that it's not his fault that
>OSU happen to be picking on him?
And you are trying to convince us that Brack deserved what he got, based on the
evidence that he got it.
>>2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
>
>You're assuming an egalitarian relationship where none exists. Brack was
>instructed to do some things and specifically not to do others. You're
>telling the world (in deleted text above) that the administrators concerned
>should have accepted deliberate disobedience and let Brack do as he liked.
>Wonderful precedent you're trying to set.
Administrators are supposed to run their systems-- their job is not to order
students around-- that is beyond their authority. If the head of the library
ordered a student not to use the group study rooms, the student would not be
in the wrong if he ignored the order-- same goes for administrators ordering
a student not to use certain parts of a computer system.
>>3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
>
>Up to the point where that freedom of expression infringes on the freedoms
>of others, in this case the freedom to read messages about fish without
>having them interspersed with inanities.
I think *.aquaria users gave up any semblance of that when they polluted
news.groups, myself.
>>4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when
>>necessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing.
>
>Are you saying that the entire Brack affair was some sort of esoteric
>play-by-mail one-sided farce?
Ever been in this situation? A "one sided farce" is exactly the sort of
situation this sounds like to me. (true, after it went to the judicial
people, there was a hearing-- everything else seemed quite unilateral)
>On review of the facts, it would appear
>that he had ample opportunity to put forward his "case" to the appropriate
>people. He simply failed to avail himself of the chances given to him to
>clean up his act. Why should we even be discussing this case when in
>essence, Brack failed to communicate effectively with administrative staff?
>His lack of communication, and apparent unwillingness to behave in
>accordance with accepted norms, caused the suspension. What has that got
>to do with Usenet and computers and networks?
He is the only one being held to these norms; these norms are not part of any
code of conduct; he was punished by an agency without the authority to do
so. As to what it has to do with computers and Usenet and networks-- tha
seems to be central to the case?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.051502.27004@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 91 05:15:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1991Nov11.051502.27004
References: <1991Nov7.225306.27158@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.232647.13805@eff.org> <1991Nov09.124319.5063@cavebbs.gen.nz>
In article <1991Nov09.124319.5063@cavebbs.gen.nz> clear@cavebbs.gen.nz (Charlie Lear) writes:
>In article <1991Nov7.232647.13805@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Even if Steven took every action that was alledged and even if every
>>action violated a University rule and even if every Unviersity rule
>>was legally valid, the University was still in the wrong (and in
>>violation of the law) by denying Steven procedural due process.
>
>And that makes everything Steven did right?
No, if this were the case, both would be in the wrong.
>Hmm. I read stuff like this on the other side of the world, and I
>find it extraordinary that you can even consider stating such a viewpoint.
>What is your grasp of the concept of accountability? Are you convinced that
>a person can do anything they like in defiance of legitimate authority and
>in abeyance of accepted normal conduct, without being held accountable for
>their actions?
There is a major question (in my mind, anyway) as to whether ACS had this
'legitmate authority'.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.052144.27134@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 05:21:44 GMT
References: <9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
In article <9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
>From: doubt@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Douglas Benjamin Triggs)
>Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 08:49:07 GMT
>
>
>In one way, it isn't so bad. For the most part, the rules are not
>enforced except when problems occur. But, as students, we don't know
>when they will be enforced and when they won't. That makes it rather
>oppressive, not to mention that despite Rice's rather better than
>average facilities, we essentially are prohibited from doing anything at
>all interesting, because it might interrupt with the "smooth" working of
>the system.
This is the most dangerous sort of policy, if what you say is true-- a policy
which is routinely violated, but which is enforcable against 'troublemakers'--
whereas an oppressive policy strictly enforced will be challenged and revoked,
this policy can stay on the books forever, becoming a weapon for administrators
to use on any students who annoy them.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.052530.27167@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 05:25:30 GMT
References: <790488EF184164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <790488EF184164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>Steven should not have to guess about whether this is the reason he
>>was dismissed. If this is the reason, the letters he received should
>>have said so clearly.
>
>You want a bureaucrat to write the reason for some action clearly? You must
>surely be kidding :-)
>
>One of the reasons why politicians and bureaucrats have the power they have is
>that they are very skilled in the art of obfuscation.
And also avoidance-- this is the major reason I distrust account suspension
pending meeting with some official-- the official may make himself unavailble
to the suspended student.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.053247.27324@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 05:32:47 GMT
References: <1991Nov10.215610.17212@eff.org> <2740@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
In article <2740@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
>Well, this thread has gotten so convoluted that I've forgotten just how
>many alleged offenses occurred. However, it seems to me that if there
>were additional 'offenses' AFTER the signing of this agreement (as
>implied by Steve's PS to his post), then we certainly have something
>wrong here.
Maybe. On the other hand, as I understand it, this agreement was signed as a
condition for Mr. Brack getting his account back at ACS-- if ACS did not
have the authority to suspend it in the first place, and the account was
necessary for Mr. Brack's school work, then the agreement could probably be
considered to have been made under duress.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: RICE's Owlnet (Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?)
Summary: RICE's Owlnet doesn't permit undergrads to send off-campus Email
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.034536.15384@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 11 Nov 91 03:45:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: ddsw1.1991Nov11.034536.15384
References: <1991Nov07.231559.20273@eng.umd.edu> <1991Nov8.025634.28048@rice.edu> <1991Nov8.170229.8822@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
In article <1991Nov8.170229.8822@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>
>[description of RICE's computer due process procedure]
>
>They sound much better than most. Can you post them?
Well, I have a friend attending Rice. I'd very much like to correspond
regularly with her, but RICE has this policy on off-campus email:
To put it bluntly, I can send her email. She can not (by policy) send
me replies. Frankly, given that Rice is on the Internet and thus the use
of email is not usage-sensitive (ie: they aren't separately charged for the
message itself) I think this is rediculous.
Why is this? Anyone at Rice want to take a crack at this one?
--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
-------------------
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.203554.6461@anasaz>
Date: 10 Nov 91 20:35:54 GMT
Keywords:
In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
]From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
]>No, but the OUTRAGEOUS boycott of Arizona by the NFL and various
]>convention groups has brought:
]
]blah blah blah ... the discovery that with rights come
]responsibilities (and attempts to duck that when it doesn't suit
]Arizona.)
I see. You claim that we have a responsibility to vote in an MLK holiday.
I think that is nonsense. Want to debate THAT issue? I did NOT ducking
of responsibility, so your comment above is simply ad hominem - the last refuge
of the politically correct!
]I have a better idea. Why don't y'all just vote an MLK holiday if it
]pisses off customers so much and is driving you bankrupt?
We might, but we are mightily pissed off about it.
]I know, "the principle" of the thing.
Hey, you got it.
]Well, hey, eat your principle then.
I see. The politically correct, who claim to be operating on principle,
want US to EAT our principles. Hey... your hypicrisy is showing.
]I have no idea how to otherwise fix your problem. If the NFL doesn't
]want to hold their superbowl in Arizona in reaction that's their
]business.
]I don't see anything immoral or illegal about their decision, Arizona
]had its choice, the NFL got theirs. They're all adults. They're all
]EMPOWERED adults with complete free choice to weigh their options,
]consider the possible implications, and make their decision and live
]with it (so spare me the strained comparisons with racism, where
]parties are not so free to participate in their end of the decision
]making process.)
Hey, dude. You are the one who brought up the responsibilities that come
with freedom. The NFL DOES have the freedom (with a slight exception -
see below). They also have a responsiblity to the communities that
host their teams, and in general as a large public organization, a
responsibility to be fair. That they bend in the wind of accusations of
racism is not a good reflection on them.
So, Barry, other than showing your insensitivity, do you actually have
a point to make?
[The argument that they may not (or maybe should not) have such freedom
is that they are a quasi-governmental organization - with laws passed just
for them, and an anti-trust exemption]
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <8702F5953E41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 11 Nov 91 13:13:00 GMT
>From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
>> o Respect the privacy and rules governing the use of any
>> information accessible through the computer system or
>> network, even when that information is not securely
>> protected.
>
>Makes users liable for any complaint from any foreign system administrator,
>even if they were not aware of the rules which the foreign sysadmin claims
>they have broken-- even if they accessed the system through an unpassworded
>"guest" account.
>
Just because someone leaves the doors to their house open does not mean you
can enter and take a shower or eat from the pantry. You still need the
homeowner's permission. Just because the doors are open does not mean you can
go in and break open the jewellery box and admire the jewellery.
The assumption that any unpassworded guest account is an invitation to enter is
totally unwarranted. Even more unwarranted and illegal is the assumption that
entry made through such an account is an open invitaion to attempt to break
security.
>
>> o Respect the finite capacity of systems, and limit your own
>> use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of
>> other users.
>
>This looks like license to punish for _ANYTHING_! (WHAT! You were running
>TWO copies of gnuemace while compiling your program? CPU HOG!)
The operating word here is "unreasonably".
This clause seems to be meant for a fair distribution of resources. I guess
some people do not believe in fairness if you object to this clause.
>
>> o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
>> system.
>
>This is a blank check-- means the users have to abide by any policies
>unilaterally established in the future.
>
If you do not like this, what would you propose every time a new operating
system version or hardware release came along?
>>Those who cannot accept these standards of bahavior may be denied access to
>>the relevant computer systems and networks. Violators may also be subject to
>>penalties under the regulations of the University and under laws of the State
>>of Ohio or the United States of America to the extent applicable.
>
>With no procedure established for determining who is a violator, this document
>gives the admins everything and the users nothing. There is no value to the
>users for signing this document (except that ACS will deny access to those
>who refuse to sign-- which in itself is a violation of the OSU rules (as
>reported) which state that every student gets an email account).
The promised account seems to be for pure email and from what I understand
only email internal to OSU. Technically it is not a violation of OSU rules if
the account owner is denied access to Usenet, off-OSU mail, programming etc.
>--
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
>Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
>Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
>(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <89E3FE00BE41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 11 Nov 91 13:34:00 GMT
>>>2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
>>
>>You're assuming an egalitarian relationship where none exists. Brack was
>>instructed to do some things and specifically not to do others. You're
>>telling the world (in deleted text above) that the administrators concerned
>>should have accepted deliberate disobedience and let Brack do as he liked.
>>Wonderful precedent you're trying to set.
>
>Administrators are supposed to run their systems-- their job is not to order
>students around-- that is beyond their authority. If the head of the library
>ordered a student not to use the group study rooms, the student would not be
>in the wrong if he ignored the order-- same goes for administrators ordering
>a student not to use certain parts of a computer system.
>
I strongly suspect that you have absolutely no idea of how Systems
administrators are supposed to run their systems. For that matter you have no
idea of how group study rooms are assigned in a library either. (Does the
word "reserved room" and "closing time" ring a bell?)
Certain parts of a computer system may be off limits for a large variety of
reasons. An example is the password file. Another example is certain parts
that are reserved for a certain class. Another reason may the software
license may limit usage to certain categories of users or limit the nnumber of
users who can have access to the system. Certain workstations may be reserved
for students in classes with projects and homeworks that require them. I can
give a large number of reasons why limits are placed on casual use of a
system.
>>>3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
>>
>>Up to the point where that freedom of expression infringes on the freedoms
>>of others, in this case the freedom to read messages about fish without
>>having them interspersed with inanities.
>
>I think *.aquaria users gave up any semblance of that when they polluted
>news.groups, myself.
So you want to deny others (all *.aquaria users ) rights just because some of
them offend you?
>
>Ever been in this situation? A "one sided farce" is exactly the sort of
>situation this sounds like to me. (true, after it went to the judicial
>people, there was a hearing-- everything else seemed quite unilateral)
As Mr. Brack seems to admit, it was the hearing that was the biggest farce.
Everthing upto then was serious.
>He is the only one being held to these norms; these norms are not part of any
>code of conduct; he was punished by an agency without the authority to do
>so. As to what it has to do with computers and Usenet and networks-- tha
>seems to be central to the case?
The only real punishment he was given was by the judicial hearing body. Please
get your facts straight.
>--
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <8B2EC67BDE41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 11 Nov 91 13:43:00 GMT
>From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
>>
>>One of the reasons why politicians and bureaucrats have the power they have is
>>that they are very skilled in the art of obfuscation.
>
>And also avoidance-- this is the major reason I distrust account suspension
>pending meeting with some official-- the official may make himself unavailble
>to the suspended student.
The proper approach at that point is for the student to approach the dean/
department chair/faculty advisor. These people, being bureaucrats themselves
in a modern University, know how to get the attention of the official who
suspended the account.
You may not like it, but account suspension is currently the only realistic
way for a system admnistrator to be able to do his job in most cases.
>
>--
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <8C3218E5BE41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 11 Nov 91 13:50:00 GMT
>
>Maybe. On the other hand, as I understand it, this agreement was signed as a
>condition for Mr. Brack getting his account back at ACS-- if ACS did not
>have the authority to suspend it in the first place, and the account was
>necessary for Mr. Brack's school work, then the agreement could probably be
>considered to have been made under duress.
Duress applies ONLY when there is threat of physical harm.
Your agreement to pay the phone company for your phone usage would, under your
defintion be duress, because they will refuse to reconnect the phone which may
be necessary for school work and a lot more.
>--
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
>Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
>Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
>(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: CAWR@CATCC.bitnet (************** William Reed **************)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <11NOV91.04022868.0150.MUSIC@CATCC>
Sender: CAWR%CATCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
References: CAWR@CATCC.bitnet (************** William Reed **************)
Date: 11 Nov 91 08:43:29 GMT
Any know the command to signing off this list?
-------------------
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.144321.24406@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 91 14:43:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Nov11.144321.24406
I see a lot of policy statements that basically make the user agree
not to illegally copy software. I'm not sure why it bothers me so
much. When a University makes me sign something that says "I won't
take illegal drugs" or "I won't copy software illegally," it is
redundant. It's already illegal. I am already responsible for my
actions. It's already University policy that if I break laws on
campus, they can kick me out of school.
Perhaps it would be better if a policy were more of an informative
nature. Something that informed the user that just because software
stored on University systems can be copied it is not necessarily legal
to copy it. And perhaps require the user to determine the legality of
any copying before doing it.
I think that's what administrators want to say: Be careful about
copying.
Sean
--
Sean Casey |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
U of KY, Lexington| conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
606-258-6000 x280 | of, but something to be danced with.''
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Wed Nov 13 09:38:49 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA13040
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 09:26:53 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 09:26:49 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111131426.AA13035@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Nov 13 09:26:15 EST 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
sean@ms.uky.edu (S : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Rights of Readers/Posters
rca@ingres.com (Bo : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: This is not a Trivial Matter!! Was: OSU Lantern, etc.
rwk@crl.dec.com (B : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet and Unive
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Off-campus use policies (was Re: Rice
john@anasaz (John : Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Orders (Was Re: Re; Brack Expulsio
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: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov12.141538.491@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 12 Nov 91 14:15:38 GMT
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu> <1991Nov9.053149.10635@visix.com> <1991Nov12.133043.23563@crl.dec.com>
rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns) writes:
[...]
|If the computer system cannot handle this, then the burden is not
|on the user to change, but rather that the university needs to clean
|up its computational act. (Yes, Unix is ill-suited, but universities
|share a lot of the blame for its propagation).
Ill suited? Should not be propagated? I suggest one look into
Universities that have well-run heavily-used Unix installations such
as MIT, Berkeley, or Rutgers University. Or look into our own small
but well used NeXT lab.
I really don't think this is an operating system specific issue.
[...]
|I mentioned Unix earlier. Unix security is ill-suited to providing
|for the sharing of information while simultaneously protecting
|privacy. Even if care is taken, generally some things on unix will
|either be readable that shouldn't, or some legitimate types of sharing
|won't be possible. And in an academic environment with a wide variety
|of users, the necessary care is seldom feasible.
A little education in Unix file protections goes a long way. Remember
that Unix was designed specifically as a research environment, where
groups of people needed to share information, while other information
needed to be private.
What typically happens is people hire Unix novices to run their
systems; they are "thrown in" with virtually no training. The expected
usually happens; things are quite a mess for a year or two until the
person bootstraps his own knowledge.
Properly administrated, Unix works perfectly fine for Universities.
There are plenty of examples. I hope people will research them and
learn from them.
Sean
--
Sean Casey |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
U of KY, Lexington| conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
606-258-6000 x280 | of, but something to be danced with.''
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Rights of Readers/Posters
Message-ID: <1991Nov12.153312.14956@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 12 Nov 91 15:33:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Nov12.153312.14956
References: <9111072231.AA05575@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> <1991Nov11.163455.13902@yang.earlham.edu>
allens@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>>morgan@ms.uky.edu (that's me) writes:
>>>whether you like it or not. There is a point at which the reader's rights
>>>can override those of the poster.
>>
>> No, No, a thousand times no!!!
>>
Let me try this again; I obviously didn't state my premise properly.
I do not intend to imply that the rights of individual readers are
(or should be) preeminent.
However, let's go back to our description of Usenet as a limited public
forum. Most of us agree that a given site may pick and choose the news-
groups it wishes to carry, providing those discussion areas for its users.
The limited public forum doctrine explicitly dictates that the administrators
of the forum may select those topics for discussion. Given that, wouldn't
the participants in that discussions have a certain right (as a group) to
participate in that discussion without interference from off-subject
posts/crossposts? Wouldn't that supersede the individual poster's right to
"post whatever he wants, whereever he likes"?
There might even be a parallel with the right of peaceful assembly.
I'm not advocating editorial control, nor am I suggesting any form of
prior restraint. I *am* suggesting more user education (there's that
phrase again). I have consistently found that users, when they really
*know* the impact of their actions, control themselves far better than
any sysadmin ever could.
--
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: rca@ingres.com (Bob Arnold)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov12.052522.14124@pony.Ingres.COM>
Date: 12 Nov 91 05:25:22 GMT
References: <1991Nov9.075352.24567@hobbes.kzoo.edu> <1991Nov09.104431.21503@slate.mines.colorado.edu> <1991Nov9.135351.8796@eff.org> <1991Nov9.180817.3381@morrow.stanford.edu>
mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Ade Barkah) writes:
>Americans are too spoiled. One censorship and they cry. Who really
>gives a damn about not being able to publish something on a
>school newspaper !
This is way off the mark. Freedom of expression is something Americans
have fought, suffered, and died for. Oppression comes from many
sources (our own American government included, I'm sad to say) and
should be fought wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head.
Also, it appears that some participants in this discussion are working to
resolve the incidents we're talking about. I think that's great. And it's
a lot better in my book than just whining.
In case you haven't guessed, Ade, I care about this. While I respect your
right not to, and to say publicly that you don't, I think you should
care about it too.
Bob
--
__ _ _ Bob Arnold Ingres, An ASK Corporation
|/ \ / \ / \| 1080 Marina Village Parkway
| / / | Alameda, CA, 94501
| \__/ \__/| rca@ingres.com 415/748-2819
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: This is not a Trivial Matter!! Was: OSU Lantern, etc.
Message-ID: <9111121331.AA11177@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 12 Nov 91 03:31:25 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Bob, are you seriously suggesting that people who live in other countries are
>not also entitled to these rights?
Absolutely not. I would and do support the concepts set forth in the U.S.
Bill of Rights to all citizens in all countries, nations, regions, etc. I
would be a hypocrite if I did not do so. My point in writing "It's Not a
Trivial Matter!!" was to disagree that the OSU _Lantern_ controversy was
irrelavant. It is extremely relavant. I also was somewhat put out by the
original author's tone, which seemed to be that Americans did not know the
true worth of freedom of speech and press because we had never _not_ had it.
I noted that the current debate on the OSU _Lantern_ shows that we care about
it very much. I was affronted by the author's tone; he implied that we are
simply whining, which I do not believe we are doing vis-a-vis this topic.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
-------------------
From: rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov12.173859.22319@crl.dec.com>
Sender: news@crl.dec.com (USENET News System)
References: <91309.07: 56:40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu> <1991Nov9.053149.10635@visix.com> <1991Nov12.133043.23563@crl.dec.com> <1991Nov12.141538.491@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 17:38:59 GMT
In article <1991Nov12.141538.491@ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
> rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns) writes:
>
> [...]
>
> |If the computer system cannot handle this, then the burden is not
> |on the user to change, but rather that the university needs to clean
> |up its computational act. (Yes, Unix is ill-suited, but universities
> |share a lot of the blame for its propagation).
>
> Ill suited? Should not be propagated? I suggest one look into
> Universities that have well-run heavily-used Unix installations such
> as MIT, Berkeley, or Rutgers University. Or look into our own small
> but well used NeXT lab.
Believe me, I have.
>
> I really don't think this is an operating system specific issue.
Indeed. I pick on Unix for its familiarity, especially to readers
of newsgroups. The filesystem and security model it provides is
the prototype for the Mac filesystem security, for example, except
the mac doesn't do it as well.
> A little education in Unix file protections goes a long way. Remember
> that Unix was designed specifically as a research environment, where
> groups of people needed to share information, while other information
> needed to be private.
>
> What typically happens is people hire Unix novices to run their
> systems; they are "thrown in" with virtually no training. The expected
> usually happens; things are quite a mess for a year or two until the
> person bootstraps his own knowledge.
This was part of my point, of course. This isn't because managers
don't care to educate their users, however, but rather that it is
simply infeasible for them to do so for EVERYONE, and we're moving
for computing for EVERYONE. Unix is definitely *not* a system well
designed for EVERYONE.
> Properly administrated, Unix works perfectly fine for Universities.
> There are plenty of examples. I hope people will research them and
> learn from them.
I think it's important to not generalize from the experience
of CS majors, when looking at the longer and larger view of
computers as social media.
Let me get specific for a moment. Let's say you have two students
who are collaborating on a research project, Joe and Sally. They
want to share files, without making them available to anyone else.
In addition, Joe wants to write a poem for his boyfriend. He's not
out of the closet, so this wants initially to be private to him, and
later to him and his boyfriend.
In *THEORY* you can do exactly what's needed here with groups.
In *PRACTICE*, it's not feasible for administrators to create a group
whenever two people want to collaborate. And the chilling effect of
having to ask for a private group, and then later ask for it to be
modified, should be apparent.
This is emphatically *NOT* an operating-system specific issue. It
may be that the files all reside on Joe's personal Macintosh, which
is connected to the campus network to facilitate access to the
courseware for his and Sally's joint project, and, of course, to
support his collaboration with Sally.
It is really important to think of the medium toward which this
is all evolving, and to not just think of a set of fixed assets
sitting in some particular room.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies
Message-ID: <9111122320.AA07027@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 12 Nov 91 11:20:29 GMT
From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 21:49:45 GMT
In article <1234>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
> ....
>
> >Inappropriate use includes, but is not limited to:
>
> ....
>
> >o accessing files or sending mail to/from off-campus sites without
> >the permission of the Vice President of Information Systems
>
> Why is this? What is the problem with sending or receiving mail from
> off-campus sites and why would the Vice President of Information Systems
> need to approve this usage?
>
You are misinterpreting the language of the condition. Receiving
things from off-campus is not restricted. Sending things only requires
that you obtain permission to do so. There is no actual barrier to
sending things. Your friend could do it without obtaining permission.
Why obtain permission? Because as I said in a previous post, the
University wants some reasonable acknowledgement that a user who is
accessing off-campus facilities, or sending messages off-campus, has a
least read the Appropriate Use of Computer Facilities policy and
understands the responsibilities they have as a user of the networks.
In addition, the University would like the students' use of the NSFnet
to be reasonably connected to education. A faculty member signs the
permission form agreeing that the stated purpose for off-campus access
is reasonably connected to education.
Why would the University want this? and why the VPIS? A couple of
years ago, Rice was threatened with two lawsuits over some e-mail that
a student sent out. The student forged the e-mail in the name of
another person not at Rice. The e-mail said some really nasty things.
The other person figured out who it was, and threatened to sue Rice.
Rice, in the course of dealing with this, revoked access by the
student who sent the forged message. That student then threatened to
sue Rice for revoking his access.
Needless to say, the University took some steps to protect itself and
to provide some brake on the ability to have this happen again.
Thus, the Appropriate Use policy with the permission for off-campus
access requirement. The VP IS is involved because that position is
the only office at Rice that could cover all students at Rice in terms
of granting permission.
>
> >Again, inappropriate use is not limited to the above situations. You
> >should send mail to consult@owlnet asking about anything that
> >might be questionable before you do it. You risk having your
> >account locked otherwise.
>
> This sounds rather draconian; additionally, you have a provision above
> (sending or receiving mail from off-site) that a user potentially has no
> control over!
Draconian? We are going out of our way to give the students a means
to *avoid* doing something that they don't realize could get them in
trouble. We are not interested in trouncing naive students who
accidentally get themselves into trouble. We want our students to
think before they act. We want them to not bumble into trouble, both
for their own sakes and because we have better, more constructive
things to do than chase down students who are screwing up the system
because they don't know any better and there was no one for them to
ask about it.
>
> Thus, a user could end up with his or her account locked without taking
> ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER.
>
Wrong. As I said above, receiving things from off-campus is not
against policy. Sending without obtaining permission is.
> This is beginning to sound more and more like a "typical" tyrannical
> IS department at a University....
>
> > Electronic Mail and Privacy
> >
> >Owlnet management will not regulate in any way the content of private,
> >consensual electronic mail communication between users.
>
> Unless one end of the connection is off-site, in which case you'll lock
> the on-site user's account (from above).
>
Nope. See above.
> >Many users routinely disable incoming talk messages, presumably to cut
> >down on distracting conversations with other users. We would advise
> >that you not disable incoming talk messages as a matter of course.
> >This will reduce the possibility that a system administrator who may be
> >trying to talk to you will misinterpret your actions. Message
> >receiving is enabled by default, so if you do not taken action to
> >disable it, you have nothing to worry about.
>
> So now as a student I have to be subject to pages from any user on the
> system in order to avoid having my account locked for "not responding to an
> administrator's message"? Sheesh...
>
In practice, we've found few students actually get spurious pages
from other students. And in addition, this only covers incidents when there
appears to be unusual or suspicious activity going on. Further, as
the first part of the policy states, the lockout is only used if the
user *logs off immediately* in response to a sysadmin talk request.
As the language says, we only *advise* that they not routinely disable
talk. It is not required. We are informing the students that if
they choose to disable talk messages, they are increasing the
possibility that their actions could be misinterpreted by a sysadmin.
In other words, rather than being the "tell them nothing and then pound
them when they break an unwritten rule" type of system, we are taking
steps to make students aware of the *possible* consequences of their
actions.
> > George Rupp
> > August 10, 1990
>
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl)
> Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
> Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Off-campus use policies (was Re: Rice University's Owlnet and
Message-ID: <9111122322.AA07038@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 12 Nov 91 11:22:15 GMT
From: jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:18:12 GMT
In article <1991Nov9.062656.23834@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>With all due respect, I have never seen such an uptight, authoritarian
>unrealistic, and chilling set of rules in my computer career. I have a
>hard time believing any academic institution would dare embarrass
>itself by admitting to these rules.
>
>Require permission ahead of time to send email or use ftp offsite?
Why not? The Universtity of Houston has a similar policy. To get
permission, you simply sign a form that reiterates the fact that you'll
be a good citizen and that if you cause trouble, UH is not responsbile
and will help whomever is looking for you find out.
--
J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - Systems Wrangler, UH Dept of Mathematics
vox: (713) 749-2126 '91 CB750, DoD# 0378, TMRA# 27834 AMA# I-forget
"Duke in his sheets, Edwards between the sheets, Louisiana's in
deep sheets." -- bumper sticker in Louisana.
-------------------
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov12.160855.1725@anasaz>
Date: 12 Nov 91 16:08:55 GMT
Keywords:
In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
]From: john@anasaz (John Moore) [responding to me responding to him ...]
]>I see. You claim that we have a responsibility to vote in an MLK holiday.
]
]No, you have no such responsibility, absolutely not. No one said that.
]
]You merely have a responsibility to stand by your decisions and not
]whine if someone doesn't like them and decides to do business
]elsewhere.
Whining? Is that what you call anger? Is that what you call a reaction
to damaging hypocrisy? Whining? I guess anytime anyone complains about
something you disagree with, they are whining, eh?
]Would you blame NOW for cancelling a convention in New Orleans after
]the passage of the strictest anti-abortion bill in the nation? You
]might criticize, but it's a bit hard to put a finger on what exactly
]they might have done that's wrong.
No, since NOW is a political organization, organized strictly for political
purposes. If that is true of the NFL, then they should lose their antitrust
immunity.
Do you really think that government sanctioned and protected monopolies
should be interfering in the political process? It seems very dangerous
to me.
Can you address the issue of hypocrisy that I raise: that an orginazation,
in attempting to force voters to approve a mere symbol of racial harmony,
is in fact knowlingly creating a backlash in the state? Do you really
think that the NFL's actions were appropriate? That they would achieve
any good effect other than angering the people that they are trying to
persuade?
]>]I have a better idea. Why don't y'all just vote an MLK holiday if it
]>]pisses off customers so much and is driving you bankrupt?
]>We might, but we are mightily pissed off about it.
]
]Ya makes yer choices and ya live with the consequences.
That doesn't mean we can't voice our objections, and point out the
inanity of the NFL. It is also a rather insensitive statement.
]>]Well, hey, eat your principle then.
]>I see. The politically correct, who claim to be operating on principle,
]>want US to EAT our principles. Hey... your hypicrisy is showing.
]
]I don't remember anyone ever saying that all principles were equally
]valid.
That strikes me as pretty arrogant. I would think that one would be willling
to respect people who stick to their principles, and defend them, rather
than simply drifting through life acting simply from expediency.
]Your use of the phrase "politically correct" over and over is pathetic
]and an indication that you really haven't much to say for yourself.
]It's just name-calling.
]Near as I can tell "politically correct" now means "anyone who
]disagrees with me".
No - politically correct has a much more general definition, and I
don't agree with all positions of the politically correct. It does mean:
-symbolism is more important than consequences.
-racism is justified to combat racism.
-rather than debating opposing opinions, they should be suppressed and
ridiculed.
-sensitivity is very important, be not to the feelings of the non politically
correct.
...
I see the politically correct movement as one which is more interested in
controlling people than in its avowed goals. I see it as one which
alters the meanings of almost every word in the political vocabulary. I
see it as one which is deeply involved in very trivial issues ("herstory"
vs "history" as an example) - probably because of a strong preoccupation
with symbolism. How else can one explain the extreme reactions to the
putting of a Martin Luther King holiday on a monday rather than a sunday?
In this particular case, I use the "politically correct" label to mean
the use of coercion to achieve a merely symbolic effect, with complete
disregard for the anger that results, and with complete disregard for
the fact that the result will be counter to the avowed goals (ie,
the avowed goals are to improve racial harmony and reduce racial injustice,
when the actual, and obviously predictable, effect is to create a fertile
ground for the likes of David Duke).
]Not worth much any more. Sort of like in the 50's when certain people
]called anyone who disagreed with them "communists" no matter how crazy
]the accusation.
Speaking of name calling, I notice the characteristic use of redneck
language "them communists" to discredit your opponent. And how about
how Arizona has been villified as racist because of our rejection of
a paid MLK holiday?
Another characteristic of the politically correct is the continuous
labelling of opponents as McCarthyites, even though McCarthy has much
more in common with the PC movement than with modern conservativism.
]>Hey, dude. You are the one who brought up the responsibilities that come
]>with freedom. The NFL DOES have the freedom (with a slight exception -
]>see below). They also have a responsiblity to the communities that
]>host their teams, and in general as a large public organization, a
]>responsibility to be fair. That they bend in the wind of accusations of
]>racism is not a good reflection on them.
]
]That's a fair statement of a criticism. Just so long as you don't make
]like anything more is going on, like some god-given right to host the
]super-bowl, or that your constitutional rights have somehow been
]denied because someone folded their money in half and went to do
]business elsewhere because they found your state noxious.
I know my constitutional rights. I keep a copy of the constitution handy.
Nowhere does it say that anyone has a right to anything like a superbowl.
I did misuse the word "right" in one sentence when I should have said
"privilege", which has resulted in much flaming. Of course, the confusion
of "right" with "privilege" is normally associated with the political
correct movement - I guess they are getting to me!
This is not a disagreement about rights, it is about responsibility and
hypocrisy and stereotyping (Arizona as racists because we rejected the MLK
holiday).
]Making a case that the NFL is quasi-governmental organization would be
]interesting. I don't know how that ties in to their holding the super
]bowl in any particular place.
Well, in general you are right. However, having a government protected
monopoly abusing us is even worse than having a private organization
doing it, don't you think? It violates the spirit of the 14th amendment,
but probably not the letter.
]For example, I've never heard anyone claim foul (in the manner we're
]hearing here) when a president or the majority party in congress puts
]pork-barrels in states which they feel are politically convenient or
]amenable to their party's mission.
Really? I claim it is foul. In fact, I think one of the biggest problems
we have is that people are willing to vote for a pork barrelling
politician, at the same time that they are angry about the deficit!
If the government had less power, and consumed less of our GNP, this
would be less of a problem. If people realized that government doesn't
have any money - it always spends the people's money, things would be
better. If they realized that every time they want the government to do
something, it can ONLY be done by restricting the rights of
someone or by stealing, by threat of force, the fruits of their labor
and investments.
However, that doesn't have much to do with the superbowl.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 00:15:00 GMT
>From: rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns)
>In *THEORY* you can do exactly what's needed here with groups.
>In *PRACTICE*, it's not feasible for administrators to create a group
>whenever two people want to collaborate. And the chilling effect of
>having to ask for a private group, and then later ask for it to be
>modified, should be apparent.
>
With VMS, any user can put any ACL (Access Control List) on any file,
directory etc. limiting who all can read,execute,delete and or write
those files.
A user does not have to ask for a private group and ACLs are pretty to set up
and use anyway.
Administrators do not need set up ACLs nor do they even need to know of its
existence.
>This is emphatically *NOT* an operating-system specific issue.
To this extent it IS an operating system specific issue. A good operating
system has good features built in. It should be easy even for a "novice"
system manager to do a good job. There is no excuse in modern times for
systems to be deficient in this regard.
>It
>may be that the files all reside on Joe's personal Macintosh, which
>is connected to the campus network to facilitate access to the
>courseware for his and Sally's joint project, and, of course, to
>support his collaboration with Sally.
>
>It is really important to think of the medium toward which this
>is all evolving, and to not just think of a set of fixed assets
>sitting in some particular room.
Agreed, this is one of the reasons why rules and procedures that make perfect
sense today, may be outmoded and be unreasonable next month. This is the
reason why it is so difficult to codify rules in this changing world of
computers.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: john@anasaz's message of 12 Nov 91 16:08:55 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References: <1991Nov12.160855.1725@anasaz>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:44:00 GMT
To give a more reasoned answer: I am involved in conference/convention
planning regularly, site choices, budgets, cash flow etc. The biggest
concern is that something disasterous would cause people to not come
or otherwise interfere with the ability to at least recoup the cost,
if not do a little better.
The nightmares of conference planners all revolve around this, just
before a conference you are typically strung out to your last dime,
this is probably true even of the NFL, they just roll bigger dollars,
but it doesn't mean there's no risk.
Then, in that one day or so, you have to make it all back, at least,
or you're history. Unlike most businesses, you cannot afford one bad
day.
The possibility of deep-felt controversy over a superbowl location
would be enough to send them running. Please don't tell me what you
believe are the limits of what can or cannot go wrong as a result of
that unless you know the economics of these events professionally.
For all I know they could give the seats out for free in the stadium
and not make a noticeable dent in the bottom line, selling out the
stadium is probably almost irrelevant. I assure you some convention
economics run like that, they're not being paid for by what you may
think, just because the money came out of your pocket doesn't make it
significant to *them*.
For example, there may be all of 5 advertisers who will put up the
kind of ridiculous money needed to run these circuses. The possibility
that one or more of them might walk soas not to have that association
with their product could be enough to make the finances impossible.
And, worse, you may not know (*they*, the sponsors, may not know)
until the last minute, too late to prevent financial catastrophe.
Will the people of Arizona be there if, say, Coca-Cola withdraws $100M
in sponsorship at the last minute because their stockholders held a
meeting and voted that they cancel their contract (even if it takes a
penalty, which I assure you is not $100M)? Can you honestly say that
another sponsor would show up with that kind of money?
Do you think the NFL gives this sponsorship away cheap, such that
there are a dozen companies out there with the ad budget to buy out a
spot? Or do you think they do it at the absolute limit, perhaps
relying on complicated relationships with specific sponsors?
Let's get serious here for a minute, the Super-Bowl is not about
politics or morality, it's about bucks, big bucks. Big, leveraged,
strung out to the limit, high-risk bucks. Probably hundreds of
millions at stake on one day's event.
Were the people of Arizona willing to underwrite any losses if some
disaster erupted out of the control of the NFL, but due to Arizona
politics? If the players refused to play EVEN TAKING THE CONSEQUENCES
of their actions? If sponsors or networks walked out?
No way. It woulda been slam-bam-thank-you-maam (pardon the
expression), toooo baaad for the NFL, but *don't* come to us, hey,
it's a BUSINESS, THEY MADE THE DECISION! WE CAN'T BE HELD FINANCIALLY
RESPONSIBLE!
Think about it.
Think about how easy it is to sit in the backseat and tell people how
to drive.
I am sure this is what was on their mind, because it is on my mind,
I'm looking at a future date in New Orleans, and if David Duke is
elected I am pretty sure it's reasonable to believe that we could have
a financial disaster on our hands, regardless of the organization's
own "opinions". We cannot force people and vendors to come to a
convention in New Orleans, that's their decision, and I don't want
them (the organization) getting stuck holding the bag for the costs
which could wreck them financially.
Too many armchair quarterbacks I say...
--
-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@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Orders (Was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <9111131348.AA09731@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 01:48:40 GMT
From: paul@frcs.Alt.ZA (Paul Nash)
Date: 12 Nov 91 05:49:01 GMT
Thus spake feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit):
> On comp.admin.policy, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) posts:
> > If the head
> > of the library ordered a student not to use the group study rooms, the
> > student would not be in the wrong if he ignored the order...
> Strike two. Why exactly was "a student" ordered not to use the group
> study rooms? Maybe because he'd smashed all of the furniture in one
> of them? In that case, I'd say the order was justified. If it were
> arbitrary, I could understand going through the proper channels to
> have the order reversed.
This is one of the effects that the whole War-on-Drugs and Gulf shootup
seems to have had on the North America psyche (or is it the other way
around). What you are saying is that the librarian can order students
around, and if they don't like it and think it wrong and have the time
and energy _then_ they can fight it. They are, in essence, guilty until
they prove themselves innocent.
Surely, in the case you moot above, the library administrator should
"go through the proper channels" to have the student barred, rather than
the other way around? Or are administrators always right (like George
Bush, Employers and God)?
---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---
Paul Nash paul@frcs.Alt.ZA
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Thu Nov 14 00:31:41 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:58:27 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Nov 13 21:57:42 EST 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: help in computer-oriented sexual h
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Orders
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Orders (Was Re: Re; Brack Expu
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Orders
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
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: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <9111131618.AA27514@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 16:18:14 GMT
In article <1991Nov11.074256.20430@atlantis.cs.orst.edu> you write:
> > Will you reimburse me the cost of procuring one from OSU?
> > They won't simply give me one, I have to buy it from them.
> >
> > -- Steve
>
> Heck- I will reimburse you for a copy. :-)
>
> David Langford
I have found out that dhe transcript is only available on tape, & would
cost me about US$10 + postage. The hearing ran over four hrs, so
typing it in may take a while.
Dave, can I afford your helping me, esp. where ACS is concerned? 8)
(Inside joke)
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: help in computer-oriented sexual harassment case
Message-ID: <9111131622.AA10469@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 04:22:21 GMT
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 15:06:37 GMT
In <1991Nov11.220339.8976@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
jkonrath@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Jon Konrath) writes:
[...]
>A friend of mine got involved in a flamewar with a female in september, and
>now he is being pressed with sexual harassment charges and could get
>kicked out of school, and lose his housing, not to mention being blacklisted
>from ever getting in a lot of other places.
[...]
I suggest you look at these files:
=================
README
=================
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
caf-law
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).
=================
uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
=================
doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
meritor-v-vinson
=================
This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
university speech code decisions.
=================
=================
Last update
Sat Nov 9 15:50:45 EST 1991
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.175023.20662@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 17:50:23 GMT
[Posted for the author -Carl]
In article <1991Nov9.034938.7383@rice.edu> writes:
> In article <1991Nov8.025634.28048@rice.edu>, jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
> > violation of stated Owlnet and University computing policies. Except
> > in cases of violation of system security or integrity, users are
> > generally given one or two warnings, usually written, on the first
> > and/or second policy violation. Subsequent offenses of the same type
> > are addressable by access denial. If a student is denied access, they
>
> ???
>
> This doesn't seem to be quite the way it works here. I've been on the
> recieving end of one of the "access denials," and wasn't wasn't given a
> warning of any sort ahead of time, nor does this seem to be the general
> practice. Of course, the reason given for my more or less immediate lockout
> was that I knew what I was doing, which is true. (The violation was
> not threatening the security of Owlnet in any way.)
I think admins are generally afraid of users who know anything about
the system they haven't been told by the admins.
>
> Owlnet here is somewhat responsive, but things could always be better...
>
Yes, or you could be at OSU. 8)
> --
> # // Douglas Triggs # COMPUTER IS HUNGRY. # doubt@owlnet.rice.edu #
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.175151.20873@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 17:51:51 GMT
[Posted for the author - Carl]
In article amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
> In article <1991Nov8.175131.10220@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
> Kadie) writes:
>
> He cannot reenroll unless he is reaccepted. As other have pointed out,
> the University is under no specific obligation to accept him as a
> student.
>
> According to the letter you posted, the disciplinary dismissal does
> not affect his academic standing and remains confidential. He will
> not have to re-apply; he just can't register for classes for a year.
>
According to OSU's student handbook, dismissal requires that I reapply.
If I am readmitted, my judicial record will still contain my dismissal, while my normal academic record (transcript) will not. However, according to
OSU, interested parties, including my college, will be privy to copies
of the record.
> Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
> "You can measure a programmer's perspective by noting his attitude on
> the continuing viability of Fortran." --Alan Perlis
FORMAT ('1',23HFORTRAN IS HERE TO STAY!) 8) 8)
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Orders
Message-ID: <9111131758.AA11138@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 05:58:19 GMT
From: feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 15:41:50 GMT
On comp.admin.policy, paul@frcs.Alt.ZA (Paul Nash) posts:
> > Strike two. Why exactly was "a student" ordered not to use the group
> > study rooms? Maybe because he'd smashed all of the furniture in one
> > of them? In that case, I'd say the order was justified. If it were
> > arbitrary, I could understand going through the proper channels to
> > have the order reversed.
>
> This is one of the effects that the whole War-on-Drugs and Gulf shootup
> seems to have had on the North America psyche (or is it the other way
> around).
Huh? Weren't the drugs being warred upon made illegal by people
elected by a majority? Is law enforcement wrong to enforce those
laws?
> What you are saying is that the librarian can order students
> around, and if they don't like it and think it wrong and have the time
> and energy _then_ they can fight it.
No. What I am saying is that if I attend a university, I must show at
least a little respect (deserved or not) for the way the librarian
runs the library. If there's something I or a group of people don't
like about it, we have all the right in the world to try and do
something about it. If we can get enough of the people who hand out
such authorities to do something about it, we've made a change. Call
it government {by|of|for} the people if you will. (What a novel
concept!)
Just where do we draw the line on who we disregard? Maybe we
shouldn't pay any attention to those signs that say "No U Turn"
because the highway administrator might have been wrong in placing it
there? Should I ignore a police officer who cautions me not to enter
a room because there's an AK-47-toting idiot inside who's got an itchy
trigger finger? Should I toss my 1040 in the can because I don't
think the IRS is right?
> They are, in essence, guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
In case you haven't noticed, the "innocent until proven guilty" thing
has become such a crock in our legal system, that the "winner" of a
case (is the Supreme Court the Super Bowl of the legal system?) is
whoever puts on a better show. I've been in court, and I've seen it.
But that's a completely different issue.
> Surely, in the case you moot above, the library administrator should
> "go through the proper channels" to have the student barred rather
> than the other way around?
"Should" and "does" are two different things. My point is that if the
library administrator is abusing the position, there's very little
chance that "proper channels" would yield the desired end (i.e.,
getting me booted out of the library).
I don't know about anybody else, but if a library administrator says
"get out or I'm calling the campus police" with no satisfactory
explanation, I'm out for, if nothing else, lack of any desire to (a)
really get myself in hot water or (b) run the risk of making this a
vindictive thing on the administrator's part. But you can bet your
bottom dollar I'll be taking the earliest possible opportunity to have
a few words with his (or her) supervisor.
> Or are administrators always right (like George Bush, Employers and
> God)?
Of course not! But then again, are _you_ always right? Who
--
- Mark
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <9111131758.AA11152@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 05:58:50 GMT
From: trimble@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 16:45:11 GMT
Well, people, Big Brother is watching you. Yes, your sysadmin is monitoring
you, to make sure you don't say anything nasty.
(All Quotes taken from the Daily Illini - Tues. Nov. 12, 1991 - p. 3)
This is all in reference to Steven Brack, an OSU student, being KICKED OUT OF
HIS UNIVERSITY "in connection with several rule violations, including posting
a profanity in response to someone else's comments about him, said CARL KADIE,
University of Illinois grad student in Computer Science."
UofI sysadmin BOB FOERTSCH repsponds (which is paraphrased by the Daily Illini
- not a DIRECT quote except for 'reasonable person')
: "if someone is caught using language that would be vulgar or rude to
a 'reasonable person,' the University steps in.".
REASONABLE PERSON??? So ... let's let BIG BROTHER decide who we can argue with
for us. Another argument is, what we say represents our University. All
I have to say to that is, to quote Bill the Cat : "PPPPPPTTTTTT!!!". Maybe
if you were posting under a letter head saying "Official University of ____
Release" ... but NOT IN NORMAL E-Mail or News.
Get with it, administrators, if a person starts posting stuff like that, he or
she is not looked at from the angle "Well, this university must teach profanity
in classes". No, it's more like "What a loser... he's losing a debate so he has
to resort to such tactics."
Thanks for your time..
SHOULD I ADD THIS FOR SAFETY???? :
Disclaimer : This opinion is not representative of the opinion of my
University or SysAdmin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ Chris Trimble | "Who's shooting from that window?" }
{ University of Illinois / Chambana | "That's our presidential candidate.." }
{ trimble@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu | - Bloom County }
{ ct54143@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | *** Bill N' Opus - '92! *** }
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111131909.AA11495@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 07:09:30 GMT
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Date: 12 Nov 91 11:26:46 EST
wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes:
>In article <1991Nov8.025634.28048@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>>Except in cases of violation of system security or integrity, users are
>>generally given one or two warnings, usually written, on the first
>>and/or second policy violation. Subsequent offenses of the same type
>>are addressable by access denial. ... The
>>initial access denial is used as a form of "arrest", as a method to
>>strongly encourage the student to come in and talk to the
>>administrators face to face.
> Why not encourage them to come in the first time something happens?
Surely a written statement that someone has done something wrong ought to
encourage a reasonable person to inquire as to just what is wrong with
what they did? Has psychopathy really become so much the norm that it
is *expected* that people be *incapable* of determining that their behavior
is unacceptable to people around them unless they are brought in and beaten
with clubs?
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Orders (Was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.190613.16269@ms.uky.edu>
References: <9111131348.AA09731@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 19:06:13 GMT
>From: paul@frcs.Alt.ZA (Paul Nash)
>What you are saying is that the librarian can order students
>around, and if they don't like it and think it wrong and have the time
>and energy _then_ they can fight it. They are, in essence, guilty until
>they prove themselves innocent.
>
>Surely, in the case you moot above, the library administrator should
>"go through the proper channels" to have the student barred, rather than
>the other way around? Or are administrators always right (like George
>Bush, Employers and God)?
So, Paul, if a student walks in and starts "tearing up the place", I
should be required to run to my boss (who, in turn, might have to run
to his boss) and say "He's breaking things, can I make him stop"?
If I see that some user has broken security and become superuser (or
SYSTEM, [1,2], or OPERATOR, for you non-Unix types), shall I sit and wait
for permission from my boss (and/or his boss) before I take action?
Face it, folks; you have to give *some* authority to the "man on the scene".
If that authority is abused, *then* work to remove that person's authority.
There is such a thing as too many procedures, you know. I would think that
"staff on the scene" should have the authority to make a decision. That
decision should, of course, be subject to review/appeal automatically, but
you must give the man-on-the-scene the authority to act.
--
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: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Orders
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.191646.22878@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 19:16:46 GMT
References: <9111131758.AA11138@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
In article <9111131758.AA11138@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> > What you are saying is that the librarian can order students
> > around, and if they don't like it and think it wrong and have the time
> > and energy _then_ they can fight it.
>
>No. What I am saying is that if I attend a university, I must show at
>least a little respect (deserved or not) for the way the librarian
>runs the library. If there's something I or a group of people don't
>like about it, we have all the right in the world to try and do
>something about it. If we can get enough of the people who hand out
>such authorities to do something about it, we've made a change. Call
>it government {by|of|for} the people if you will. (What a novel
>concept!)
The point is that the librarian who bars a student from a group study room,
or a system administrator who bars a student from computer access, DOES NOT
HAVE THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO DO SO-- not at my university, and not,
according to any reading of the rules posted here, at OSU.
>Just where do we draw the line on who we disregard? Maybe we
>shouldn't pay any attention to those signs that say "No U Turn"
>because the highway administrator might have been wrong in placing it
>there?
If the highway administrator who placed the sign had no authority to do so,
YES!
>Should I ignore a police officer who cautions me not to enter
>a room because there's an AK-47-toting idiot inside who's got an itchy
>trigger finger?
If you do, it isn't the police officer who should discipline you.
>Should I toss my 1040 in the can because I don't
>think the IRS is right?
That's a practical matter.
> > Surely, in the case you moot above, the library administrator should
> > "go through the proper channels" to have the student barred rather
> > than the other way around?
>
>"Should" and "does" are two different things. My point is that if the
>library administrator is abusing the position, there's very little
>chance that "proper channels" would yield the desired end (i.e.,
>getting me booted out of the library).
EXACTLY-- which is why the library admin should be required to go through those
proper channels-- and why no student should be punished for ignoring a
library admin who does not.
>I don't know about anybody else, but if a library administrator says
>"get out or I'm calling the campus police" with no satisfactory
>explanation, I'm out for, if nothing else, lack of any desire to (a)
>really get myself in hot water or (b) run the risk of making this a
>vindictive thing on the administrator's part. But you can bet your
>bottom dollar I'll be taking the earliest possible opportunity to have
>a few words with his (or her) supervisor.
Who will give you the old brush-off, unless you submit a written complaint,
which they will circular file. In any case, the situation here is that
not only was the student booted out, but booted out PERMANENTLY-- the option
of playing sheep and following the arbitrary orders becomes a lot harder to
take, in that case.
> > Or are administrators always right (like George Bush, Employers and
> > God)?
>
>Of course not! But then again, are _you_ always right? Who
I'll trust my judgement over that of an administrator, especially if all
research shows that the administrator IS exceeding his authority.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 19:10:01 GMT
In <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
trimble@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble) writes:
[...]
>(All Quotes taken from the Daily Illini - Tues. Nov. 12, 1991 - p. 3)
[...]
>UofI sysadmin BOB FOERTSCH repsponds (which is paraphrased by the Daily Illini
> - not a DIRECT quote except for 'reasonable person')
>: "if someone is caught using language that would be vulgar or rude to
> a 'reasonable person,' the University steps in.".
[...]
I was very surprised to read this. I was under the impression the the
University of Illinois was free of speech restrictions (except for
restrictions on harassment). Speech restrictions were struck down at
the University of Michigan and more recently at the University of
Wisconsin.)
It was my impression that the policy of the University of Illinois, as
expressed in the _Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to
All Students_, was that students and faculty members have freedom of
expression and that they speak for themselves, not University.
Has the University's _Statement on Individual Rights_ been appended so
that it no longer applies to speech and publication via computer
media?
Here are excepts from the University Code (1985 edition):
"STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
I. Preamble
A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus
is a member of the University community of which all members have at
least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from
institutional censorship;"
...
"III. Campus Expression
A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the
University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order.
[...]
B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite
and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable
requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities.
C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors
and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student,
faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial
policy or content."
...
"VI. Student Affairs
[...]
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. [...]
2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their
own choosing. [...] The University's 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."
- Carl
p.s. The text of the U. of Michigan and U. of Wisconsin decisions
are available via anonymous ftp as
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
Also of possible interest:
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/README
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/README
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.214531.2899@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:45:31 GMT
[Posted for author - Carl]
In article <1991Nov09.122028.4781@cavebbs.gen.nz> Charlie Lear writes:
> In article <1991Nov7.160237.29438@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> { diatribe against OSU deleted for brevity }
> >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:
>
> From what I have read in the last few months, Brack was a royal pain in the
> ass for all concerned and I would be extremely surprised to find that OSU
> did not examine the situation with extreme thoroughness before taking
> extreme measures.
As far as I know, you can't be dismissed for being a pain in the ass.
What OSU did was to overreact to three or four minor incidents.
The only action I ever performed that had any impact on the system was
the fixman command, a command that: 1) should not have been open to
any user, and 2) caused no real damage, only the removal of underlining
from man pages which were easily restored from backup.
Everything else was just thrown in so that the body of evidence against
me would seem more damning than it actually is.
> How many others have OSU suspended for similar offences? Hundreds? Dozens?
> A few? None?
I know of one other who left OSU because of "similar offenses."
But, remember: I was only there for ~8 mos. There could have
been others before or after me, of which I am unaware.
> How many thousands of students are there at OSU? Doesn't it seem odd that
> you are publicly championing someone who, by espousing terms of injured
> innocence, is trying to convince The World that it's not his fault that
> OSU happen to be picking on him?
To clarify, once more: I am the cause of the action. The action,
however is of far greater scope than anything I did. I admit that
had I been a "nice person," this wouldn't have happened. But, I
hold that even though I wasn't a nice person, my actions did not justify
dismissal.
>
> >1) working with the user community to create and implement a good
> >written policy
>
> Define "good". What you consider good and what other people consider
> workable may turn out to be completely different things.
How about a policy that informs the user what is expected of him,
and of what he can expect to do for him.
> >2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
>
> You're assuming an egalitarian relationship where none exists. Brack was
> instructed to do some things and specifically not to do others. You're
> telling the world (in deleted text above) that the administrators concerned
> should have accepted deliberate disobedience and let Brack do as he liked.
> Wonderful precedent you're trying to set.
I was not told of the "wrongness" of my actions until after I had
committed them. If I had been told prior to that, then I would not
have committed them. A person cannot be held to a rule which was
never made public, and which may not have even existed at the time
he allegedly violated it.
>
> >3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
>
> Up to the point where that freedom of expression infringes on the freedoms
> of others, in this case the freedom to read messages about fish without
> having them interspersed with inanities.
I'm glad we have you posting to this group. It's nice to see
that there's at least one person on the Net who has never made a
mistake, or been deceived. I wish I had been like you.
> >4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when
> >necessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing.
>
> Are you saying that the entire Brack affair was some sort of esoteric
> play-by-mail one-sided farce? On review of the facts, it would appear
> that he had ample opportunity to put forward his "case" to the appropriate
> people. He simply failed to avail himself of the chances given to him to
> clean up his act. Why should we even be discussing this case when in
> essence, Brack failed to communicate effectively with administrative staff?
> His lack of communication, and apparent unwillingness to behave in
> accordance with accepted norms, caused the suspension. What has that got
> to do with Usenet and computers and networks?
If you're going to make sweeping conclusions based on "the facts,"
do me the courtesy of stating the facts to which you refer.
>
> >Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
> >I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>
> Thank God for that. You had me worried there.
The tone of your post seems very flippant considering the degree
of condemnation you display toward me.
>
> --
> Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.214652.3002@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:46:52 GMT
[Posted with author's permission - Carl]
In article <37290@usc.edu> (Stephen Kurtzman) writes:
> In article <1991Nov8.113817.1613@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
> >Whoa, there. Stephen has NOT been expelled, according to the letter
Steven
> >he provided. He cannot enroll in classes for a year, but otherwise
> >his academic standing is undisturbed, and no "black marks" will
> >appear on his transcript.
>
> Only a one-year hold which will require explanation if he gets a
> job with an employer who wants to peruse his transcript or if
> he applies to another university. How will he explain it? Well,
> I suppose he could tell the truth, which is tantamount to getting
> a black mark. On the other hand, the gap almost forces him to lie,
> if not by comission, then by omission.
While this will not be reflected on my transcript, I will have to
reapply for admission through Judicial Affairs. There is absolutely
no guarantee that I'll be readmitted.
>
> >As disciplinary actions go, this could be viewed as mild. It's
> >certainly not in the same class with disciplinary or academic
> >separation (which is the term OSU used for permanent, documented
> >expulsion).
>
> A one-year suspension is only mild in comparison to harsher
> disciplinary actions. I don't know anyone who would say a one-year
> suspension is a mild punishment.
It is a dismissal, not a suspension. I am not guaranteed continued
academic standing at OSU.
>
> >It is no doubt mightily inconvenient, but it does no damage to Mr.
> >Brack's academic record, or future ability to attend Ohio State.
>
> No damage to his record, only to his name and reputation.
Many people at OSU know of this, especially at ACS & the Computer
Science department. They knew before I posted, as certain ACS admins
had problems maintaining confidentiality. (Hi Cliff!)
> Stephen Kurtzman | "where desire writhed there stands a stone;
> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu | the change was sudden and complete"
> | -- Maggie Roche
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.215045.3194@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:50:45 GMT
[Posted with author's permission - Carl]
In article <37290@usc.edu> (Stephen Kurtzman) writes:
> In article <1991Nov8.113817.1613@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
> >Whoa, there. Stephen has NOT been expelled, according to the letter
Steven
> >he provided. He cannot enroll in classes for a year, but otherwise
> >his academic standing is undisturbed, and no "black marks" will
> >appear on his transcript.
>
> Only a one-year hold which will require explanation if he gets a
> job with an employer who wants to peruse his transcript or if
> he applies to another university. How will he explain it? Well,
> I suppose he could tell the truth, which is tantamount to getting
> a black mark. On the other hand, the gap almost forces him to lie,
> if not by comission, then by omission.
While this will not be reflected on my transcript, I will have to
reapply for admission through Judicial Affairs. There is absolutely
no guarantee that I'll be readmitted.
>
> >As disciplinary actions go, this could be viewed as mild. It's
> >certainly not in the same class with disciplinary or academic
> >separation (which is the term OSU used for permanent, documented
> >expulsion).
>
> A one-year suspension is only mild in comparison to harsher
> disciplinary actions. I don't know anyone who would say a one-year
> suspension is a mild punishment.
It is a dismissal, not a suspension. I am not guaranteed continued
academic standing at OSU.
>
> >It is no doubt mightily inconvenient, but it does no damage to Mr.
> >Brack's academic record, or future ability to attend Ohio State.
>
> No damage to his record, only to his name and reputation.
Many people at OSU know of this, especially at ACS & the Computer
Science department. They knew before I posted, as certain ACS admins
had problems maintaining confidentiality. (Hi Cliff!)
> Stephen Kurtzman | "where desire writhed there stands a stone;
> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu | the change was sudden and complete"
> | -- Maggie Roche
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.215231.3312@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:52:31 GMT
[Posted for the author - Carl]
In article David Lesher writes:
> >> I'm hoping a transcript of the recent hearing will become available so
> >> we can read what happened.
>
> > When I have the money to get a transcript, I will.
>
> Just curious, how much is OSU asking for in order to get a copy
> of the transcript?
To get the tapes, $10 + postage. But there are over 4 hrs of
testimony on them, & I don't ghave the time to go to school &
type all that in. I don't know if they would give me a written
transcript.
> A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.215346.3413@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:53:46 GMT
[Posted for the author - Carl]
In article <1991Nov10.235824.8984@wolves.uucp> you write:
> One question for Carl....
>
> Have YOU talked to anyone in a postion of authority at OSU?
>
OSU will not comment on this. Odds are that they're reading about it,
though.
> There is plenty of indication that OSU has a valid appeal process for
> almost all of the mentioned actions, but Mr. Brack is NOT appealing.
> This single item calls the whole situation into question.
Much as I'd like to, I can't put my life, job, & education on hold
to play paperwork games with OSU. I believe what was done was wrong,
& I will fight it, but I can't fight it now.
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From comp-academic-freedom-talk Thu Nov 14 00:31:41 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:55:44 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Nov 13 21:55:06 EST 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet and Unive
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Admin Policies, Oppressive or Otherwis
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : A Commercial BBS drops screening/censoring
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) help in computer-oriented sexual haras
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: help in computer-oriented sexual h
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Admin Policies, Oppressive or Othe
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Off-campus use policies (was Re: R
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@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies
Message-ID: <9111131349.AA09740@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 01:49:18 GMT
From: wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Date: 12 Nov 91 07:07:06 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.204538.26122@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>...
>Inappropriate use includes, but is not limited to:
>
> ...
>o modifying other users' files without permission
I think you should clarify this. Some small trusting sites assume
turning the write bit on on a file is permission to modify it. On other
sites, attempting to do an "ls" of someones home directory is considered an
attempt to violate security. How about
o modifying other users' files without explicit written or oral permission
>o running file commands on large filesystems
Does that mean that I can't do an "ls" of my home directory
if it is on a large filesystem? No, I didn't think so. Depending on
how Draconian you want to be you can say you can't run any command
with a directory specification outside of your home directory
tree. You might make exceptions for /tmp or other likely places. As
is, this is just not explicit enough.
>o running programs which disrupt someone else's display
Same problem here. Can I use the "talk" command? How
about "write"? If someone is running "biff" and I send them mail
and stuff gets written on their display have I violated this rule?
>Again, inappropriate use is not limited to the above situations. You
>should send mail to consult@owlnet asking about anything that
>might be questionable before you do it. You risk having your
>account locked otherwise.
Hmmm, this would seem to be a way for students to conduct a civil
disobedience campaign. Whenever you want to run an "ls" of the /tmp
directory send mail to the consultants first. More productively, maybe the
consultants should save the list of the commands (with arguments) that they
execute for a week or two, decide which ones students shouldn't be allowed to
use, and then post the list to a public place on the system. Then change
the guidelines to say any commands NOT on the list are explicitly disallowed
and any commands on the list are explicitly allowed. Requests for additions
to the list could then be made via email. If commands are ever deleted from
the list this fact should be very well publicized.
>...
> Playing network games, or games that unduly affect system
>resources is not permitted.
>
>A network game is defined as one that allows two or more players to
>interact with each other from more than one workstation. The game
>makes use of the network facilities to accomplish this.
Change this to real time interaction. It's been years, but I
remember a strategy game "empire" which was multiuser and each person had
some many "turns" each day. Probably took much less resources then the same
number of people playing hack or something similar.
>Games that unduly affect system resources include, but are not limited
>to standalone games that require excessively large files, or excessive
>computational or input/output resources, or can render all or part of a
>system inoperable due to minor mis-configuration of the game files or
>directories.
>
>As they are discovered, network games, or standalone games that
>interfere with the system resources, will be rendered inoperable and
>eventually removed from the system. The owner of the game shall be
>notified via electronic mail that these actions have occurred.
Why not just provide a system directory for games and say any games
not located there are disallowed? This avoids multiple copies of the same
game and the seesaw battle between administrators and students as they both
escalate their efforts to find or hide games. Oh, you also have to be
willing to install new games that meet your requirements on system usage.
Allow students to compile and test them for a couple of days first, check
the sources for any obvious backdoors, recompile them, and install them into
a nonprivileged game account. Then slap a big warning label on all games
that you use them at your own risk. That's the way things are now anyway.
You may see an initial rush from people to have games installed, but I
think you will see that fall off pretty quickly. Not many people seem to
have the time/energy/knowledge to find and test games.
>...
> Electronic Mail and Privacy
>
>Owlnet management will not regulate in any way the content of private,
>consensual electronic mail communication between users.
Good.
>Sending electronic mail directly to an unofficial automatic mail
>handling program is not allowed. Using an automated method to direct
>any incoming mail to an unofficial program is not allowed.
I don't understand. Were people running their own huge mailing
lists? I don't see what the problem is with people writing programs to sort
their incoming mail? If you intend this as a way to make it hard for people
to handle being ON lots of mailing lists, why not just state that how much
mail people are allowed to receive.
>Although Owlnet will not regulate the content of electronic mail or
>other files, Owlnet system management reserves the right to examine any
>and all files that exist on the system, at any time, without your
>prior consent.
Has the Rice's lawyers reviewed this statement in the context of any
relevant privacy laws in your state and the Federal Electronic
Communications Privacy Act? You can undoubtedly say this, but I don't know
whether actually doing so is legal or not.
> Research
>
>Owlnet currently does not support research activities during the Fall
>and Spring semesters. Research activities include the following:
>
>...
>
>Research activities do not include the following:
>
>
>1. Undergraduate independent projects as a structured part of an
>undergraduate degree.
>...
Finally, in a backhanded kind of way you explicitly state what
is allowed and disallowed. Still it is not clear whether things
not stated are explicitly disallowed or not. My impression is
that they are disallowed.
I'm afraid that I don't have any more time to review the rest of
this document right now. Maybe later...
Bill Bogstad
wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Admin Policies, Oppressive or Otherwise...
Message-ID: <9111131351.AA09754@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 01:51:40 GMT
From: bianco@ceawlin.cs.odu.edu (Dave)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:49:26 GMT
Everytime I hear something about computing policies at
other Universities, it makes me even more glad I go to
ODU. Here at Old Dominion, we have some of the nicest
computing use policies (in some ways) that I have ever
heard about. We operate 3 labs of Sun's SPARCstations
to which both graduates and undergraduatess have equal
access. Additionally, many of the grads have cubicles
with their own machines in them. Use of most resources
is unrestricted. Since the system is meant to support
the work of it's users, their needs are evaluated very
carefully before any decisions affecting system use is
made. What impresses me the most, though, is that the
entire system is run by students. There is one System
Engineer who is full time; the rest of us are students
one and all...
--
==========================================================
David J. Bianco -- Systems Dude & Xanth IRC admin...
Old Dominion University
Dept of Computer Science,
Norfolk, VA 23529
|| <...!uunet!xanth!bianco>
"That's the short definition of Systems Engineer."
-- Geordi LaForge (Paraphrased)
==========================================================
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.135805.12082@eff.org>
References: <76DFF154084164A8@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 13:58:05 GMT
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>One more time: The court decisions seem to be all for High Schools. Maybe a
>University administration does not want to bring it to court fearing it will
>lose. However as it stands now, I seem to have missed any reference to court
>decisions that apply to University Student newspapers.
[...]
This isn't a reference to a case, but it is a quote from authors who
seem to be authorities.
From _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by
Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring.
(College Administration Publication, 1985).
"The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of expression
so as to prevent disruption of the educationally process or
interference with the rights of others, and prevent placing persons or
property in danger."
"Student newspapers at public institutions generally cannot be
censored prior to publication. Student editors usually are permitted
to publish and take the risk of allegations of libel or obscenity.
The student press at public institutions is subject to restrictions
only where college official can 'reasonable forecast substantial
disruption of material interference' with educational activities, or
that the material is clearly libelous or obscene."
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.142722.13085@eff.org>
References: <199111100652.AA01567@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 14:27:22 GMT
On Fri, 8 Nov 1991 16:44:57 GMT Carl M. Kadie said:
>
>There is no procedure for appealing his computer expulsion. There are
>of course extra procedural methods (ombudsman, University president,
>the Governor of Ohio). I think he has made some efforts in this
>direction, but without result.
ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester) writes:
[...]
>How can you call the items in parens above "extra-procedural"??
[...]
I don't know if "extra-procedural" is the best word or not. In any
case, let me try to explain what I mean.
The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
"The jurisdictions of faculty or student judicial bodies,
the disciplinary responsibilities of institutional officials and the
regular disciplinary procedures, including the student's right to
appeal a decision, should be clearly formulated and communicated in
advance."
As far as I can determine, students and faculty who are expelled from
ACS computers are not told of their right to appeal or the procedure
for such an appeal. The wording of ACS policy makes me wonder if they
consider their decisions open to appeal.
The failure to establish a procedure is as bad as a failure to notify
students of their rights. Without a procedure, students and faculty
cannot be sure their their appeal will be taken seriously. They may
fear or discover a Catch-22:
There are procedures set up to appeal all disciplinary decisions.
There are no procedures set up to appeal ACS computer expulsions,
therefore, computer expulsions cannot be disciplinay, therefore, there
are no procedures set up to appeal computer expulsions.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: A Commercial BBS drops screening/censoring
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.144642.13768@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 14:46:42 GMT
According to a Newsbytes story posted in clair.nb.telecom on Nov. 7th,
Odyssey, a BBS in Monrovia, California, has dropped
screening/censoring.
Odyssey's owner is worried about complaints (lawsuits?) like those
that Prodigy received from the ADL for not screening/censoring well.
"Prodigy practically has more lawyers than users and can fight this
stuff all day long. But a suit like that would shut down Odyssey," he
told Newsbytes.
Newsbytes says: 'When asked what censorship existed before the policy
announcement, Allen said censorship did exist, but alluded that the
concept of censorship had to do more with staying on the subject of
the forum, rather than placing any value judgement on anything that
was said.'
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] help in computer-oriented sexual harassment case
Message-ID: <9111131506.AA10011@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 03:06:42 GMT
From: jkonrath@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Jon Konrath)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 22:03:39 GMT
A friend of mine got involved in a flamewar with a female in september, and
now he is being pressed with sexual harassment charges and could get
kicked out of school, and lose his housing, not to mention being blacklisted
>from ever getting in a lot of other places.
We think the actual reason is a jealous boyfriend that has been working on
an inferior yet competitive software product.
I can't elaborate further, except via email. Has anyone had any expierence
with this type of thing?
-jon
--
Jon Konrath Sometimes its University Computing
Jkonrath@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Ultrix) Services, sometimes Metal Curse
Jkonrath@dakota.ucs.indiana.edu (NeXTmail) magazine. But the opinion's mine.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: help in computer-oriented sexual harassment case
Message-ID: <9111131510.AA10053@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 03:10:29 GMT
From: jmason2@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 01:24:19 GMT
In article <1991Nov11.220339.8976@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> jkonrath@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Jon Konrath) writes:
>A friend of mine got involved in a flamewar with a female in september, and
>now he is being pressed with sexual harassment charges and could get
>kicked out of school, and lose his housing, not to mention being blacklisted
>from ever getting in a lot of other places.
I think the sexual harassment rules have been taken a little too
far, then. I mean we are not talking about him making a pass at her,
right? He probably just used some REALLY rude language.
If I get involved in a nasty flamewar, and someone says
"Fuck YOU, Asshole!", then I just put up with it. That's the kind of
language people sometimes use in a flamewar. Sometimes they use MUCH
worse!
But wait. If I was female then I could press sexual harassment
charges on the guy who said "Fuck you".
That's not exactly what I call "equality".
Jamie
Written On Monday, November 11, 1991 at 08:19:20pm EST
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <9111131614.AA27433@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 16:14:09 GMT
In article you write:
>
> Just a thought, I don't know what Ammerican law is like but under
> English I'm sure that the Letter of dismissal would if not substantiated
> constitute Libel.
I think under our law, the statement has to be public to be
libelous. I'm not sure, though.
>
> The only way to overturn it would be an appeal to natural justice. This
> however does not mean that you can challenge the decision, only the process.
> You would have to show that the process itself was inherently unfair and that
> the unfairness affected your particular case.
I was not given adequate information with which to prepare my case.
Does that constitute unfairness?
>
> The letter looks as if it is drafted as a legal catch all with the
> maximum possible number of get out clauses for the University.
>
OSU seems to be very good at playing CYA games on my bankroll.
>
> Of course under British law you can be put in jail for twenty years
> despite ample evidence that the police fitted you up because to beleive
> that the police could lie is an `apaulling vista'
> that the police could lie is an `apaulling vista' so I doubt English law
> would help much.
>
Both English and American law flow fromn the English Common Law, dating
back 4-5 centuries. It seems much more liberal than the legal
structure either of our two nations have built upon it.
>
> PHB
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Admin Policies, Oppressive or Otherwise...
Message-ID: <9111131620.AA10437@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 04:20:41 GMT
From: seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU (Bill Seward)
Date: 12 Nov 91 13:51:52 GMT
In article , bianco@ceawlin.cs.odu.edu (Dave) writes:
[... some deleted stuff...]
>made. What impresses me the most, though, is that the
>entire system is run by students. There is one System
>Engineer who is full time; the rest of us are students
>one and all...
Old Dominion may have hit on the secret formula to keep the users happy--let
them run the system, with just a bit of professional help.
Definately worth bearing in mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Seward, Cutaneous Pharmacology & Toxicology Center, NC State University
"Try to ban the AK? I got 10 of 'em stashed and a case of hand grenades."
Ice T --"Body Count"
SEWARD@NCSUVAX.BITNET SEWARD@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Off-campus use policies (was Re: Rice University's Owlnet and
Message-ID: <9111131621.AA10446@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 04:21:07 GMT
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 14:39:10 GMT
[in a discussion on requiring permission ahead of time to send email or use ftp offsite?]
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) writes:
|Why not? The Universtity of Houston has a similar policy. To get
|permission, you simply sign a form that reiterates the fact that you'll
|be a good citizen and that if you cause trouble, UH is not responsbile
|and will help whomever is looking for you find out.
You must have really unpleasant students there... York has always permitted
mail and ftp, and out new VP academic is urging more use of common network
services on **his** colleagues, the academics.
To the best of my knowlege, we have only had two network-related
incidents in the history of the university, and neither involved our
students. Our senate has recently passed an acceptable behavior
standard for network users: this suffices to allow us the power to
discipline persons who can be showen to be misbehaving. There is
little need, and a positive disadvantage, in asking for more!
--dave (the postmaster) c-b
--
David Collier-Brown, | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave., |
Willowdale, Ontario, | Today's featured dish:
CANADA. 416-223-8968 | Sun-dried alligator.
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Thu Nov 14 09:55:27 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA05281
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 09:48:01 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 09:47:57 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111141447.AA05276@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Nov 14 09:47:06 EST 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: U. of Deleware computer policies
fsars@acad3.alaska :
dicely@cco.caltech : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
sethb@fid.morgan.c : Re: Thought Feh!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisite
kadie@herodotus.cs : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
greeny@top.cis.syr : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
usenet@swbatl.sbc. : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
ADMSK904@ksuvxa.ke : Prodigy case
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. W
jal41820@uxa.cso.u : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Admin Policies, Oppressive or Oth
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Msg. Forwarded from Campuswide Email list.
john@iastate.edu ( : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U. of Deleware computer policies
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.223832.6359@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 22:38:32 GMT
Policy for Responsible Computing Use at the University of Delaware
In support of its mission of teaching, research, and public service,
the University of Delaware provides access to computing and information
resources for students, faculty, and staff, within institutional
priorities and financial capabilities.
All members of the University community who use the University's
computing and information resources must act responsibly. Every user
is responsible for the integrity of these resources. All users of
University-owned or University-leased computing systems must respect
the rights of other computing users, respect the integrity of the
physical facilities and controls, and respect all pertinent license and
contractual agreements. It is the policy of the University of Delaware
that all members of its community act in accordance with these
responsibilities, relevant laws and contractual obligations, and the
highest standard of ethics.
Access to the University's computing facilities is a privilege granted
to University students, faculty, and staff. Access to University
information resources may be granted by the owners of that information
based on the owner's judgement of the following factors: relevant laws
and contractual obligations, the requestor's need to know, the
information's sensitivity, and the risk of damage to or loss by the
University.
The University reserves the right to limit, restrict, or extend
computing privileges and access to its information resources. Data
owners--whether departments, units, faculty, students, or staff--may
allow individuals other than University faculty, staff, and students
access to information for which they are responsible, so long as such
access does not violate any license or contractual agreement;
University policy; or any federal, state, county, or local law or
ordinance.
Computing facilities and accounts are owned by the University and are
to be used for the University-related activities for which they are
assigned. University computing resources are not to be used for
commercial purposes or non-University-related activities without
written authorization from the University. In these cases, the
University will require payment of appropriate fees. This policy
applies equally to all University-owned or University-leased
computers.
Users and system administrators must all guard against abuses that
disrupt or threaten the viability of all systems, including those at
the University and those on networks to which the University's systems
are connected. Access to information resources without proper
authorization from the data owner, unauthorized use of University
computing facilities, and intentional corruption or misuse of
information resources are direct violations of the University's
standards for conduct as outlined in the University of Delaware Policy
Manual, the Personnel Policies and Procedures for Professional and
Salaried Staff, the Faculty Handbook, and the Official Student Handbook
and may also be considered civil or criminal offenses.
The University of Delaware treats access and use violations of
computing facilities, equipment, software, information resources,
networks, or privileges seriously. Disciplinary action resulting from
such abuse may include the loss of computing privileges and other
sanctions including non-reappointment, discharge, dismissal, and legal
action--including prosecution under Title 11, $931-$939 of the Delaware
Code, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, or other appropriate
laws.
May 31, 1991
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject:
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.121358.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Sender: news@raven.alaska.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
References: <9111131348.AA09731@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.190613.16269@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 16:13:58 GMT
In article <1991Nov13.190613.16269@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> Face it, folks; you have to give *some* authority to the "man on the scene".
> If that authority is abused, *then* work to remove that person's authority.
> There is such a thing as too many procedures, you know. I would think that
> "staff on the scene" should have the authority to make a decision. That
> decision should, of course, be subject to review/appeal automatically, but
> you must give the man-on-the-scene the authority to act.
There is always a question as to how much independence you are going
to give a person, vs safeguards. We see this problem not only with
sysadmins, but purchasing agents for example. In general, the
government has so many safeguards in place to prevent corruption that
the safeguards cost more money than the money they were trying to save
in the first place. We're beginning to see the same with sysadmins.
In general though, the more users you have on a system, the more
safeguards/rules you are going to need. Here at UAF we have a VAX
8800 mainframe with lots of software, but there is also other
departments with unix boxes with internet access. You can log onto
them remotely. Most of the sysadmins on those boxes only have 10-20
users to manage at the most, and the rules are lax because of that.
Because the sysadmins can, there are some that can be very arbitrary.
But I have accounts on 3-4 machines. So if one of them kicks me off,
big deal. I can access another machine. The only problem I see with
this is those people that are causing network type of abuses. It's
one thing to screw up someone's unix box, get punished for it, and go
to another machine and decide to behave/not behave and suffer
consequences. With network abuses, it's harder for a central
authority to track you down.
=== Al Sparks
-------------------
From: dicely@cco.caltech.edu
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.100908.12406@cco.caltech.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 91 10:09:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: cco.1991Nov13.100908.12406
References: <19255@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>
Sender: news@cco.caltech.edu
Originator: dicely@christopher
Nntp-Posting-Host: christopher
In article <19255@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU
(Steven Arnold) writes:
>
> Gosh, guys, I really don't know what it is with all this knocking
> Republicans.
Hmmm... The fact that the Republicans stand for absolutely nothing but
"feelgood" politics?
> Heck, even Libertarians are only Republicans who thought
> the GOP was soft on individual rights.
Which, of course, is the only thing the GOP has a half (well, quarter?) decent
record on in recent years.
> Compared to the Democrats, we're
> heaven.
If the GOP is your definition of heaven, hell can't be much worse!
> they've adopted so many rights for so little good reason that
> they mean nothing anymore; moreover, many of these bogus "rights"
> violate the true rights all people possess.
Example? Now I know that Republicans only believe in "real" rights like the
right to bear arms, the right to worship the flag, and the right to kick
anyones ass who doesn't agree with you.
> Myself, I'm a real conservative Republican, and I believe that the
> right to life, liberty, property and self-defense are all ABSOLUTE,
> except of course that you can't use them to violate someone else's
> rights.
Okay, wise guy, so what happens when two "absolute" rights comes into conflict?
Right-since both are 100% absolute, they must cancel each other out totally,
right? Or do they have relative precedence?
> I think you guys are worried about the religious right. Fine. But
> don't adopt false stereotypes of ALL Republicans -- many of us are more
> staunchly for human rights than you think.
Yeah. Well, maybe you should show it.
The GOP has shown itself in recent years to be consistently desiring to
restrict every right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights _except_ the right to
keep and bear arms.
Now, maybe not all Republicans are bad, but the *party* has shown itself, as
an organization, to be that way.
-------------------
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Thought control? Feh!
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.231459.13923@fid.morgan.com>
References: <1991Nov7.053529.11191@parc.xerox.com> <1991Nov8.001755.7879@igor.tamri.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 23:14:59 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.001755.7879@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com
(Don Baldwin) claims:
:
>The sexual harassment debate is NOT about thought control. It is about being
>responsible for your actions. If I look at a female co-worker and imagine her
>as my love slave, no law has been broken.
That depends. What if she doesn't like the expression on your face
when you look at her? Since sexual harassment is defined by the
opinion of the "victim", you could be found guilty.
I used quotes around the word "victim" because in such a case, I would
consider _you_ to be the victim.
Seth
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <9111140055.AA12981@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 13 Nov 91 12:55:07 GMT
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 12:30:34 GMT
trimble@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble) writes:
}>trimble@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble) writes:
}> UofI sysadmin BOB FOERTSCH repsponds
[...Fascist response to `un-reasonable' language'...]
} I didn't mean for the last post to be some kind of personal attack on Bob.
}I'm actually trying to ask, "is this the way it really is? Am I reading and
}interpreting this quote correctly?" ...
}And this was supposed to be more in question form, also. Do you sysadmins look
}at stuff and say this, or do you say that a post is representative of a Univ.?
Here, we have had one incident where a student's postings were considered
inappropriate (for lack of a better word). He was quite critical of the
head of a computer company, which was fine until he said (paraphrasing here)
"he should be dead". This caused us to receive a large amount of mail (some
of which I would consider worse than the original posting in question!).
We turned his account off (we have found this the only way to get people
to come see us), asked him to be more prudent in the future and suggested
that he post an apology (which he did), turned his account back on, and
as far as I know, have heard nary a complaint.
This in my mind is a reasonable and fair procedure, although I don't
know what we would do about a continuous problem (hopefully I'll
never have to know).
John
-------------------
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov12.182158.913@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:56:27 GMT
In <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
[...]
>Here, we have had one incident where a student's postings were considered
>inappropriate (for lack of a better word). He was quite critical of the
>head of a computer company, which was fine until he said (paraphrasing here)
>"he should be dead". This caused us to receive a large amount of mail (some
>of which I would consider worse than the original posting in question!).
>We turned his account off (we have found this the only way to get people
>to come see us), asked him to be more prudent in the future and suggested
>that he post an apology (which he did), turned his account back on, and
>as far as I know, have heard nary a complaint.
[...]
You should not have punished him. Rudeness is not a crime.
(I'm paraphrasing from an ACLU handbook on teacher's legal rights)
Generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First
Amendment [or Academic Freedom -cmk], does not lose that protection
because its tone is sharp. Discussions will not always be models of
decorum. A court observed that "often those with the power to appoint
will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it convenient to
use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to squelch them.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.200935.22130@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 20:09:35 EST
It would be nice of universities payed attention to their own rules, and
the law. In my own experience, however, I have found that university
administrations are unlikely to do so, unless they are forced to do so.
The sad fact is that you may have to work like hell to secure your rights.
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
-------------------
From: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.161530.11709@swbatl.sbc.com>
References: <1991Nov5.134344.1833@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Nov5.171715.25343@swbatl.sbc.com> <1991Nov8.204522.8099@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 16:15:30 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.204522.8099@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <1991Nov5.171715.25343@swbatl.sbc.com>, joe@okepyr.UUCP stated:
>>
>> If Maddox were elected Governor of Georgia in today's
>> climate of political correctness, the people of Georgia
>> could expect punishment for exercising their constitutional
>> rights in the form of economic blackmail, boycotts, media
>> ridicule, and an endless array of other sqeeze tactics
>> and whippings by the intolerant fascict liberals.
>> After all, the liberals in Boston, Washington, NYC,
>> and at CBS, NBC, ABC news, and the Kennedys, the Kerrys
>> and the Metzenbaums know better than the people of Georgia
>> (or Louisiana) what is really best for them.
>> Just ask the people of Arizona what can happen if you
>> vote the "wrong way".
>>
>> This economic blackmail poses a greater threat to America
>> and constitutional freedoms than Lester Maddox, David Duke
>> or an "incorrect vote" in Arizona.
>
>Assuming that you have any cognitive processes worthy of the term,
>Spencer, what did/do you think of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You
>wouldn't happen to be one of those folks who think that Congress went
>too far, and that nigras should simply have taken their business
>only to hospitable public accommodations, would you?
>
>Hmmm.
Hmmmm. What has the Civil Rights Act of 1964 got to do with
economic blackmail directed toward individual states because
said states voted incorrectly???? Are you inferring the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 makes this type of retaliation a requirement
by law?????
In voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Sen. Barry Goldwater
cited the bill would take away individual rights and liberties of
property owners both large and small. It took away any right of
business owners to conduct business as they so chose. It took away
individual homeowners rights to conduct a real estate transaction
as they so chose. Although this law also denied other basic
liberties to the majority, the seizure of property rights was
and is my primary concern, as it was Goldwater's.
Perhaps you can tell me how this act has improved America's
lot in regards to crime, the decline in public schools, the
work ethic, the moral ethics, the decline of our inner cities,
white flight, the increase in the number of private schools,
the riots caused by forced busing of school children in Boston,
the ever increasing welfare underclass, the increase in
racial incidents on the college campus, the popularity of
George Wallace in the Michigan primaries in 1968, the rise
of David Duke in 1991, the threat of minority gangs, the
increasing problem of the lack of responsibilty of black
males in taking care of their own children and the widening
schism between minority groups among themselves.
>
> Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
*********************************************************************
Joe Spencer What the Hell is the world
Southwestern Bell coming to?
Network Engineering
Sheriff Buford T. Justice
********************************************************************
-------------------
From: ADMSK904@ksuvxa.kent.edu
Subject: Prodigy case info?
Message-ID: <01GCX3S2NNY0000HNW@ksuvxa.kent.edu>
Sender: ADMSK904@ksuvxa.kent.edu
Date: 14 Nov 91 04:11:00 GMT
Hello CAF listeners,
I am doing a reaserch paper on Privacy of Information. Specifically related to
on-line services like Prodigy, AOL, Compu$erve etc.
I remember a lot of talk a while back about Prodigy and certain lawsuits that
were pending. Could anyone send me any information relating to this. Even if
it is old info. I am having a bear of a time finding info.
This is a last minute request so time is pretty valuable. Please hurry....
Thanks in advance!
Peter Kerns
ADMSK904@kentvms (Bitnet)
ADMSK904@ksuvxa.kent.edu (Internet)
PeterKSU (AOL)
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.053054.16849@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 05:30:54 GMT
[Posted for the author - Carl]
In article <8702F5953E41331B@ccmail.sunysb.edu> you write:
> >From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
> >> o Respect the privacy and rules governing the use of any
> >> information accessible through the computer system or
> >> network, even when that information is not securely
> >> protected.
> >
> >Makes users liable for any complaint from any foreign system administrator,
> >even if they were not aware of the rules which the foreign sysadmin claims
> >they have broken-- even if they accessed the system through an unpassworded
> >"guest" account.
> >
>
> Just because someone leaves the doors to their house open does not mean you
> can enter and take a shower or eat from the pantry. You still need the
> homeowner's permission. Just because the doors are open does not mean you can
> go in and break open the jewellery box and admire the jewellery.
But, laws against entering someone's house without their permission
are available for anyone to read, and housebreaking seems more wrong
common sense-wise. Computer systems generally do not have that much
common sense implemented.
>
> The assumption that any unpassworded guest account is an invitation to enter is
> totally unwarranted. Even more unwarranted and illegal is the assumption that
> entry made through such an account is an open invitaion to attempt to break
> security.
I agree entirely. Users should respect the rights of otheer users,
even when there is no written policy.
> >> o Respect the finite capacity of systems, and limit your own
> >> use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of
> >> other users.
> >
> >This looks like license to punish for _ANYTHING_! (WHAT! You were running
> >TWO copies of gnuemace while compiling your program? CPU HOG!)
>
> The operating word here is "unreasonably".
>
> This clause seems to be meant for a fair distribution of resources. I guess
> some people do not believe in fairness if you object to this clause.
>
But, the question here is: what's fair? Should one consume the same
amount of CPU time regardless of the load on the system?
> >
> >> o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
> >> system.
> >
> >This is a blank check-- means the users have to abide by any policies
> >unilaterally established in the future.
>
> If you do not like this, what would you propose every time a new operating
> system version or hardware release came along?
But it still leaves very wide avenues for abuse.
>
> >>Those who cannot accept these standards of bahavior may be denied access to
> >> [...]
> >
> The promised account seems to be for pure email and from what I understand
> only email internal to OSU. Technically it is not a violation of OSU rules if
> the account owner is denied access to Usenet, off-OSU mail, programming etc.
That's not exactly true. There has never been any restriction placed
on use of email or netnews with respect to geography, although some
newsgroups are not carried, as is the decision of ACS.
>
> >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
>
> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
>
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: jal41820@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Smiley)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.054421.24194@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.214812.2699@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 05:44:21 GMT
lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes:
:)kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:)>In <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
:)>trimble@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble) writes:
:)>[...]
:)>>(All Quotes taken from the Daily Illini - Tues. Nov. 12, 1991 - p. 3)
:)>[...]
:)>>UofI sysadmin BOB FOERTSCH repsponds (which is paraphrased by the Daily Illini
:)>> - not a DIRECT quote except for 'reasonable person')
:)>>: "if someone is caught using language that would be vulgar or rude to
:)>> a 'reasonable person,' the University steps in.".
:)>[...]
:)>I was very surprised to read this. I was under the impression the the
:)>University of Illinois was free of speech restrictions (except for
:)>restrictions on harassment).
:)Bob indicated to me the other day that he had been misquoted in the
:)DI several times. You should wait to hear his side on this.
What? The DI misquoted someone? :)
Actually, for curiosity sake, I would be very interested in hearing Bob's
position on this.
-Josh Laff :)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Josh Laff: e-mail to: |
Help! The sky is falling! | smiley@uiuc.edu | # #
|_________________________| _ _
Oh... wait... no... I'm tipping over | (217) 356-0149 | |#\_____/#|
backwards. |________________| \#######/
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Admin Policies, Oppressive or Otherwise...
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 14 Nov 91 07:25:00 GMT
>From: bianco@ceawlin.cs.odu.edu (Dave)
>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:49:26 GMT
>
>Everytime I hear something about computing policies at
>other Universities, it makes me even more glad I go to
>ODU. Here at Old Dominion, we have some of the nicest
>computing use policies (in some ways) that I have ever
>heard about. We operate 3 labs of Sun's SPARCstations
>to which both graduates and undergraduatess have equal
>access. Additionally, many of the grads have cubicles
>with their own machines in them. Use of most resources
>is unrestricted. Since the system is meant to support
>the work of it's users, their needs are evaluated very
>carefully before any decisions affecting system use is
>made. What impresses me the most, though, is that the
>entire system is run by students. There is one System
>Engineer who is full time; the rest of us are students
>one and all...
>
>--
>==========================================================
>David J. Bianco -- Systems Dude & Xanth IRC admin...
>Old Dominion University
>Dept of Computer Science,
>Norfolk, VA 23529
>
> || <...!uunet!xanth!bianco>
>
> "That's the short definition of Systems Engineer."
> -- Geordi LaForge (Paraphrased)
>==========================================================
The above scenario works for several reasons and unfortunately is not
applicable to a general University environment.
The biggest reason it works is that there is no shortage of hardware for the
small number of users using the machines.
The second reason it works is that the users are computer litereate.
The third reason it works is that the number of users is small enough that all
can be consulted before a change. (not the typical 4,000+ users that may use
a University's central computers. The computer system that I am writing this
from is a VAXcluster that I manage that has over 3,000 accounts with over 1,200
different users signing on over a typical weekday. The total disk available for
user files is about 5GB and the total CPU power is about 10 VAX mips. There
can be more than 150 users signed on to the VAXcluster at the same time. The
average daily incoming Internet and Bitnet mail is about 2,000 pieces per
day. Anyone who wants to donate us high performance computers is welcome.)
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Msg. Forwarded from Campuswide Email list.
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 14 Nov 91 07:37:00 GMT
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:51:29 -0600
From: Hank
Subject: RE: email privacy
Sender: Campus-Wide Electronic Mail Systems discussion list
*** Reply to note of 11/11/91 14:09
>email will be encrypted in the future...then it will be private...email
privacy policy only good until them<
There are many aspects of this email privacy and it gets quite interesting the
deeper you get into it. After a couple of meetings of the committee I'm
chairing, I'm writing the first draft of a policy document for my group.
One of the general conclusions of our committee was that email should receive
the same guarantees that we expect for other forms of communication on our
campus: use of telephone and campus mail are two examples. We would think it
very odd for someone to monitor all our telephone calls or open our mail
(unless we asked them to) but since all these communications systems are here
for University activities/business there are some general expectations
regarding how they are to be used. Personal calls are made, and I think that
it is not considered unusual or unethical. One manager I know even thinks that
personal calls by their people is a necessity and moderate use is beneficial
for the organization. But what if someone is conducting illegal business via
email. If there is "reasonable cause" people in resposible positions may find
themselves having to monitor how the organization communications systems are
used, perhaps even obtaining permission to monitor content.
What is reasonable cause, and what is reasonable behavior or reasonable
response ?
Also, we found it quite interesting that there were no policies on our campus
regarding telephone and paper mail. I believe that general accepted
practices/customs/social norms have give us certain expecations. There are
state and federal laws but to cite one example - it is illegal to open someone
elses mail , a federal law but when the letter leaves the USPS system and
enters our campus mail system does this still apply ? Even stickier, what
about purely campus mail that never enters the USPS ?
Would we ever want someone to use encryption on email ? I don't know. And even
if we did, where would this encryption take place ? Would the typical user
expect that his regular email would be not be routinely scrutinized by some
nosey administrator ?
Not having a policy means that we don't have any guidance on these things. We
have had at least one instance on our campus of an administrator asking about
the possibility of finding out what someone is sending on eamil. The LAN
administrator managed to discreetly derail the inquiry but with a policy in
place there would have been something to refer to.
-------------------
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.124028.8711@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Nov12.182158.913@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 12:40:28 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}In <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}>Here, we have had one incident where a student's postings were considered
}>inappropriate (for lack of a better word). He was quite critical of the
}>head of a computer company, which was fine until he said (paraphrasing here)
}>"he should be dead". This caused us to receive a large amount of mail (some
}>of which I would consider worse than the original posting in question!).
}>We turned his account off (we have found this the only way to get people
}>to come see us), asked him to be more prudent in the future and suggested
}>that he post an apology (which he did), turned his account back on, and
}>as far as I know, have heard nary a complaint.
}You should not have punished him. Rudeness is not a crime.
}Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
No, but threating someones life is. And from the mail we received, that is
certainly how many people interpreted it. Although the only interpretation
that really matters is a jury's, I doubt quietly letting it go that far is
really in the student's best interest. And any way, since when is spending
two minutes to listen to someone say "that was not a very good idea, you
should apologize" punishment? And even if you do think it is punishment,
remember that we are talking about the privilege to use a facility, not
the right to use it. And privileges come with rules & responsibilities.
John
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Fri Nov 15 11:55:53 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA19485
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 11:37:36 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 11:37:28 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111151637.AA19469@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Nov 15 11:36:22 EST 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
allens@yang.earlha : Re: Rights of Readers/Posters
greeny@top.cis.syr : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
donb@igor.tamri.co : Re: Thought Feh!
john@iastate.edu ( : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
john@iastate.edu ( : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
rday@magnus.acs.oh : Re: Thought Feh!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Iowa State speech restrictions (was Re: Watch What You Po
tjc50@ccc.amdahl.c : Re: Thought Feh!
dlo@druwa.ATT.COM : Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.135908.14140@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 14 Nov 91 13:59:08 GMT
References: <9111131909.AA11495@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Surely a written statement that someone has done something wrong ought to
>encourage a reasonable person to inquire as to just what is wrong with
>what they did?
No offense, Carl, but:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Most users don't think anything is wrong, as long as their tasks/jobs
are completed.
>Has psychopathy really become so much the norm that it
>is *expected* that people be *incapable* of determining that their behavior
>is unacceptable to people around them unless they are brought in and beaten
>with clubs?
It isn't psychopathy, it's the norm. I can't count the number of phone
messages, electronic mail messages, and even hardcopy memos that have
been ignored by users. In most of these cases, they had an extremely
selfish attitude.
One user was using a PC program that reconfigured, via escape codes,
the laser printers in the lab (for landscaping, fonts, et cetera). He
never bothered to reset the printer, so everyone else's printouts were
trashed by his settings on the printer. He ignored phone messages and
electronic mail messages for two weeks; I finally tracked him down by
watching the network for his id and tracking him to the specific lab
PC he was using. His reply was "hey, I can run any program I want in
here". I explained the problem to him and gave him the default settings
for the printer, so he could reset it when he was done. His response
was "it's not my job to fix printers". I told him that if he refused to
reset the printers, I would have to ask him not to run his program in
the public labs. His response was "you can't stop me, I have a *right*
to use this lab." I wound up using a bit of peer pressure to convince
him to stop, but it never should have escalated to that point.
That's just one of many, *many* examples I could provide. Many users
suffer from the same malady often ascribed to admins; they consider the
computer to be their personal fiefdom, with no concern for other users.
I will say that the vast majority of users, once they realize the impact
of their actions, become much more considerate of other users. The ma-
jority, however, continue to believe that they can arbitrarily do what-
ever they wish, with no regard for other users and no concern for the
concerns/questions of admins.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.161325.7830@eff.org>
References: <9111131909.AA11495@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov14.135908.14140@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:13:25 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>
>>Surely a written statement that someone has done something wrong ought to
>>encourage a reasonable person to inquire as to just what is wrong with
>>what they did?
>No offense, Carl, but:
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I won't have been offended if I had written this; but in fact, I didn't
write it. I forwarded it from:
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Date: 12 Nov 91 11:26:46 EST
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.162822.8549@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov12.182158.913@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov14.124028.8711@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:28:22 GMT
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>}You should not have punished him. Rudeness is not a crime.
[...]
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
[...]
>No, but threating someones life is.
[...]
>And even if you do think it is punishment,
>remember that we are talking about the privilege to use a facility, not
>the right to use it. And privileges come with rules & responsibilities.
[...]
If it sounded like a real threat to you, I take back my criticism.
As to your second point, as an official/agent of a public university
the rules that you create must be consistent with the Constitution (as
interpreted by the courts.) Declaring something a privilege does not
give you authority to create arbitrary rules. You could not, for
example, prohibit so-called pro-life notes while allowing so-called
pro-choice notes (or visa versa).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu
Subject: Re: Rights of Readers/Posters
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.221150.13922@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 12 Nov 91 03:11:50 GMT
References: <9111072231.AA05575@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> <1991Nov11.163455.13902@yang.earlham.edu>
In article <1991Nov11.163455.13902@yang.earlham.edu>, allens@yang.earlham.edu writes:
> In article <9111072231.AA05575@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>> In reply to the mail from ...
>>>>I am not commenting on this particular incident, nor am I saying that the
>>>>"reader's rights" are preeminent in this case. I just wanted to point out
>>>>that readers DO have rights, within the context of Usenet.
>>>
>>>Currently, they really don't. They have the right to express their opinion,
>>>but thats about it (and of course, they have the right to change the system,
>>>but then then we wouldn not be considering the current situation). IMHO,
>>>this shouldn't change much. Right now USENET is an absolutely free forum
>>>to express any idea that you wish, and I would rather that didn't change
>>>-- if that means we have to deal with a few idiots like Yahweh, then thats
>>>the price we have to pay...
>>
>> I agree wholeheartedly.
>>
> Readers do have the right to skip reading articles, if they can
> tell they're not what the reader wants to read. I have the right not to
turn on the TV and listen to someone opinionating, after all.
> -Allen
> Standard Disclaimers
Sorry- newsposter messed up.
-------------------
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.112141.14742@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
References: <1991Nov12.182158.913@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov14.124028.8711@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 11:21:41 EST
In article <1991Nov14.124028.8711@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>}In <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>}>He was quite critical of the
>}>head of a computer company, which was fine until he said (paraphrasing here)
>}>"he should be dead".
>
>}You should not have punished him. Rudeness is not a crime.
>}Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
>No, but threating someones life is. And from the mail we received, that is
>certainly how many people interpreted it. Although the only interpretation
>that really matters is a jury's, I doubt quietly letting it go that far is
>really in the student's best interest.
This is a real cop-out. Saying "he should be dead" is hardly a threat.
I suppose, by your standards, hanging in effigy would also be illegal.
And frankly, hanging someone in effigy seems a far more threatening act
that somebody getting a little overzealous and saying "he should be dead."
Hasn't everybody said, at one time or another, "I'm gonna kill him!!"
It's a common expression of simple frustration.
>And any way, since when is spending
>two minutes to listen to someone say "that was not a very good idea, you
>should apologize" punishment? And even if you do think it is punishment,
>remember that we are talking about the privilege to use a facility, not
>the right to use it. And privileges come with rules & responsibilities.
It sounds fine, and is not punishment; however, since you are in a position
of authority, it sure would seem implicit that such behavior may be
punishable (as opposed to simply discouraged).
The effect of saying "that was not a good idea, you sqhYould apologize"
would be very different coming from a peer. I doubt this individual felt as
though he had any choice in the matter.
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
-------------------
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Thought control? Feh!
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.171922.14714@igor.tamri.com>
Date: 14 Nov 91 17:19:22 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.053529.11191@parc.xerox.com> <1991Nov8.001755.7879@igor.tamri.com> <1991Nov13.231459.13923@fid.morgan.com>
In article <1991Nov13.231459.13923@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1991Nov8.001755.7879@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com
>(Don Baldwin) claims:
>:
>>The sexual harassment debate is NOT about thought control. It is about being
>>responsible for your actions. If I look at a female co-worker and imagine her
>>as my love slave, no law has been broken.
>
>That depends. What if she doesn't like the expression on your face
>when you look at her? Since sexual harassment is defined by the
>opinion of the "victim", you could be found guilty.
>
>I used quotes around the word "victim" because in such a case, I would
>consider _you_ to be the victim.
Yeah, the situation you described would be bad. But I've never heard about
such an outrageous thing happening. I HAVE know women who were physically
touched and harassed by their bosses. I had a friend who was fired because
she wouldn't go out with the boss.
Guess which side I'm more worried about?
don
-------------------
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.175122.7291@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Nov14.124028.8711@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov14.162822.8549@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 17:51:22 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}>}You should not have punished him. Rudeness is not a crime.
}john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}>No, but threating someones life is.
}If it sounded like a real threat to you, I take back my criticism.
I realized that it was probably an idle threat, but then my it wasn't
my opinion that mattered when the administration started hearing about it.
}>And even if you do think it is punishment,
}>remember that we are talking about the privilege to use a facility, not
}>the right to use it. And privileges come with rules & responsibilities.
}[...]
}As to your second point, as an official/agent of a public university
}the rules that you create must be consistent with the Constitution (as
}interpreted by the courts.) Declaring something a privilege does not
}give you authority to create arbitrary rules. You could not, for
}example, prohibit so-called pro-life notes while allowing so-called
}pro-choice notes (or visa versa).
I don't consider myself an offical/agent of anything, I just work here,
I don't make any policy. Here is a section of the University policy on
ethical use of computers:
# Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden. Also disallowed
are random mailings and any message of commercial or political
nature.
Interesting how the very word you used, "rude", is in there. Is it an
arbitrary rule? Perhaps; seems somewhat vague to me. Had I written it,
it would have been different, but maybe that's why they didn't ask my
opinion on it...
John
-------------------
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.180811.7940@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Nov14.124028.8711@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov14.112141.14742@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 18:08:11 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes:
}john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}>}john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}>}>He was quite critical of the
}>}>head of a computer company, which was fine until he said (paraphrasing here)
}>}>"he should be dead".
}>}You should not have punished him. Rudeness is not a crime.
}>No, but threating someones life is. And from the mail we received, that is
}>certainly how many people interpreted it.
}This is a real cop-out. Saying "he should be dead" is hardly a threat.
I should have worded that part more carefully, the language used *was*
more threatening (sorry, I did not keep the article in question). And
as I said in a previous post, the fact that I thought it was an idle
threat, was irrelevant (pretty hard for someone across the net to
determine which threats are idle and which are not).
}I suppose, by your standards, hanging in effigy would also be illegal.
}And frankly, hanging someone in effigy seems a far more threatening act
}that somebody getting a little overzealous and saying "he should be dead."
}Hasn't everybody said, at one time or another, "I'm gonna kill him!!"
}It's a common expression of simple frustration.
That may be, but see what happens if you say something like that around
the Secret Service, for example. Some people (public people like political
figures or the head of a large corp), feel they have to take these things
seriously -- and I can't say I blame them.
}>And any way, since when is spending
}>two minutes to listen to someone say "that was not a very good idea, you
}>should apologize" punishment? And even if you do think it is punishment,
}>remember that we are talking about the privilege to use a facility, not
}>the right to use it. And privileges come with rules & responsibilities.
}It sounds fine, and is not punishment; however, since you are in a position
}of authority, it sure would seem implicit that such behavior may be
}punishable (as opposed to simply discouraged).
}The effect of saying "that was not a good idea, you should apologize"
}would be very different coming from a peer. I doubt this individual felt as
}though he had any choice in the matter.
Well, as I was 26 at the time and I hardly dress like the "suits" around
here, I am about as close to a peer as you are going to find.
--
The whole point of this mess was to show an example of someone who did
something much worse (IMHO) than the student who was expelled for using
profanity, and where the response was much more tempered.
John "geez, and I thought I was one of the good guys"
BTW, I've beaten this dead horse quite enough if everyone else has...
-------------------
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: Thought control? Feh!
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.183155.26543@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
References: <1991Nov8.001755.7879@igor.tamri.com> <1991Nov13.231459.13923@fid.m
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 18:31:55 GMT
In article <1991Nov14.171922.14714@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Bal
dwin) writes:
>In article <1991Nov13.231459.13923@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth
Breidbart) writes:
>>That depends. What if she doesn't like the expression on your face
>>when you look at her? Since sexual harassment is defined by the
>>opinion of the "victim", you could be found guilty.
>>I used quotes around the word "victim" because in such a case, I would
>>consider _you_ to be the victim.
>
>Yeah, the situation you described would be bad. But I've never heard about
>such an outrageous thing happening. I HAVE know women who were physically
>touched and harassed by their bosses. I had a friend who was fired because
>she wouldn't go out with the boss.
>
>Guess which side I'm more worried about?
You should be woried aboout both situations. The second situations is a very
bad one and most people(IMHO) agree that this should be illegal.
But . . .
The laws governing S.H. should not be vaguely written, It should be written
so everyone will know what S.H. is, as it is now, a person could be charged
with S.H. for asking a woman out on a data(I am not talking about a boss
demanding a date, but a co-worker just asking someone out.) This should not
be S.H.(once again IMHO) but it can be deemed as such. It is situations like
this one that do more harm than good for the victims of "true" S.H.
-
--
* Syr Otto von Schwartzkatz * Robert Eugene Day *
* Shire of Mugmort * The opinions expressed here are *
* Barony of the Middle Marches * my own. (I have no one else to *
* Kingdom of the Middle * blame but myself.) *
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Iowa State speech restrictions (was Re: Watch What You Post!!!)
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.203127.16256@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov14.124028.8711@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov14.162822.8549@eff.org> <1991Nov14.175122.7291@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 20:31:27 GMT
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
[...]
>I don't consider myself an offical/agent of anything, I just work here,
>I don't make any policy.
This may apply. It is from A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting
College Teachers:
"Teacher As Agent of Institution
When a teacher is acting within the scope of his or her employment, a
teacher generally is viewed as the agent of the institution. A
teacher's acts, then, are considered to be the acts of the
institution. Thus, a teacher's acts can form the basis for liability
of the institution."
>Here is a section of the University policy on
>ethical use of computers:
> # Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
> or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden. Also disallowed
> are random mailings and any message of commercial or political
> nature.
>Interesting how the very word you used, "rude", is in there. Is it an
>arbitrary rule? Perhaps; seems somewhat vague to me. Had I written it,
>it would have been different, but maybe that's why they didn't ask my
>opinion on it...
[...]
How was this policy created? What is its official status? By what
authority does a state university prohibit rude speech? Does the
university generally prohibit rude speech or is rude speech only
prohibited on campus computer media? Does it apply to both
faculty and students?
Here is a reading list of on-line material about freedom-of-expression
law a public universities. Everything is available via anonymous ftp
from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law OR by email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-law
- Carl
=================
constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
hustler-magazine-v-falwell
=================
Summary from _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam, p. 157.
The publisher of a cartoon parody, already found not to be libelous,
could not be punished for the emotional distress the cartoon may have
caused. The Court wrote: "in public debate our own citizens must
tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide
adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First
Amendment."
=================
perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
=================
rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine.
=================
stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression."
=================
student-publications.control
=================
Comments from _School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ by Martha
M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. It says, in part, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper".
=================
student-publications.libel
=================
McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe on what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
student-publications.sharp
=================
A paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It says
that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the
First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
=================
uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Subject: Re: Thought control? Feh!
Message-ID: <25TJ02Dd043X01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 14 Nov 91 20:13:51 GMT
References: <1991Nov8.001755.7879@igor.tamri.com> <1991Nov13.231459.13923@fid.m <1991Nov14.183155.26543@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
In article <1991Nov14.183155.26543@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day) writes:
>The laws governing S.H. should not be vaguely written, It should be written
>so everyone will know what S.H. is, as it is now, a person could be charged
>with S.H. for asking a woman out on a data(I am not talking about a boss
>demanding a date, but a co-worker just asking someone out.) This should not
>be S.H.(once again IMHO) but it can be deemed as such. It is situations like
>this one that do more harm than good for the victims of "true" S.H.
>
In my opinion, sexual harrassment laws should be rescinded. The real evil
is the harassment. Whether or not it is sexually related is, I think,
irrelevant. I can see no basis for believing that non-sexual harassment
is any more acceptable than sexual harrassment. If you hold someone
back from a promotion because they won't accept your invitation to a date,
that is harrassment enough for me; the fact that it might be "sexual" is
incidental to the real harm. What if you just wanted a companion to
go to the hockey game with, and asked a subordinate of the same sex to
go with you, and restricted his (or her) promotion because of his decline
of the invitation? Isn't that as wrong as if the harassment was sexually
based?
--
The above is my thoughts, not my employer's; Terry Carroll 408/992-2152
The above is not legal advice; tjc50@amail.amdahl.com (preferred)
All models over 18 years of age. tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com
-------------------
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <11966@drutx.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Nov 91 16:08:03 GMT
References: <1991Nov8.182843.11902@anasaz>
Sender: news@drutx.ATT.COM
In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
} ...
} I have a better idea. Why don't y'all just vote an MLK holiday if it
} pisses off customers so much and is driving you bankrupt?
} ...
} I don't see anything immoral or illegal about their decision, Arizona
} had its choice, the NFL got theirs. They're all adults. They're all
} EMPOWERED adults with complete free choice to weigh their options,
} consider the possible implications, and make their decision and live
} with it (so spare me the strained comparisons with racism, where
} parties are not so free to participate in their end of the decision
} making process.)
I have a big problem with this scorched earth policy -- everyone in Arizona
got treated the same, no matter how they voted. People who voted for the
MLK holiday are being punished right along with those who voted against it.
Yes, it is legal. But it is still a chicken sh*t thing to do.
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Dukkke likes Republicans!
In-Reply-To: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM's message of 14 Nov 91 16:08:03 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References: <1991Nov8.182843.11902@anasaz>
<11966@drutx.ATT.COM>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 03:15:27 GMT
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
>I have a big problem with this scorched earth policy -- everyone in Arizona
>got treated the same, no matter how they voted. People who voted for the
>MLK holiday are being punished right along with those who voted against it.
No one has ever solved this problem in a democracy except for certain
special cases. Short of specific constitutional rights violations
(which isn't involved in this issue), well, even those who didn't vote
for George Bush get George Bush as President, for example.
--
-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: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.034240.27220@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 03:42:40 GMT
[Posted for the author - Carl]
In article <1991Nov14.135908.14140@ms.uky.edu> Wes Morgan writes:
> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >
> >Surely a written statement that someone has done something wrong ought to
> >encourage a reasonable person to inquire as to just what is wrong with
> >what they did?
>
> No offense, Carl, but:
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Gee, who could be offended by that? 8)
>
> Most users don't think anything is wrong, as long as their tasks/jobs
> are completed.
But, the users you see represent a small minority of the user
population. Also, would you tend to remember the users who
were most problematic more than those who didn't cause problems?
> >Has psychopathy really become so much the norm that it
> >is *expected* that people be *incapable* of determining that their behavior
> >is unacceptable to people around them unless they are brought in and beaten
> >with clubs?
>
> It isn't psychopathy, it's the norm. I can't count the number of phone
> messages, electronic mail messages, and even hardcopy memos that have
> been ignored by users. In most of these cases, they had an extremely
> selfish attitude.
>
> One user was using a PC program that reconfigured, via escape codes,
> the laser printers in the lab (for landscaping, fonts, et cetera). He
> never bothered to reset the printer, so everyone else's printouts were
> trashed by his settings on the printer. He ignored phone messages and
> electronic mail messages for two weeks; I finally tracked him down by
> watching the network for his id and tracking him to the specific lab
> PC he was using. His reply was "hey, I can run any program I want in
> here". I explained the problem to him and gave him the default settings
> for the printer, so he could reset it when he was done. His response
> was "it's not my job to fix printers". I told him that if he refused to
> reset the printers, I would have to ask him not to run his program in
> the public labs. His response was "you can't stop me, I have a *right*
> to use this lab." I wound up using a bit of peer pressure to convince
> him to stop, but it never should have escalated to that point.
Depending on the type of printer, could it be automatically reset
or reset by the employee at the site, even by cycling power on & off?
I agree that the user should leave the printer as he found it, but
even if you "converted" this one, then what about the next 1 or 10
or 20?
I also agree that you could forbid him to use the laser printer after
you had told him what the rule was, how he was violating it, & how
he could stop violating it. It's important to tell the user how to
correct the problem ,as there are users who know how to use a program,
but not how it works. I've worked with all levels of users, & one
must be very specific in order to get any positive result.
Also, what sort of letters & phone calls did you make? Was it possible
that he misinterpreted your interest? I know several people who won't
go to ACS's "meetings" because of the reputation the admins have for
reaming users.
>
> That's just one of many, *many* examples I could provide. Many users
> suffer from the same malady often ascribed to admins; they consider the
> computer to be their personal fiefdom, with no concern for other users.
Also, many admins tend to ascribe the worst motives to users,
and users do the same to admins.
I do believe that computer systems exist more for the users than
for the admins. The users should avoid doing things that interfere
with others' use of the system, & the admins' role is pivotal in
assuring equitable access.
>
> I will say that the vast majority of users, once they realize the impact
> of their actions, become much more considerate of other users. The ma-
> jority, however, continue to believe that they can arbitrarily do what-
> ever they wish, with no regard for other users and no concern for the
> concerns/questions of admins.
I don't quite follow: which position will the majority of users
take?
I believe that the majority of users must become more aware of how their
actions affect others. At OSU, the system I used had, at one time
3-4 MUD type games running. This appreciably slowed the (already slow)
system down, tied up ports & ttys, and used disk space excessively.
Since one of the offenders was an admin, nothing was done. There has
always been a 'no games' policy at ACS, although it was
not publicised until recently.
>
> --
> morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Fri Nov 15 11:56:16 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA19805
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 11:39:13 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 11:39:01 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111151639.AA19796@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Nov 15 11:38:04 EST 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
draughn@iitmax.iit : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Msg. Forwarded from Campuswide Email list.
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Orders (Was Re: Re; Brack Exp
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
usenet@swbatl.sbc. : Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Msg. Forwarded from Campuswide Email list.
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Finger & Liberty
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Finger & Liberty
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Re: Finger & Liberty
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Finger & Liberty
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: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.015915.7845@iitmax.iit.edu>
References: <1991Nov12.182158.913@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 01:59:15 GMT
In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
>writes:
>
>[...]
>>Here, we have had one incident where a student's postings were considered
>>inappropriate (for lack of a better word). He was quite critical of the
>>head of a computer company, which was fine until he said (paraphrasing here)
>>"he should be dead". This caused us to receive a large amount of mail (some
>>of which I would consider worse than the original posting in question!).
>>We turned his account off (we have found this the only way to get people
>>to come see us), asked him to be more prudent in the future and suggested
>>that he post an apology (which he did), turned his account back on, and
>>as far as I know, have heard nary a complaint.
>[...]
>
>You should not have punished him. Rudeness is not a crime.
On a related note, rudeness is often a sign of a compromised account.
Whenever I discover that abusive mail is coming from a student
account, I disable it. Usually, that's the end of it.
On those rare occaisions when the actual owner of the account shows up
to complain, I show him or her a copy of the abusive mail. The
universal response is to deny sending the letter. At that point I
recommend some security measures and enable the account.
>(I'm paraphrasing from an ACLU handbook on teacher's legal rights)
>Generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First
>Amendment [or Academic Freedom -cmk], does not lose that protection
>because its tone is sharp. Discussions will not always be models of
>decorum. A court observed that "often those with the power to appoint
>will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it convenient to
>use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to squelch them.
A few years ago, a black student here was posting some very vitriolic
material about the racism he encountered on campus. He had a lot to
say that really made this school look bad. Almost every posting
expressed his worry that he only had a few more days before his
account was removed.
I eventually explained to him that I didn't care what he posted and
that nobody with more authority than I cared that Usenet existed.
Right now, Usenet on this campus is still protected by obscurity. Any
suggestions about how I can help keep it that way when the higher-ups
eventually find out about it?
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Mark Draughn | or on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois 60616
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Msg. Forwarded from Campuswide Email list.
Message-ID: <9111150527.AA12669@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 05:27:36 GMT
From my own experience at Ohio State, I was tangentially
involved in wht was called the "egee incident."
It seems a student on campus who worked in the same computer lab as
I did used OSU's InterNet connection to telnet to a public access
Un*x system at Denver University. There he established an account
in the name of E. Gordon Gee, president of Ohio State. He used it
to send humorous messages to his friends, none of which could have
been mistaken for official university communication.
The upshot of all this is that ACS somehow found out about it, and,
as none of the recipients of the mail would send a Cc: to ACS,
the only way it could have come to their attention was if ACS had
monitored or actively intercepted the incoming email from the
Denver site.
My relationship with OSU notwithstanding, what do the readers here
think:
If ACS monitors e-mail, & either manually or automatically,
flags certain messages for close examination, but does not
disclose the contents unless the mail is unacceptable in some
way, would that be a violation of e-mail privacy?
If ACS had read the mail in question as a "bounced" message,
would that have been a violation of e-mail privacy?
I suppose what it all boils down to is a question of
what level of administrative oversight is allowed for
email.
-- Steve
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <7232B8F28C41DA48@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 06:22:00 GMT
>From: rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns)
>Organization: DEC Cambridge Research Lab
>
>I've just read this entire conversation in one sitting, and
>there's something important which I feel has been overlooked
>by everyone.
It may seem that way to someone with limitless computing resources.
>It seems to me that this case represents a cusp between an old
>view of computers on campus, and the future.
>
>Years ago, when I had some responsibilities relating to running
>certain systems at MIT, I would probably have taken a position
>sort of like what I see the self-identified system administrators
>taking: that the issue is one of protecting the computers from
>misuse, or use for which the setup is ill-suited, or not intended.
I an resource limited environment that we systems administrators work in, we
still have to take that view.
>
>But I think that now we have to take a different view. Computers
>are now media, and as such the *FIRST AMENDMENT* rights come into
>the fore, rather than the 14th. Furthermore, not just first amendment,
>but also the very role and purpose of the university is founded on
>the free exchange of ideas.
I am sorry but I do not understand this. The 14th amendment expands the first
amendment rights from the federal to the state level. How can the 14th not be
important? I do not see anything in the language of the 14th that conflicts
with or reduces the role of the first.
>
>If the computer system cannot handle this, then the burden is not
>on the user to change, but rather that the university needs to clean
>up its computational act. (Yes, Unix is ill-suited, but universities
>share a lot of the blame for its propagation).
>
Give the Universities unlimited computational resources and I personally
guarantee you that the Universities will "clean up their computational act".
Till then I do not know how any "cleaning" can be done.
>By denying access, ACS was not just interfering with his ability
>to play games and do course work. This is worse than censoring
>a newspaper; it is removing his access to the newspaper AND his
>post office box AND his file cabinet AND his soapbox.
>
No it is not.
For under $25/month, any individual can get full access to Usenet through
several commercial Usenet public access computers.
By denyig an individual access to the system, the only access removed is to a
government subsidised newspaper which can be obtained elsewhere, a post office
box that can be rented for a low price (e.g. Compuserve has no monthly charges)
and the file cabinet can be put on the PC and Mac floppies. Soapbox access
can be through a commercial usenet account.
I see no reason for government subsidy for any of this. In fact I personally
believe that government subsidy leads to control and a free person should NOT
accet this subsidy if it as the cost of freedom.
>It is clear to me that the electronic media are moving more and
>more to a central role in the intelectual life of the university,
>and indeed, society as a whole. (Although at different rates).
>
This is a very good reason to end subsidised accounts. Does an undergrad not
living in a dorm have a locked and secure paper mailbox at an average
University? If such a person so desires, this person can go to the local post
office and rent a post office box.
>Now we don't have Sysmungers any more, now we have network
>administrators.
Your deliberate misspelling of Systems managers above speaks volumes about
your attitude in general. Please give an example of a multi-user system
without a system manager.
>I see this role evolving to a sort of an
>advanced telephone service role; their job is not to
>establish WHAT is done, or HOW it is done, but to make
>sure that it is POSSIBLE. The supervisory role is, more
>and more an inappropriate one.
Computers are not telephones nor do I see Computers evolving to be telephones.
When apples evolve to be oranges, your statements above would be valid.
>
>This view is, at present, rather idealized. We still have real
>systems, with real flaws, and there is still, to a degree, a need
>for supervisors to ensure the integrety of the systems and to help
>keep individuals from violating the rights of others. Probably this
>role will never completely disappear; the phone company has people
>watching out for phone crackers, and we still have police.
>
And crime is increaing not decreasing and 900-number fraud is becoming a biger
headache for the phone companies.
>But I think, in a university setting, it is important to think
>of policies not in light of computation being being an
>optional service, but as being a VERY fundamental part of being
>in the university.
Tell that to the bean counters who like to cut computational budgets first.
>
>A related issue is that of data privacy, and rights to its
>integrity. Just because something is on a university network
>somewhere doesn't mean the university should own it, or own
>all rights to its disposal. Where the boundary should be drawn
>between private storage and public storage is an issue which is
>in part driven by the technology of networking and distributed
>computing and is likely to change over time, and we should be
>sensitive to the changing nuances.
Agreed.
Also not all users are equal. Secretaries may not have any personal stuff
just like in an office where they may not be allowed to keep the file cabinet
locked away so that the boss can not retreive an important document.
>
>And I think this should extend not just to policies and rights,
>but also to facilities planning, academic structuring (Email is
>more and more used to communicate with professors in courses,
>administrators, and to a degree, to carry on class discussions),
>and software design.
>
Again the issue of available funds comes up As much as we would like to see an
increased use of electronic means of communication and the establishment of
this, the persons that have to be convinced of this are at the top level of a
University and also the state office of budget and the state legislature in
the case of a state university.
>I mentioned Unix earlier. Unix security is ill-suited to providing
>for the sharing of information while simultaneously protecting
>privacy. Even if care is taken, generally some things on unix will
>either be readable that shouldn't, or some legitimate types of sharing
>won't be possible. And in an academic environment with a wide variety
>of users, the necessary care is seldom feasible.
>
This is becuase by default as most Unix systems come out of the box, it is
wide open. It is squarely the fault of the vendors (DEC included) for not
providing as a default a secure system and not providing easy to read security
handbooks for the operating system version.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Orders (Was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
Happened?)
Message-ID: <744AE2CA5C41DA48@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 06:37:00 GMT
>This is one of the effects that the whole War-on-Drugs and Gulf shootup
>seems to have had on the North America psyche (or is it the other way
>around).
Are you trying to say we should give up the war on drugs or allow people like
Saddam to take over other countries?
>What you are saying is that the librarian can order students
>around, and if they don't like it and think it wrong and have the time
>and energy _then_ they can fight it. They are, in essence, guilty until
>they prove themselves innocent.
>
The above is to some extent the whole philosophy behind the American Criminal
Justice system.
Are you trying to say that anyone who is arrested is guilty?
>Surely, in the case you moot above, the library administrator should
>"go through the proper channels" to have the student barred, rather than
>the other way around? Or are administrators always right (like George
>Bush, Employers and God)?
>
Administrators may not be right all the time but to some extent they have been
appointed in those positions or elected to those positions because someone has
to make decisions and interpret and enforce the rules lest we all descend into
chaos.
> ---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---
> Paul Nash paul@frcs.Alt.ZA
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <767B0590DC41DA48@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 06:52:00 GMT
>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
>
>SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>
>[...]
>>One more time: The court decisions seem to be all for High Schools. Maybe a
>>University administration does not want to bring it to court fearing it will
>>lose. However as it stands now, I seem to have missed any reference to court
>>decisions that apply to University Student newspapers.
>[...]
>
>This isn't a reference to a case, but it is a quote from authors who
>seem to be authorities.
I can come with any number of quotes from people who seem to authorities and
that is the reason I would prefer an actual case. Until then I believe that
most of the case law and precedent is inapplicable to Universities because of
their non-governmental nature. If the federal government can not enforce
a gag rule on a University through the Universities administration
(like the abortion clinic gag rule), federal courts can also not enforce
a ban on a gag rule imposed by the University's own administaration.
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com
Subject: Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.165626.24331@swbatl.sbc.com>
References: <1991Nov7.173553.5642@athena.cs.uga.edu> <1991Nov9.020513.14993@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 16:56:26 GMT
In article <1991Nov9.020513.14993@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <1991Nov7.173553.5642@athena.cs.uga.edu>, brown@castor.cs.uga.edu stated:
>>
>>Obviously "we" didn't know the difference between right and wrong. The Civil
>>Rights Act of 1964 was wrong because it took away the freedom of individual
>>business owners to engage in free trade - they no longer had a choice of whom
>>they did business with.
>
>Business owners retained, and retain to this day, the power to refuse
>business to deadbeats, to obnoxious drunks, and to inconsiderate
>jerks.
>
>They may not, however, use race or gender -- *any* race or gender --
>as a proxy for the above. That includes white males, in case you're
>curious.
But, should an obnoxious drunken jerk who just happens to be black,
wander in this place of business and was refused service, the
owner could be in very big trouble. By the time a civil rights
lawsuit was filed, the offender would be sober but he would still
be black and now considered a victim of racial bias.
>
>If you have a problem with that, I suggest you reacquaint yourself
>with the two constitutional provisions that have dominated this half
>of the century: the commerce clause and the 14th amendment.
Sorry, but I do have a problem with government seizure of
property rights.
>
>--
>
> Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
*********************************************************************
Joe Spencer What the Hell is the world
Southwestern Bell coming to?
Network Engineering
Sheriff Buford T. Justice
********************************************************************
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <7E94EFF5AC41DA48@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 07:50:00 GMT
>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
>
>As to your second point, as an official/agent of a public university
>the rules that you create must be consistent with the Constitution (as
>interpreted by the courts.) Declaring something a privilege does not
>give you authority to create arbitrary rules. You could not, for
>example, prohibit so-called pro-life notes while allowing so-called
>pro-choice notes (or visa versa).
>
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I am not so sure if Universities being "free" places can not get away with
imposing content based censorship on an electronic computer forum run by
pofessional staff.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964
In-Reply-To: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com's message of Thu, 14 Nov 91 16:56:26 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References:
<1991Nov7.173553.5642@athena.cs.uga.edu>
<1991Nov9.020513.14993@panix.com>
<1991Nov14.165626.24331@swbatl.sbc.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 08:05:11 GMT
From: usenet@swbatl.sbc.com
> But, should an obnoxious drunken jerk who just happens to be black,
> wander in this place of business and was refused service, the
> owner could be in very big trouble. By the time a civil rights
> lawsuit was filed, the offender would be sober but he would still
> be black and now considered a victim of racial bias.
Hey Joe, I bet you tell people feminists are trying to do away with
Male and Female bathrooms too.
Go ahead, cite one, just one, case that fits your little story (a
newspaper article or even a book that reasonably claims to be true
will do just fine.)
Oh, but you've heard it sooo many times from friends in the locker
room, gee gosh, it just has to be true, right?
>Joe Spencer What the Hell is the world
It's the system I post from, that's what.
--
-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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.134338.24003@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 91 13:43:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Nov15.134338.24003
References: <1991Nov15.034240.27220@eff.org>
Steven S. Brack (brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu) writes:
>> Most users don't think anything is wrong, as long as their tasks/jobs
>> are completed.
>
> But, the users you see represent a small minority of the user
> population. Also, would you tend to remember the users who
> were most problematic more than those who didn't cause problems?
To be honest about it, I remember the users with whom I speak most often,
regardless of the reason. In total, I could probably name about 5% of the
users of my system, even though I've spoken with more than 75% of them.
Most of those have been people who come in for help; as I've said before,
I have *very* few "discipline problems". I had a problem last week,
but I'll discuss that later.
> Depending on the type of printer, could it be automatically reset
> or reset by the employee at the site, even by cycling power on & off?
It certainly could, but the lab runs at 20-30 users all day long. By the
time our lab assistant notices that the printer settings are hosed, four
of five users may already have received trashed printouts. I don't ex-
pect our assistants to hop up and check the printer settings every time
a job is output. Yes, it could be done, but it is a *major* inconvenience.
There is a point at which the users must take some responsibility; I felt
that this situation had reached that point.
> I agree that the user should leave the printer as he found it, but
> even if you "converted" this one, then what about the next 1 or 10
> or 20?
Well, I thought that the original sign, which read "Do not change the
settings on this printer", would be sufficient. With the exception of
that one individual, it seems to suffice.
> I also agree that you could forbid him to use the laser printer after
> you had told him what the rule was, how he was violating it, & how
> he could stop violating it. It's important to tell the user how to
> correct the problem ,as there are users who know how to use a program,
> but not how it works. I've worked with all levels of users, & one
> must be very specific in order to get any positive result.
Agreed. I always try to give a complete explanation of the problem. I
know that a simple "you're screwing up" is never sufficient.
> Also, what sort of letters & phone calls did you make? Was it possible
> that he misinterpreted your interest?
Well, the written messages simply said "When you print documents, are you
changing the printer settings? We are having some problems with the printer,
and I'd like your help. Please come by my office or send me electronic mail
as soon as possible. This is an urgent matter." The phone messages (which
I assume were taken by his roommate) merely said "Please get in touch with me
as soon as possible; we need to talk about some printer problems in the PC
Lab". I try to be as polite as possible when sending messages to users; I
don't want them to get the impression that I'm some kind of ogre.
> I know several people who won't
> go to ACS's "meetings" because of the reputation the admins have for
> reaming users.
I have heard of this problem. As far as I know, it hasn't happened here.
We tend to run a fairly open shop, and users often come in to ask questions
about the system. It makes for some interesting discussions; ever try to
explain "machine epsilon" to someone who doesn't even know what a byte is? 8)
> Also, many admins tend to ascribe the worst motives to users,
> and users do the same to admins.
Nah; I usually work from the assumption that, on those occasions when
problems arise, the users are just experimenting. Heck, I *want* them
to explore; there are very few "sacred cows" in our shop. In fact, I
have several small Unix boxes (3B2/310s, if anyone's interested), which
I offer to people who want to get into the nuts and bolts of Unix. One
or two users have taken advantage of that in the past; I'll give them the
root password to the machine, and the only condition is that the 3B2/310
is cut off from the outside world (no telnet/ftp out, no email). That
seems to solve the problem; the user gets to dive deep into Unix, and I
don't have to worry about them trashing the 2000-user main system.
>> The ma-
>> jority, however, continue to believe that they can arbitrarily do what-
>> ever they wish, with no regard for other users and no concern for the
>> concerns/questions of admins.
>
> I don't quite follow: which position will the majority of users
> take?
Well, the majority of users, when confronted with a user who is gulping
resources at a high rate, will clamor for that user's jobs to be killed.
Of course, I refuse to do that until I've spoken with the "offending"
user (who usually doesn't realize the impact of his usage). Usually, a
good explanation (and a bit of peer pressure from other users) results
in a satisfactory solution.
> I believe that the majority of users must become more aware of how their
> actions affect others. At OSU, the system I used had, at one time
> 3-4 MUD type games running. This appreciably slowed the (already slow)
> system down, tied up ports & ttys, and used disk space excessively.
> Since one of the offenders was an admin, nothing was done. There has
> always been a 'no games' policy at ACS, although it was
> not publicised until recently.
I recently had a MUD experience that relates to this discussion. We had
been having some serious networking problems, and I found 3 users logged
in 7 times, all playing MUDs at mit.edu and cdc.com. One of the machines on
which they were running the MUD was sending misaligned and fragmentary
packets, which were "melting down" our local network. Since they were
logged in several times, I also suspected that they were sharing their
passwords (this is also a violation of policy). I sent them an interactive
message, telling them that we did not allow game playing and
asking them to stop MUDding. They ignored those messages, so I logged in
to the MUD and sent them a message from within the game. They ignored
that as well, so (after 10 minutes for a safety margin) I disconnected
them and disabled their accounts. I then sent electronic mail to their
accounts on the general student computer, explaining my action and telling
them that their account would be reenabled as soon as they stopped by to
talk with me. When they came in, I gave them a 5-minute explanation of
how TCP/IP works and how their MUDding placed a significant load on both
the system and the network. They were not aware of the significance of
their actions, nor were they aware of the "no games" policy (even though
it is clearly stated in the online announcements they all read). They used
our system for MUDding because the general student computer (which allows
game playing) was unavailable. I reenabled their accounts, and there have
been no further problems.
There are those who may find my actions in this matter chilling, but the
users involved didn't have any complaints. We had an open discussion, and
everyone aired their views. I assured them that no permanent record was
being kept on them; noone had knowledge of our action except me and my boss.
I told them that any complaints about my action could be directed to either
my boss or the Dean of the college; no complaints were registered. I've
spoken with them socially several times, and one of them now wants to learn
more about networking. In all, I'd say that it worked out well.
This incident also illustrates the "man on the scene" authority that
admins need. If I had been required to seek permission from my boss
(who was unavailable at the time) before terminating their gaming, the
bad packets sent from those off-campus MUD machines could have caused
a "meltdown" of our entire network. The possibility of compromised
passwords was also an immediate concern. I had to act, and I did. After
the fact, I explained my actions to everyone involved. The users are
unhappy about the "no gaming" restrictions, but they now understand the
reasons behind them. Dialogue and user education save the day!
--
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: Msg. Forwarded from Campuswide Email list.
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.141331.190@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 91 14:13:31 GMT
References: <9111150527.AA12669@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>
> It seems a student on campus who worked in the same computer lab as
> I did used OSU's InterNet connection to telnet to a public access
> Un*x system at Denver University. There he established an account
> in the name of E. Gordon Gee, president of Ohio State. He used it
> to send humorous messages to his friends, none of which could have
> been mistaken for official university communication.
That's pretty funny, but it's also a matter for concern. You'd be sur-
prised at the number of people who can't tell the difference between
official and unofficial communication. Many users would probably see
the President's name in a From: line and take it as gospel; they wouldn't
bother to look at the originating site.
> If ACS monitors e-mail, & either manually or automatically,
> flags certain messages for close examination, but does not
> disclose the contents unless the mail is unacceptable in some
> way, would that be a violation of e-mail privacy?
It depends on how the mail was monitored. The logs produced by sendmail
include, among other things, the source and destination addresses of each
message. I routinely use this information to track down mail problems and
to profile the usage of email (on-campus use, off-campus use, usage by
department, et cetera). Here's an excerpt of the log file for a particular
message:
(I've changed some information to protect the user)
Nov XX 10:52:16 AA14157: message-id=<9111111541.AA32169@europa.asd.contel.com>
Nov XX 10:52:16 AA14157: from=, size=2550, class=0
Nov XX 10:52:17 AA14157: to=, delay=00:00:02, stat=Sent
In my regular review of this log file, I look for errors, strange addresses,
and bizarre address formats (for use in improving my sendmail configuration).
If I saw an off-campus address for the President of my University, I would
probably make a mental note of it. If I saw a flood of messages from that
address, I might try to find out more about it.
As you can see, it is quite possible to monitor email *without* examining
its content.
> If ACS had read the mail in question as a "bounced" message,
> would that have been a violation of e-mail privacy?
That's a very fine line to walk. I treat bounced mail with the same kid
gloves I reserve for email in general. I usually examine only the headers;
I try to ignore the rest of the message, and I *certainly* won't discuss
the message with anyone but the sender and the recipient (and only then in
the context of getting the mail delivered properly).
> I suppose what it all boils down to is a question of
> what level of administrative oversight is allowed for
> email.
Content-based oversight is, in my opinion, unnecessary and indefensible.
However, I see no problem with routine examination of log files such as
sendmail's; they provide information that is indispensible in the maintenance
of electronic mail services.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.143739.15792@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov12.182158.913@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov15.015915.7845@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 14:37:39 GMT
draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
[...]
>Whenever I discover that abusive mail is coming from a student
>account, I disable it. Usually, that's the end of it.
[...]
I'm not surpised. (How could it be any other way?)
>On those rare occaisions when the actual owner of the account shows up
>to complain, I show him or her a copy of the abusive mail. The
>universal response is to deny sending the letter. At that point I
>recommend some security measures and enable the account.
Do you think they are denying it because they didn't do it, or are
they denying it because they have found that that is the easiest way
to "beat" an arbitrary and unfair Institute rule?
[...]
>Right now, Usenet on this campus is still protected by obscurity. Any
>suggestions about how I can help keep it that way when the higher-ups
>eventually find out about it?
[...]
How about unoffically adopting a policy that the computer media at IIT
has the same protections as other campus media? Then when they do
discover you, you will have something (call it "principle") to hide
behind.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.151952.16818@eff.org>
References: <767B0590DC41DA48@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 15:19:52 GMT
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>I can come with any number of quotes from people who seem to authorities and
>that is the reason I would prefer an actual case.
I doubt you can find any authority who says that public Universities
are not constrainted by the Constitution.
>Until then I believe that
>most of the case law and precedent is inapplicable to Universities because of
>their non-governmental nature.
[...]
So, what you want are cases that say that public Universities can not
infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their students and
employees.
Recent district court cases include _Doe v. U. of Michigan_ and _UWM
Post v. U. of Wisconsin_. (Both are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law).
I also found a Supreme Court case that involved SUNY. In _Keyishian v.
Board of Regents_ (1967), the Court addressed the question of what
kind of loyalty oaths government employees (specially SUNY faculty
members) could be required to sign as a condition of employment. The
Court said: "Thus [the New York laws] suffer from impermissible
'overbreadth'. They seek to bar employment both for association which
legitimately may be sanctioned and for association which may not be
sanctioned consistently with First Amendment rights. [The laws] are
[therefore] invalid insofar as they sanction mere knowing membership
without any showing of specific intent to further the unlawful aims of
[the Communist Party]."
[This is the case referenced in the university-free-expression-is-
fundamental-to-society part of _Rust v. Sullivan_.]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9111151536.AA21644@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 03:36:55 GMT
From: IZZYCY1@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (The Jester)
Date: 14 Nov 91 20:03:00 GMT
Everyone has told me to use chfn (or passwd -s) but I CAN'T. Only
the super user on my system can change that information! So anyone
who wants to can finger me and find out info about me. Luckly only
my name is currently given (not that its anyone's buisness) but on
many systems information such as phone number and address is also
given out and that SURELY is no one's buisness.
The right to privacy is one I do not intend to allow infringment on
if I have any say about it. I really don't but I sure can make noise.
What I'm surprised to hear is that many people here disagree with
me. What is the difference between refusing to allow anyone to read
your finger and having an unlisted phone number? I suppose that too
shouldn't be allowed as we don't want to create a non-cooperational
atmosphere.
The Jester
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9111151537.AA21653@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 03:37:04 GMT
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Date: 14 Nov 91 22:18:22 GMT
In article <199111142004.AA15318@eff.org>, The Jester (tj) writes:
tj> Everyone has told me to use chfn (or passwd -s) but I CAN'T. Only
tj> the super user on my system can change that information! So anyone
tj> who wants to can finger me and find out info about me. Luckly only
tj> my name is currently given (not that its anyone's buisness) but on
tj> many systems information such as phone number and address is also
tj> given out and that SURELY is no one's buisness.
So. The problem is not finger but your FSA (fascist system admin). Put
the blame where it is deserved. Finger is an incredably useful way for
people to pass out information to the world in general. It is similar
to being able to put yur name on your office door. If you worked in a
building where they insisted that you could not decide what was on
your door would you decide doors were a bad thing?
Of course, as you have pointed out before, the FSA only has the
information you have given him.
Actually I suspect that the setup you describe would be illegal here
unless they are willing to change your information on demand.
I _want_ to tell people my extension number. The university telephone
directories are amazingly unreliable. Finger is a Good Thing, it was
very annoying when they[*] disabled finger here for a while.
[*] Ok, he is a nice guy, but in this context he is a `they' :-)
--
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9111151537.AA21662@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 03:37:20 GMT
From: IZZYCY1@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (The Jester)
Date: 15 Nov 91 08:20:00 GMT
O.k. as is becoming clear my system's practices do NOT seem to be
like those used on other systems. I made the error of assuming
that UCLA policy reflected normal policy of computer systems (since
their policy statements are carbon copies of those used by most
universities). At ucla you can NOT change your information and you
can NOT control what is shown. A finger which allows you to control
what information goes out is a G R E A T idea. So is a telephone
book where I can CHOOSE to be listed or not and if listed to show
just my name (so you know I live in the city), my phone number (so
you can call me), or my address (so you can come and see me). My
ONLY problem w/finger was that *I* didn't have TOTAL control over
what it does. In a system where this control is at the disposal
of the user, finger becomes yet another useful tool to get the job
done.
The Jester
p.s. before the nitpickers kill me, yes if you fingered me then you
know I have control over the .plan and .project files. Either that
or I have some REALLY strange administrators. =)
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9111151537.AA21671@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 03:37:44 GMT
From: turrell@violet.berkeley.edu (David Turrell;;;;GQ79)
Date: 15 Nov 91 08:45:24 GMT
In <199111142004.AA15318@eff.org>,
IZZYCY1@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (The Jester) writes:
>Everyone has told me to use chfn (or passwd -s) but I CAN'T. Only
>the super user on my system can change that information! [...]
>
>The right to privacy is one I do not intend to allow infringment on
>if I have any say about it. I really don't but I sure can make noise.
>What I'm surprised to hear is that many people here disagree with
>me. [...]
If your name can be determined from your user-id, then there doesn't
seem to be much need for its being essentially repeated in the finger
portion of your password record, and so therefore no reason for your
not being able to change all of finger.
-David
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Sun Nov 17 11:30:18 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA20358
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 11:06:18 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 11:06:14 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111171606.AA20353@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Nov 17 11:05:36 EST 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : OSU Lantern - student protest ended
kadie@eff.org (Car : Due process at Alabana A&M
les@sail.stanford. : Re: (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Finger & Liberty
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
dmpowell@rodan.acs : Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
john@iastate.edu ( : Re: Iowa State speech restrictions (was Re: Watch What Yo
rwk@crl.dec.com (B : Re: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Iowa State speech restrictions (was Re: Watch What Yo
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : User/admin communication.
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) (Warning procedures) Re: Re; Brack Exp
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: OSU Lantern - student protest ended
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.163036.18957@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 16:30:36 GMT
According to an article in today's Daily Illini (the student newspaper
at the U. of Illinois at U-C):
"The student newspaper at the Ohio State University, the Lantern,
recently ended a 23-day period of publishing under protest after OSU
faculty members approved a new policy fore reviewing stories."
"'In the new policy, the power of deciding libel will be left to an
outside attorney in questionable circumstances,' said Kevin Stoner,
OSU journalism professor."
[...]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Due process at Alabana A&M
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.212358.28314@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 21:23:58 GMT
I've been send an article on the last page of the sports section of
the _Birmignham News_, Nov. 14, 1991 about public university due
process.
It says: "The judge [U.S. District Judge E.B. Haltom] told attorneys
for Alabama A&M University that students brought before the school's
Judiciary Board for disciplinary actions -- like the 10 student
athletes ordered suspended for one year over a fighting incident --
must be informed of specific charges against them and given the names
of those who are to testify against them."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.221601.2527@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References: <9111151537.AA21671@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:16:01 GMT
A missing feature in finger is anonymity for those who wish it.
Unfortunately, I didn't think of that when I invented finger in
1972 as a local utility program for the Stanford A.I. Lab nor when we
later added network access to it.
--
Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111152223.AA19536@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 22:23:05 GMT
In article <1991Nov15.134338.24003@ms.uky.edu> Wes Morgan writes:
> Steven S. Brack (brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu) writes:
>
> To be honest about it, I remember the users with whom I speak most often,
> regardless of the reason. In total, I could probably name about 5% of the
> users of my system, even though I've spoken with more than 75% of them.
> Most of those have been people who come in for help; as I've said before,
> I have *very* few "discipline problems". I had a problem last week,
> but I'll discuss that later.
From your description, you seem to run a fairly loose system.
That sort of give & take approach allows users & admins to work
out solutions to problems, rather than firing ultimatums at one
another. Here at Toledo, student Computer Services NAS9080
accounts cannot be used for just about anything. This was due
to an extremely unpleasant experience/argument with an undergrad
user about 5-6 years ago. From those I've talked to, I get the
impression that the whole problem could have been resolved by a
simple admin to user chat, but was exacerbated by a lack of
cooperation on both sides.
>
> > Depending on the type of printer, could it be automatically reset
> > or reset by the employee at the site, even by cycling power on & off?
>
> It certainly could, but the lab runs at 20-30 users all day long. By the
> time our lab assistant notices that the printer settings are hosed, four
> of five users may already have received trashed printouts. I don't ex-
Perhaps I misunderstood; are the printer sin question set out for
general use, or are they special access/pay for laser printing
machines?
> pect our assistants to hop up and check the printer settings every time
> a job is output. Yes, it could be done, but it is a *major* inconvenience.
> There is a point at which the users must take some responsibility; I felt
> that this situation had reached that point.
If the users software interferes with the running of the lab, he/she
is warned about it, & continues to do it, then your solution seems
the only one available.
>
> Well, I thought that the original sign, which read "Do not change the
> settings on this printer", would be sufficient. With the exception of
> that one individual, it seems to suffice.
In your original post, I don't believe you referenced the sign.
I apologize if I missed it. Some users don't seem to be happy
with less than full control of system resources. These people
probably don't belong on a timesharing system. 8)
> Agreed. I always try to give a complete explanation of the problem. I
> know that a simple "you're screwing up" is never sufficient.
That is the kind of attitude more sysadmins need to adopt.
Usrs & admins need not be enemies, as they are on some systems, &
not just at Ohio State.
> > Also, what sort of letters & phone calls did you make? Was it possible
> > that he misinterpreted your interest?
>
> Well, the written messages simply said "When you print documents, are you
> changing the printer settings? We are having some problems with the printer,
> and I'd like your help. Please come by my office or send me electronic mail
> as soon as possible. This is an urgent matter." The phone messages (which
> I assume were taken by his roommate) merely said "Please get in touch with me
> as soon as possible; we need to talk about some printer problems in the PC
> Lab". I try to be as polite as possible when sending messages to users; I
> don't want them to get the impression that I'm some kind of ogre.
Mutual respect seem to be integral to having a smooth-running
system.
> > I know several people who won't
> > go to ACS's "meetings" because of the reputation the admins have for
> > reaming users.
>
> I have heard of this problem. As far as I know, it hasn't happened here.
> We tend to run a fairly open shop, and users often come in to ask questions
> about the system. It makes for some interesting discussions; ever try to
> explain "machine epsilon" to someone who doesn't even know what a byte is? 8)
Pity ACS isn't more like your department. 8)
Ever try to explain the difference between 3.5" floppies & hard
disks to users? ("I saved this on my hard disk, & it's not there.") 8)
> Nah; I usually work from the assumption that, on those occasions when
> problems arise, the users are just experimenting. Heck, I *want* them
> to explore; there are very few "sacred cows" in our shop. In fact, I
> have several small Unix boxes (3B2/310s, if anyone's interested), which
> I offer to people who want to get into the nuts and bolts of Unix. One
> or two users have taken advantage of that in the past; I'll give them the
> root password to the machine, and the only condition is that the 3B2/310
> is cut off from the outside world (no telnet/ftp out, no email). That
> seems to solve the problem; the user gets to dive deep into Unix, and I
> don't have to worry about them trashing the 2000-user main system.
Side question: how does your department get the funding to maintain
Un*x systems for experimnentation/fun? It seems ACS never has enough
money, unless it's for new workstations for faculty members &
upper-echelon ACS admins.
> Well, the majority of users, when confronted with a user who is gulping
> resources at a high rate, will clamor for that user's jobs to be killed.
> Of course, I refuse to do that until I've spoken with the "offending"
> user (who usually doesn't realize the impact of his usage). Usually, a
> good explanation (and a bit of peer pressure from other users) results
> in a satisfactory solution.
At OSU, most resource-hogging jobs are done on private workstations,
or are "nice"d down to an acceptable level.
>
> > I believe that the majority of users must become more aware of how their
> > actions affect others. At OSU, the system I used had, at one time
> > 3-4 MUD type games running. This appreciably slowed the (already slow)
> > system down, tied up ports & ttys, and used disk space excessively.
> > Since one of the offenders was an admin, nothing was done. There has
> > always been a 'no games' policy at ACS, although it was
> > not publicised until recently.
The MUDs in question were allowed to operate because a sysadmin was
one of the offenders. It would not have looked right for an admin
to be punished for running a MUD.
>
> I recently had a MUD experience that relates to this discussion. We had
> been having some serious networking problems, and I found 3 users logged
> in 7 times, all playing MUDs at mit.edu and cdc.com. One of the machines on
> which they were running the MUD was sending misaligned and fragmentary
> packets, which were "melting down" our local network. Since they were
> logged in several times, I also suspected that they were sharing their
> passwords (this is also a violation of policy). I sent them an interactive
> message, telling them that we did not allow game playing and
> asking them to stop MUDding. They ignored those messages, so I logged in
> to the MUD and sent them a message from within the game. They ignored
> that as well, so (after 10 minutes for a safety margin) I disconnected
> them and disabled their accounts. I then sent electronic mail to their
> accounts on the general student computer, explaining my action and telling
> them that their account would be reenabled as soon as they stopped by to
> talk with me. When they came in, I gave them a 5-minute explanation of
> how TCP/IP works and how their MUDding placed a significant load on both
> the system and the network. They were not aware of the significance of
> their actions, nor were they aware of the "no games" policy (even though
> it is clearly stated in the online announcements they all read). They used
> our system for MUDding because the general student computer (which allows
> game playing) was unavailable. I reenabled their accounts, and there have
> been no further problems.
I admire the way you handled that. In my experience, admins are more
likely to take network problems caused by users as a personal effront
to them.
> There are those who may find my actions in this matter chilling, but the
> users involved didn't have any complaints. We had an open discussion, and
> everyone aired their views. I assured them that no permanent record was
> being kept on them; noone had knowledge of our action except me and my boss.
> I told them that any complaints about my action could be directed to either
> my boss or the Dean of the college; no complaints were registered. I've
> spoken with them socially several times, and one of them now wants to learn
> more about networking. In all, I'd say that it worked out well.
I'd have to agree. Establishing a positive rapport with users
seems a good way to prevent problems. But, what would you do for
an organization that supported a user base that was simply too large
for it to easily give the kind of attention you gave.
>
> This incident also illustrates the "man on the scene" authority that
> admins need. If I had been required to seek permission from my boss
> (who was unavailable at the time) before terminating their gaming, the
> bad packets sent from those off-campus MUD machines could have caused
> a "meltdown" of our entire network. The possibility of compromised
> passwords was also an immediate concern. I had to act, and I did. After
> the fact, I explained my actions to everyone involved. The users are
> unhappy about the "no gaming" restrictions, but they now understand the
> reasons behind them. Dialogue and user education save the day!
Admins probably should be able to take almost any action under a
sort of "emergency authority" with provision for appeal/review
after the emergency was over.
>
> --
> morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <9111152230.AA19625@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 22:30:16 GMT
In article <1991Nov15.143739.15792@eff.org> Carl Kadie writes:
> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>
> [...]
> >Whenever I discover that abusive mail is coming from a student
> >account, I disable it. Usually, that's the end of it.
> [...]
>
> I'm not surpised. (How could it be any other way?)
I think Mr. Draughn was saying that users don't complain about
the account suspenisons, although that may say more for fear of
the institution than any realization that they did wrong.
>
> >On those rare occaisions when the actual owner of the account shows up
> >to complain, I show him or her a copy of the abusive mail. The
> >universal response is to deny sending the letter. At that point I
> >recommend some security measures and enable the account.
>
> Do you think they are denying it because they didn't do it, or are
> they denying it because they have found that that is the easiest way
> to "beat" an arbitrary and unfair Institute rule?
I agree in part. Any rule should be a little more specific than
just saying "abusive" or "harassing." A Christian user my feel
harassed if a Moslem sends him e-mail about Islam, or a Mac user
if someone sends him mail about IBM computers 8). That doesn't
make the mail abusive or harassing.
> - Carl
> --
> Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
> I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
-------------------
From: dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Darin M Powell)
Subject: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
Message-ID: <1991Nov16.012018.10143@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Keywords: Ha! This makes me ill!
References: <1991Nov10.203554.6461@anasaz>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 01:20:18 GMT
A few quick opinions:
1. Arizona should have an MLK holdiay. A real holiday. On a Monday. Period.
2. If the people of Arizona don't want such a holiday, that's their right
3. If the NFL thinks Arizona stinks and boycotts, THAT'S THE NFL' RIGHT!!!
4. Most important of all --
The Politically correct vs. anti-politically correct debate is SILLY.
Both sides MAKE ME GAG! Both sides ARE SELF RIGHTEOUS AND HOLIER-THAN
THOU! Both sides are only looking after their OWN SELF INTERESTS
The label "politically correct" is nonsense and hype. And anyone who
vehemently claims to be "anti-politically correct" is really just
as "politically correct," but from the other end of the spectrum.
In my opinion, every PC and anti-PC person should be have burning
sticks forced into their eyes, have their limbs torn off in
farm machinery, and then be drowned in a pit of boiling tar.
Or, as John Stuart Mill once said: "Oh, put a sock in it, you dweeb!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Darin Powell dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
THOU! N
-------------------
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Iowa State speech restrictions (was Re: Watch What You Post!!!)
Message-ID: <1991Nov16.045502.6465@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
References: <1991Nov14.162822.8549@eff.org> <1991Nov14.175122.7291@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov14.203127.16256@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 04:55:02 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}This may apply. It is from A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting
}College Teachers:
}"Teacher As Agent of Institution ...
^^^^^^^
}When a teacher is acting within the scope of his or her employment, a
}teacher generally is viewed as the agent of the institution.
Yes, but what about the rest of us?
Does this encompass all employees (surely not)?
[... part of ISU code of computer ethics omitted...]
}How was this policy created? What is its official status? By what
}authority does a state university prohibit rude speech? Does the
}university generally prohibit rude speech or is rude speech only
}prohibited on campus computer media? Does it apply to both
}faculty and students?
I assume it was created in the standard way, some administrators at the
Comp Ctr wrote it and submitted it to the University administration who
approved it. I presume all the "authority" they need is that nobody is
willing to risk the consequences to challenge it. It applies to all
users of the University computer systems. And, yes they have
prohibited/restricted "rude speech" in other areas. A couple that come
to mind are:
A student placed a anti-Hussein (sp?) cartoon on the
door of his dorm room. The Resident Assistant (the
University's live-in stooge) found it inappropriate...
Many people were upset with various evangelists screaming
at them during the noon hour at a favorite outdoor lunch
spot. The Universities response (get this!), was to create
the "Edward Allen Memorial Free Speech Area"<1> (complete with
a huge ugly lectern) far away from where anyone would want to
eat lunch and proclaimed that all such activities would take
place there (as far as I know, no one has ever used it).
However, the evangelists don't come around any more -- pity,
I thought they were pretty amusing.
John
<1> Hopefully I correctly remembered the name correctly.
-------------------
From: rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns)
Subject: Re: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
Message-ID: <1991Nov16.123428.6167@crl.dec.com>
Keywords: Ha! This makes me ill!
Sender: news@crl.dec.com (USENET News System)
References: <1991Nov10.203554.6461@anasaz> <1991Nov16.012018.10143@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 12:34:28 GMT
In article <1991Nov16.012018.10143@rodan.acs.syr.edu>, dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Darin M Powell) writes:
> 1. Arizona should have an MLK holdiay. A real holiday. On a Monday. Period.
> 2. If the people of Arizona don't want such a holiday, that's their right
> 3. If the NFL thinks Arizona stinks and boycotts, THAT'S THE NFL' RIGHT!!!
>
> 4. Most important of all --
> The Politically correct vs. anti-politically correct debate is SILLY.
> Both sides MAKE ME GAG! Both sides ARE SELF RIGHTEOUS AND HOLIER-THAN
> THOU! Both sides are only looking after their OWN SELF INTERESTS
> The label "politically correct" is nonsense and hype.
Well, it didn't start out that way. Until Our Fearless Leader got
ahold of the phrase, PC was a label for people holding narrow
political and social standards and insisting that everyone follow it.
In other words, to be "anti-PC" was to espouse exactly the same
opinion that you're expousing!
Unfortunately, the term has been corrupted to mean any opinion to
the left of George Bush. And thus the many have been tarred with
the excesses of the few.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Iowa State speech restrictions (was Re: Watch What You Post!!!)
Message-ID: <1991Nov16.162736.25654@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov14.162822.8549@eff.org> <1991Nov14.175122.7291@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov14.203127.16256@eff.org> <1991Nov16.045502.6465@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 16:27:36 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}This may apply. It is from A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting
}College Teachers:
}"Teacher As Agent of Institution ...
^^^^^^^
}When a teacher is acting within the scope of his or her employment, a
}teacher generally is viewed as the agent of the institution.
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>Yes, but what about the rest of us?
>Does this encompass all employees (surely not)?
I would guess that any university employee acting within the scope of
his or her employment is generally viewed as an agent of the
institution. (Even more, *any* employee acting withing the scope of
his or her employment is generally viewed as an agent of his or her
employer.) The reason I don't know this for sure is that the books
that I have are written for or about teachers. I'm ordering the ACLU
handbook on the rights of employees. In a week or two we would have
more information.
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
[...]
>And, yes they have
>prohibited/restricted "rude speech" in other areas. A couple that come
>to mind are:
> A student placed a anti-Hussein (sp?) cartoon on the
> door of his dorm room. The Resident Assistant (the
> University's live-in stooge) found it inappropriate...
> Many people were upset with various evangelists screaming
> at them during the noon hour at a favorite outdoor lunch
> spot. The Universities response (get this!), was to create
> the "Edward Allen Memorial Free Speech Area"<1> (complete with
> a huge ugly lectern) far away from where anyone would want to
> eat lunch and proclaimed that all such activities would take
> place there (as far as I know, no one has ever used it).
> However, the evangelists don't come around any more -- pity,
> I thought they were pretty amusing.
[...]
(speaking with irony) Well it's good the University doesn't single out
computer expression for illegal repression.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: User/admin communication.
Message-ID: <9A03910890421012@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 17:39:00 GMT
Date sent: 16-NOV-1991 12:20:57
This is in response to the recent dialogue betwwen Wes Morgan and Steven
Brack.
I would like to add that all problems between users and system
administrators can be avoided if there is better communications between users
and system administrators.
I would like to propose that to improve this communication the following be
done:
1) Like the student-teacher ratio, the user-admin ratio needs to be reduced at
large sites.
2) Like class size in a school, the total number of users on a system
should be kept at a manageable level.
3) As many layers of bureaucracy as possible should be removed between the
users and the system administrators. Users should always have direct and open
access to the system administrators. Systems administrators should also have
direct access to the users. There should not be any go-between that either is
required to go through.
The first two proposals require that more money be spent although I have
a feeling that proposal three would result in enough saving to pay for the
first two and a lot more.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] (Warning procedures) Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111162004.AA27164@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 08:04:31 GMT
From: wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Date: 12 Nov 91 18:02:01 GMT
In article <6877@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes:
>>In article <1991Nov8.025634.28048@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>>>Except in cases of violation of system security or integrity, users are
>>>generally given one or two warnings, usually written, on the first
>>>and/or second policy violation. Subsequent offenses of the same type
>>>are addressable by access denial. ... The
>>>initial access denial is used as a form of "arrest", as a method to
>>>strongly encourage the student to come in and talk to the
>>>administrators face to face.
>>
>> Why not encourage them to come in the first time something happens?
>
>Surely a written statement that someone has done something wrong ought to
>encourage a reasonable person to inquire as to just what is wrong with
>what they did? Has psychopathy really become so much the norm that it
>is *expected* that people be *incapable* of determining that their behavior
>is unacceptable to people around them unless they are brought in and beaten
>with clubs?
You receive the following warning after doing a
du -a / | grep somefile
looking for a file/program someone mentioned was kind of neat.
>DO NOT use the "du" command outside of your home directory it takes up too
>much of the system resources. This is your first warning. Blah Blah Blah
O.K. I shouldn't use the "du" command. Just to be safe, I'll NEVER use
it again.
The next day you use the following command
find / -name "someotherfile" -print
looking for another neat file and you get another warning.
>DO NOT use the "find" command outside of your home directory it takes up too
>much of the system resources. This is your second warning. Blah Blah Blah
Fine, the "find" command is obviously another bad one as well. Why
do they even let me run such expensive commands?
So you decide not to use the system because it obviously doesn't have much
power compared to your Sinclair ZX81 at home. But you have a class next
semester which forces you to use the system. But you forgot to write down
the directory where the assignment for this week is stored and it is due
tommorrow morning. So you do a
ls -R / | grep "thirdfile"
Next thing you know, you are locked out of your account and you are not only
in danger of flunking the course, but you are worried that you might get
kicked out of school.
Most users today have at least a passing knowledge of PCs. Single
user machines where all the resources are dedicated to making their life
easier and any use of "system resources" is acceptable as long as it takes
less wall clock time then doing it manually. Multi-user systems are very
different beasts and not everybody is aware of that. Nor do they know how
to estimate the resources that a command will use. Unless users are taught
something about the way systems operate, I don't think we can expect them to
make these kinds of decisions.
When someone takes a physics or chemistry lab, the lab instructor
usually explains general procedures at the beginning of the semester and
then covers specific procedures as new equipment is used during the course
of the semester. It seems like most students are given their account and
password and then they are pretty much on their own. (Well, maybe the class
instructor will take 10 or 15 minutes during some class period to cover the
basics. But this has nothing to do with the subject of the course and they
just don't have the time...) Maybe users should be required to attend a one
hour introduction to the system BEFORE they are even given their account.
This would result in better educated users who might use LESS system
resources and get more work done since they would work "smarter".
But then of course, the users might not be so enthralled by the
system gurus...
Bill Bogstad
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Sun Nov 17 11:31:09 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA20574
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 11:07:38 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 11:07:33 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111171607.AA20569@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Nov 17 11:06:58 EST 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
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Orders (Was Re: Re; Brack Expulsio
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Rice University Student Grievance Proc
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet and Unive
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) "Acceptable Use" Policies. Why does ev
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Finger & Liberty
greeny@top.cis.syr : Re: Iowa State speech restrictions (was Re: Watch What Yo
rickert@cs.niu.edu : Re: (comp.admin.policy) (Warning procedures) Re: Re; Brac
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: (Warning procedures) Re: Re; Brack
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Orders
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: (Warning procedures) Re: Re; Brack
gast@oahu.cs.ucla. : Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Da
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@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Orders (Was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <9111162004.AA27173@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 08:04:47 GMT
From: wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Date: 12 Nov 91 18:09:11 GMT
In article scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
>...
>
>Finely defined rules lead ultimately to legalistic abuses, confusion,
>and ultimately a system that is completely divorced from reality --
>not justice.
Poorly defined rules lead to personal vendettas, petty politics, and
inconsistent rulings based on the mood swings of their enforcers. Resulting
in a system totally devoid of justice.
Bill Bogstad
(Sarcasm above?????)
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Rice University Student Grievance Procedures
Message-ID: <9111162005.AA27189@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 08:05:08 GMT
From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Date: 12 Nov 91 23:02:34 GMT
The following is the fourth part of the four related postings
concerning Rice University's Owlnet disciplinary/due process
procedures. The other postings are Owlnet's disciplinary procedure,
the University and Owlnet computing policies, and the Owlnet user
agreement.
The following was typed verbatim from the student handbook. Any typos
are probably mine. It is University procedure, so Owlnet has no direct
influence on it. However, disciplinary actions by Owlnet are
appealable under the Academic Grievance section.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
XXXII. STUDENT GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
The purpose of the following procedures is to facilitate and insure
that prompt and just consideration of student grievances. In the
review of individual cases, the procedure may be terminated at any
stage in the process prior to the final appeal if the parties concerned
are satisfied that an equitable resolution of the grievance has been
reached. Either party may appeal a ruling to the next step of the
grievance procedure.
The procedures outlined below do not apply to grievances connected with
violations or alleged violations of the Honor System, or with
violations or alleged violations of the Traffic and Parking
Regulations, or with such violations or alleged violations of
University or College rules or regulations and alleged student actions
against the welfare and proper operation of the University as are
covered by the University Code of Judicial Procedure. For information
concerning the Honor System and the Code of Judicial Procedure,
students may consult the Dean of Students.
A. Academic Grievances
Grievances involving (1) the policies, procedures, or implementation of
the academic regulations of the University, and printed in the _General
Announcements_, or (2) any other action which may affect a student's
academic record, course work, or fulfillment of his degree
requirements.
Step 1. Informal direct appeal by the grievant or grievants to the
faculty member, department chair, office supervisor, or other persons
involved.
Step 2. Formal Appeal
a. Undergraduate student grievant or grievants:
Written petition by the grievant to the Committee on
Examinations and Standings in care of the Vice President for
Student Affairs.
The Committee has the authority and charge to administer the
academic regulation of the University and also to take
exceptional action in individual cases involving special
considerations. If the grievant does not submit the written
opinion for the person or office most directly connected with
the complaint, the Committee will secure such opinion.
b. Graduate student grievant or grievants:
Written petition by the grievant to the Graduate Council.
Step 3. Final written appeal by the grievant or grievants to the
President of the University.
B. Non-Academic Grievances
Step 1. Informal direct appeal by the grievant or grievants to the
University office or Rice student organization involved.
Step 2. Formal Appeal
a. For grievances involving only Rice students and/or Rice
student organizations: written petition by the grievant to
the student University Court which may either take action
within its jurisdiction or may make a recommendation to the
appropriate administrative office for award of redress beyond
the authority of the Committee to grant.
b. For grievances involving (1) Rice students and/or Rice
student organizations and (2) faculty, staff, or any
administrative office of the University: written petition by
the grievant to the Committee on Student Affairs which may
either take action within its jurisdiction or may make a
recommendation to the appropriate administrative office for
award of redress beyond the authority of the Committee to
grant.
Step 3. Second formal appeal in writing by the grievant or grievants
from the action of either the University Court or the Committee on
Student Affairs to the University Review Board within not more than ten
calendar days of notification to the grievant of action by the
University Court or the Committee on Student Affairs. The University
Review Board shall notify both parties involved in the grievance was
well as the Vice President for Student Affairs of the University Review
Board's upcoming review of the case, so that all parties may present
information that they feel is pertinent to the case. The University
Review Board shall forward notification of its findings to the grievant
and the President of the University.
Step 4. Final written appeal by the grievant or grievants to the
President of the University.
At any stage in the above procedures students may seek information or
advice from the Vice President for Student Affairs or the Director or
Graduate Programs, as appropriate, or from the Dean of Students or the
Director of Equal Employment Opportunity Programs in the Affirmative
Action Office, and may ask any of these persons or any other person to
act as intermediary or to appear as the student's representative before
the University Court or either committee listed above or any other body
reviewing the grievance.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies
Message-ID: <9111162006.AA27204@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 08:06:21 GMT
From: jrm@brazos.is.rice.edu (Jim McGuinness)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:08:42 GMT
[NOTE: some deletions have been made in the text of the copied
articles, but I believe the authors' intent has not been
altered]
In article <12.11.91.020706.165@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu> wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu
(Bill Bogstad) writes:
>In article <1991Nov8.204538.26122@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu
>(Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>
>>Inappropriate use includes, but is not limited to:
>>
>>o running file commands on large filesystems
>
> Does that mean that I can't do an "ls" of my home directory
>if it is on a large filesystem? No, I didn't think so. Depending on
>how Draconian you want to be you can say you can't run any command
>with a directory specification outside of your home directory
>tree. You might make exceptions for /tmp or other likely places. As
>is, this is just not explicit enough.
I think this is meant to be taken literally. A "file system" is
a mounted disk partition. And the commands being referred to
would have to involve the whole file system (e.g., "ls -R /usr").
You'd be suprised how many times users execute ...
find /marsh -name -print
... where /marsh is name of a 2 gigabyte file system containing users'
home directories. It's somewhat easy to spot these processes because
they use up a lot of resources. And to my knowledge, users violating
this policy have only been given warnings.
>>o running programs which disrupt someone else's display
>
> Same problem here. Can I use the "talk" command? How
>about "write"? If someone is running "biff" and I send them mail
>and stuff gets written on their display have I violated this rule?
If you're using "talk" or "write" to disrupt a display, then I think
it's clear (even without the policy) that you are interfering with
the use of the system by another. The use of system-provided
commands like "talk" and "write" (where disruption is not intended)
is permitted by implication of their presence and maintenance on
the system. If the rules were re-written so that they captured all
possible situations, they would become too large to work with.
The "don't disrupt display" rule cropped up because of some users'
fascination with the display-altering programs (e.g., "zot"). It's
a case of a specific rule being written to solve a specific problem.
>> Playing network games, or games that unduly affect system
>>resources is not permitted.
>>
>>A network game is defined as one that allows two or more players to
>>interact with each other from more than one workstation. The game
>>makes use of the network facilities to accomplish this.
>
> Change this to real time interaction. It's been years, but I
>remember a strategy game "empire" which was multiuser and each person had
>some many "turns" each day. Probably took much less resources then the same
>number of people playing hack or something similar.
The restriction relates to the way that OwlNet is set up (it's a
highly network intensive system). So while there may be a surplus
of cpu cycles which users can spend on hack, there is not necessarily
excess bandwidth for network games.
>>Games that unduly affect system resources include, but are not limited
>>to standalone games that require excessively large files, or excessive
>>computational or input/output resources, or can render all or part of a
>>system inoperable due to minor mis-configuration of the game files or
>>directories.
>>
>>As they are discovered, network games, or standalone games that
>>interfere with the system resources, will be rendered inoperable and
>>eventually removed from the system. The owner of the game shall be
>>notified via electronic mail that these actions have occurred.
>
> Why not just provide a system directory for games and say any games
>not located there are disallowed? This avoids multiple copies of the same
>game and the seesaw battle between administrators and students as they both
>escalate their efforts to find or hide games. Oh, you also have to be
>willing to install new games that meet your requirements on system usage.
>Allow students to compile and test them for a couple of days first, check
>the sources for any obvious backdoors, recompile them, and install them into
>a nonprivileged game account. Then slap a big warning label on all games
>that you use them at your own risk. That's the way things are now anyway.
>You may see an initial rush from people to have games installed, but I
>think you will see that fall off pretty quickly. Not many people seem to
>have the time/energy/knowledge to find and test games.
Students are left to their own judgment about games partly because
Rice does not wish to invest the resources to maintain a games
directory and enforce a policy of prohibiting games from being
stored anywhere else on the system.
>>Although Owlnet will not regulate the content of electronic mail or
>>other files, Owlnet system management reserves the right to examine any
>>and all files that exist on the system, at any time, without your
>>prior consent.
>
> Has the Rice's lawyers reviewed this statement in the context of any
>relevant privacy laws in your state and the Federal Electronic
>Communications Privacy Act? You can undoubtedly say this, but I don't know
>whether actually doing so is legal or not.
This rule probably needs to be rewritten to clarify that mail is private
and will not be examined freely by systems administrators. To my
knowledge, no user's mail has been examined by any systems folks.
In fact, they are specifically cautioned not to do so.
>> Research
>>
>>Owlnet currently does not support research activities during the Fall
>>and Spring semesters. Research activities include the following:
>>
>>...
>>
>>Research activities do not include the following:
>>
>>
>>1. Undergraduate independent projects as a structured part of an
>>undergraduate degree.
>>...
>
> Finally, in a backhanded kind of way you explicitly state what
>is allowed and disallowed. Still it is not clear whether things
>not stated are explicitly disallowed or not. My impression is
>that they are disallowed.
I think there was an issue as to whether the graduate students could
do their coursework, etc., on OwlNet. The examples of what does not
constitute research were added to clarify that grad. students
could use OwlNet for the same purposes as undegraduates do.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] "Acceptable Use" Policies. Why does everyone want one?
Message-ID: <9111162029.AA27328@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 08:29:33 GMT
From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Date: 13 Nov 91 00:40:25 GMT
I am really surprised at all the "Acceptable Use" policies being handed
down by universities these days. Not that the policies are too harsh or
anything (don't want to start that argument again), but that everyone seems
to take the wrong tack. Shouldn't we have a list of "Unacceptable Uses"
instead? I'm perfectly willing to live by a small number of things that
the university agrees I should *not* do, but the idea that for anything
not on the list of "Acceptable Uses" I must go and beg permission appalls me.
I rather favor in network terms something like what this countries founders
envisioned for our government. The administration should regulate *only*
to the extent that it absolutely must. Any government that only allows it's
people to do what the government allows and nothing else is doomed. Witness
the USSR. Laugh if you wish, but I don't think the comparison is completely
inapt. Stifling of computing freedom via over-regulation could easily leave
the US in the software dumper as surely as government control has killed
so many other vibrant industries.
Almost all of the problems boil down to resource consumption, be it disk,
printing, or network bandwidth. Instead of trying to legislate the problem
away, why not try and identify problem users and deal with them?
For example, I keep printer accounting records (although we don't charge),
when I see a really big spike on the graph, I go talk to that person.
Usually it's as simple as they did something wrong by accident or ignorance,
or that they simply don't realize how much toner cartridges cost. I have
not met anyone yet who when confronted, didn't change their ways.
The same with network games like mud's. I know where the muds are running
with a little lookaround with netstat on the workstations. The owners are
usually more than happy to put some disclaimer on their intro screen like:
The system administrator highly discourages off-campus mud access.
Think about the cost of those gateways before doing it.
This sort of thing is usually more than sufficient to take care of the
"problem".
IMHO, if you haven't got the time to intelligently *manage* a system,
go find a job somewhere else. Legislating problems away, and using
policies to cover your ass won't solve anything. Uneducated, unaware,
un-managed users are a problem. But you don't manage users by making them
sign a permission slip they will not read anyway. You try and educate your
users as much as possible on the most efficient ways to do things, and
deal with the trouble-makers directly. This may mean teaching an intro
seminar, and maybe some time spent monitoring the health of your systems,
No sensible manager would say no to a request that these services be
offered for the users' benefit. It is also a very small investment for
the school, with a greatly increased productivity payback.
For instance, here at Tech, we have a large domain with one fat Sequent,
and lots of Suns. The suns are all in the same NIS, and can acces the same
filespace. But many people have never had it explained to them that
they can access their files anywhere other than the Sequent. So the Sequent
is always way overloaded with people simply editing files and things
that could easily have been done on another CPU.
Here's my suggestion toward solving the problem:
Requiring that prospective users attend a seminar on efficient use of
campus resources before their account is activated would seem like a
reasonable policy to me. Really and truly folks, most of them are just
ignorant and more than willing to help out IF they know what your problems
are as system administrators. Once again, I see my mission as a sys admin
as making my user community as aware and free as possible.
Perhaps I should have tossed in a smiley there somewhere. I'm sure I will
have offended someone somewhere.
--
Vincent Fox (That's Mr. Bucko to you)| A society that will trade a little
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA | liberty for a little order will lose
SR-71: gt1111a@prism.gatech.edu | both, and deserve neither.
Pony Express:...!gatech!prism!gt1111a| -John Stuart Mill
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9111162030.AA27348@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 08:30:48 GMT
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:47:44 GMT
In article <1991Nov15.160340.20177@watcgl.waterloo.edu> jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) writes:
]>Everyone has told me to use chfn (or passwd -s) but I CAN'T. Only
]>the super user on my system can change that information!
]
]That's terrible. You obviously have a paranoid sysadmin or overly strict
]regulations on computer use. I wonder if they had a case of account abuse
]involving chfn; if so, that's a poor way to deal with it.
Not *everyone* is running a Berkeley-derived operating system.
chfn and passwd -f are Berkeley-and/or-Sun-isms, and aren't found on
your average System V Operating System. Research 10th Edition has a
nice simple interactive program invoked as 'passwd -a'that lets you edit
the gecos, shell, and home-directory fields as well as change the password.
Just a guess, but Jester's system is probably running System V with
somebody-like-Wollongong's TCP/IP code on it, which includes finger.
Of course, everybody's finger program reports slightly different information.
(And any software that thinks the gecos or finger format is predictable
is broken-by-definition :-)
] As I said, finger was intended for an open academic/research environment.
] This philosophy is just not necessarily applicable to the general environment.
The two controversial issues with finger (besides the REAL reason many
people shut it off, which is the Internet worm exploiting fingerd bugs),
are "what goes in the gecos field" and "can people outside access it?".
If I remember correctly, our security firewall blocks finger access
and other protocols except mail, ftp, telnet, and maybe news, so our
concern here is with the contents of the gecos field - you obviously
wouldn't want to put Social Security Numbers in it, but standard
company phonebook data goes there, as does miscellaneous computer accounting.
Maybe you feel different about this in an academic environment,
but I'd *like* my work phone number to be readily available on my
*work* computer!
--
Pray for peace; Bill
#Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# CIA has "always aspired to be more than a team, to be a family" - Robert Gates
# "Big Brother is Watching" - George Orwell
-------------------
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Iowa State speech restrictions (was Re: Watch What You Post!!!)
Message-ID: <1991Nov16.161845.20198@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
References: <1991Nov14.162822.8549@eff.org> <1991Nov14.175122.7291@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov14.203127.16256@eff.org> <1991Nov16.045502.6465@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov16.162736.25654@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 16:18:45 EST
In article <1991Nov16.162736.25654@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>}This may apply. It is from A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting
>}College Teachers:
>}"Teacher As Agent of Institution ...
> ^^^^^^^
>}When a teacher is acting within the scope of his or her employment, a
>}teacher generally is viewed as the agent of the institution.
>
>john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>
>>Yes, but what about the rest of us?
>>Does this encompass all employees (surely not)?
>
>I would guess that any university employee acting within the scope of
>his or her employment is generally viewed as an agent of the
>institution. (Even more, *any* employee acting withing the scope of
>his or her employment is generally viewed as an agent of his or her
>employer.)
I really can't see that there is any question about this. The Meritor v.
Vinson case (available from the eff archive) discusses the "agency" questions
and refers to "traditional agency principles" by which an employee is
considered to be an agent of the employer whenever he "exercises the
authority actually delegated to him by his employer..."
Since John has already stated (in essence) that he was simply enforcing rules
established by his employer (and not even to his own particular liking), I
think that it is clear that he was acting as an agent of the institution.
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
-------------------
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] (Warning procedures) Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov16.230213.3662@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: rickert@cs.niu.edu
References: <9111162004.AA27164@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 91 23:02:13 GMT
In article <9111162004.AA27164@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes:
>
>>Surely a written statement that someone has done something wrong ought to
>>encourage a reasonable person to inquire as to just what is wrong with
>>what they did? Has psychopathy really become so much the norm that it
>>is *expected* that people be *incapable* of determining that their behavior
>>is unacceptable to people around them unless they are brought in and beaten
>>with clubs?
>
> You receive the following warning after doing a
>
>du -a / | grep somefile
>
>looking for a file/program someone mentioned was kind of neat.
>
>>DO NOT use the "du" command outside of your home directory it takes up too
>>much of the system resources. This is your first warning. Blah Blah Blah
>
>O.K. I shouldn't use the "du" command. Just to be safe, I'll NEVER use
>it again.
>
> The next day you use the following command
>
>find / -name "someotherfile" -print
>
>looking for another neat file and you get another warning.
>
>>DO NOT use the "find" command outside of your home directory it takes up too
>>much of the system resources. This is your second warning. Blah Blah Blah
After these two events, if you have any brains at all you realize that the
computer is being run by a cretin, so you should take your computing
elsewhere.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: (Warning procedures) Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111162246.AA06344@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 10:46:19 GMT
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 14:26:10 GMT
phillips@syrinx.umd.edu (Felan shena Thoron'edras) writes:
>Depends... Are the system gurus going to treat the users (and the
>introductory lecture, if they're the ones giving it) like insects or
>people that are _really_ just getting in their ways? . . . After all,
>one of the _jobs_ of sysadmins is to keep things running smoothly, so
>that users don't see what they're having to fix. Perhaps knowing what
>the system people are _doing_ with their time that they're so busy
>would help?
>
>For instance, being told that "I can't talk to you, I'm busy" isn't
>helpful and just makes you think badly of the person. Being told "I'm
>trying to fix X, Y, and Z, and install W, and if I was only handling
>any one of those right now, I think I might get a chance to breathe by
>tomorrow. Together, I'll be lucky if I get to eat before next week.
>Try getting back to me in two weeks." would get home to the users just
>what it is their people are doing that makes them so busy.
My experience with trying this has lead to almost universal response by
the user "but my problem is more important than X, Y and Z". This
takes various forms, from "My assignment is due tomorrow" to "Listen
asshole, I'm a professor and you will do what I want." Leaving that
aside, being told "I'll get back to you in two weeks" is not an
acceptable response when a user has a problem *now* or is being told to
stop doing something.
When I've got an emergency, I can't really spend 60 seconds explaining
to each user why I can't talk to him right now. One admin times 120
users would mean two hours before I start working on the problem.
Explaining the admins job to users isn't part of the admins job. Nor
should it be. The confusion here is who the admin is providing service
to, the computer or the users. In a significant number of shops, it
is to the computer. User service should be an entirely different arena.
It has been my experience that most shops cuts admin staff to (and
thru) the bone. In many of these shops (including this one) the admins
are specificly told they are not a help desk, not a training center,
not an application development center. They are to keep the systems
running, and this is a higher priority than anything else.
The real issue is user training/help vs admin staff responsibilities.
A well-run semi-public site must provide both, and must realize that
they are two quite different skills. The person who can make your
system run like a bat out of hell is rarely the same one who can deal
one-on-one with non-computer staff who are inadvertantly using the
systems in ways other than those intended.
--
"The storage in the personal computer of the future is likely to be mounted
directly to the motherboard. The disk will look more like a chip on steroids
than anything else...." Dal Allan, EE Times, Oct 21, 1991, pg 78.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Orders
Message-ID: <9111162245.AA15437@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 10:45:18 GMT
From: adam@spotted.owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:52:59 GMT
In article <1991Nov12.154150.20021@ERA.COM>, feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
> On comp.admin.policy, paul@frcs.Alt.ZA (Paul Nash) posts:
> > This is one of the effects that the whole War-on-Drugs and Gulf shootup
> > seems to have had on the North America psyche (or is it the other way
> > around).
>
> Huh? Weren't the drugs being warred upon made illegal by people
> elected by a majority? Is law enforcement wrong to enforce those
> laws?
Jim Crow laws were also passed by people elected by a majority. Laws
regulating the consensual actions of adults in their own bedrooms were
passed by people elected by a majority. Just because a law is passed does not
make it right. Believe it or not, the man with the gun and the badge is not
always in a position of ethical superiority, unless might really does make
right.
You are also ignoring the fact that very few sysadmins were actually elected
by a majority of their representatives, the users. I'm under the impression
that Rice is a little unusual in that the Owlnet Steering Committe (the
body that creates our Unix facility policy) is even _having_ an open meeting
to which J. Random User can bring a gripe or a suggestion. Since it won't
happen until tomorrow, I don't know whether it'll make a difference in
policy or not; but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that many if not most
institutions do not have even this level of input from their students.
> > What you are saying is that the librarian can order students
> > around, and if they don't like it and think it wrong and have the time
> > and energy _then_ they can fight it.
>
> No. What I am saying is that if I attend a university, I must show at
> least a little respect (deserved or not) for the way the librarian
> runs the library. If there's something I or a group of people don't
> like about it, we have all the right in the world to try and do
> something about it. If we can get enough of the people who hand out
> such authorities to do something about it, we've made a change. Call
> it government {by|of|for} the people if you will. (What a novel
> concept!)
That's a mighty big "if". (The second one. "If we can get enough...")
> > They are, in essence, guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, the "innocent until proven guilty" thing
> has become such a crock in our legal system, that the "winner" of a
> case (is the Supreme Court the Super Bowl of the legal system?) is
> whoever puts on a better show. I've been in court, and I've seen it.
> But that's a completely different issue.
In other words, since "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to be
working, let's therefore adopt "guilty until proven innocent"? Excuse me?
And _is_ it a completely different issue? If you define "whoever puts on
a better show" to be "whoever's got the best lawyers", which I think is
perhaps closer to the truth, and extend "lawyers" to mean something like
"general legal/authoritarian clout", then I think this may well be a fairly
good model of a place like OSU.
> I don't know about anybody else, but if a library administrator says
> "get out or I'm calling the campus police" with no satisfactory
> explanation, I'm out for, if nothing else, lack of any desire to (a)
> really get myself in hot water or (b) run the risk of making this a
> vindictive thing on the administrator's part. But you can bet your
> bottom dollar I'll be taking the earliest possible opportunity to have
> a few words with his (or her) supervisor.
Who usually has better things to do with his (her) time, and is more likely to
assume that his appointed representative was doing the job correctly than
that you have a legitimate gripe.
In the absence of well-defined policy, any case involving abuse of authority
will probably be ultimately resolved in favor of the existing power structure,
as I stated above. Thus a ckearly stated policy, with explicit rules about
what the administration may and may not do as general practice, and a fairly
narrow set of guidelines for when these rules may be broken (e.g. someone
hacking the root account) is a necessity.
Adam
--
Adam Thornton | Opinions are mine alone, though Rice is welcome to them.
"Once in a while, you can get shown the light in the strangest of places
if you look at it right." | "To all the beautiful people out there: there
are a lot more of us than there are of you."| adam@owlnet.rice.edu | 64,928
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: (Warning procedures) Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111162245.AA07039@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 10:45:55 GMT
From: phillips@syrinx.umd.edu (Felan shena Thoron'edras)
Date: 13 Nov 91 02:07:31 GMT
In article <12.11.91.130201.167@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu> wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes:
>In article <6877@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>>wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes:
>>> Why not encourage them to come in the first time something happens?
>>Surely a written statement that someone has done something wrong ought to
>>encourage a reasonable person to inquire as to just what is wrong with
>>what they did? Has psychopathy really become so much the norm that it
>>is *expected* that people be *incapable* of determining that their behavior
>>is unacceptable to people around them unless they are brought in and beaten
>>with clubs?
[Pattern Bill provides: du, find, ls -R, all in /. Warning for du, find;
potential lockout for ls -R]
While this may seem pretty silly an example, it _does_ illustrate the problem
quite well. I myself couldn't tell you whether or not my running most of
these on a particular system I use would be a problem (except find; boy,
that one takes _forever_ on the system I tried it on (Hi Andy)). I
consider myself to be a fairly well-educated user, in fact quite a bit
more than most college students, at least. (I ought to be. Computer
Science _does_ lead to a better education about the way computer systems
work, after all. :-) )
> Most users today have at least a passing knowledge of PCs. Single
>user machines where all the resources are dedicated to making their life
>easier and any use of "system resources" is acceptable as long as it takes
>less wall clock time then doing it manually. Multi-user systems are very
>different beasts and not everybody is aware of that. Nor do they know how
>to estimate the resources that a command will use. Unless users are taught
>something about the way systems operate, I don't think we can expect them to
>make these kinds of decisions.
I think this is where the basic problem is. Most PC users are _not_ aware
of just how much stuff is _happening_ on machines they're using, when they
start using a multi-user machine. They don't realize just how different
things are (I could mention a case in point about a user and a big file
being sent over Bitnet...nawww, never mind). Look at what _is_ happening:
at the very least, on Unixoids, you should have init (which I dunno if it
does a whole lot after the beginning, but it's there), cron, lots of
daemons just sitting around (I think; most of the time they're just waiting
for something to start happening, aren't they?). Plus, of course, what
everyone else is doing.
Using a PC doesn't interfere with anyone else's time at the computer.
Multi-user systems might seem the same way to a PC user. After all, it
all still happens pretty fast, so obviously it works the same way...
(Ie running a normal command, like just an ls. Takes very little time,
no more than a 'dir' would for a PC...)
>of the semester. It seems like most students are given their account and
>password and then they are pretty much on their own. (Well, maybe the class
I know I was. Twice (two different machines). I learned a few things
from the lecture on 'basics', and all the rest of it came from other students
who learned it from other students who... None of that told me what it was
_doing_, or how it might affect anything else. They just all became neat
toys, or editors I did/didn't like, or....
>just don't have the time...) Maybe users should be required to attend a one
>hour introduction to the system BEFORE they are even given their account.
>This would result in better educated users who might use LESS system
>resources and get more work done since they would work "smarter".
I personally think this would be a great idea. I know now, looking back
at it, that I should have had such a course. Now, when people come to
me to learn things, I try to teach them not only what to do but what
effect it can have..but it would be nice to have everyone taught that.
> But then of course, the users might not be so enthralled by the
>system gurus...
Depends... Are the system gurus going to treat the users (and the
introductory lecture, if they're the ones giving it) like insects or
people that are _really_ just getting in their ways? Now, granted,
systems people are generally busy with something-or-other. Users don't
know that, users can't see that. After all, one of the _jobs_ of sysadmins
is to keep things running smoothly, so that users don't see what they're
having to fix. Perhaps knowing what the system people are _doing_ with
their time that they're so busy would help?
For instance, being told that "I can't talk to you, I'm busy" isn't
helpful and just makes you think badly of the person. Being told "I'm
trying to fix X, Y, and Z, and install W, and if I was only handling
any one of those right now, I think I might get a chance to breathe
by tomorrow. Together, I'll be lucky if I get to eat before next week.
Try getting back to me in two weeks." would get home to the users just
what it is their people are doing that makes them so busy.
Now, having the systems people giving the introduction... If they act
like they _like_ doing it, or are friendly, it's likely to give the users
a much better impression of: the person; the likely reliability of the
system (whether true or not); the usefulness of the system. It will also
get the points across to them better.
In general, user education is one of the best ways to keep large loads
off the system. I do my best to teach people how to use multi-user
systems _responsibly_, so they don't put large loads on the system if
they have a better time, etc. And I try (if I think they're curious enough)
to explain _why_ such-and-such a suggestion/rule/guideline exists. For
a lot of people, knowing _why_ makes things much easier to accept. In
Bill's example, knowing _why_ those commands were putting such a large
load on the system would have prevented the second and third problems;
the user would _probably_ figure out what was likely to happen, and that
it was as much a problem with 'ls -R' as with 'find'. Is not this
education and thus an informed user who will avoid such problems in the
future better than one who is locked from hir account because sie was
left ignorant?
Leanne Phillips
"Go not unto the Elves for counsel, for they will say both yea and nay."
"Now is _not_ a good time, Keiko!" - Worf, "Disaster"
"Variety is the spice of life, and I don't want to die." - Scott Borst
-------------------
From: gast@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
Subject: Re: The Hollywood Political Entourage and the FCC (was Dave the Stud)
Message-ID: <1991Nov17.041424.21196@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 17 Nov 91 04:14:24 GMT
References: <5ngdbla@lynx.unm.edu> <1991Oct30.211732.25556@nic.unh.edu>
Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News Himself)
Nntp-Posting-Host: oahu.cs.ucla.edu
In article ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>I can't see what Mr. Wickham has to complain about. The 80s saw massive
>diversification of the airwaves. The "big 3" went from 80-90% market
>shares to 40-50% (note these are rough guesses, I don't have solid
>figures.
Yes, but the big three were bought out and the companies that bought them
out control a lot more than just one tv network. Competition went down,
not up. Concentration went up, not down. Look at some of the reports
by FAIR.
>And most of those
>advertising documentaries have been relegated to 2:00am.
Not in LA.
>Mr. Wickham seems to be intensely jealous of Reagan's accomplishments.
Well, I am not. Can't really think of anything good he did except
leave office.
>It was
>this ability to communicate with the public
You don't mean communicate, you mean lie.
The other accomplishments you mention like a bigger navy were just
a waste of taxpayer money. With the huge deficits, the sending of
manufacturing off-shore, our economy is in a mess. We are now paying
for the Reagan's mistakes.
David Gast
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
