From warnold Mon Nov 18 05:42:34 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA19466
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 18 Nov 1991 10:42:39 -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: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 10:42:34 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111181542.AA19460@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 18 10:41:47 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:
bzb47596@uxa.cso.u : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) The Buckley Case.
greeny@top.cis.syr : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
bzs@world.std.com : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att : Re: Clarence Thomas (Was: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Repu
wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att : Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Dealing with Users, the Next Generation (was Re: Brack Exp
sean@ms.uky.edu (S : Re: (alt.censorship) Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Rev
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Rice University's Owlnet and U
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: bzb47596@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Phaedrus )
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov17.100752.25444@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.200935.22130@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 10:07:52 GMT
As far as universities adhering to the law, it seems to me that most
universities (at least state run ones) operate ABOVE the law.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phaedrus - Master of Tao internet: phaedrus@uiuc.edu
bzb47596@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Heisenberg may have slept here. NeXTmail: buehler@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu
America OnLine: FortyTwo GEnie: B.BUEHLER
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
In-Reply-To: bzb47596@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu's message of Sun, 17 Nov 1991 10:07:52 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
<1991Nov13.200935.22130@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
<1991Nov17.100752.25444@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 16:26:30 GMT
>As far as universities adhering to the law, it seems to me that most
>universities (at least state run ones) operate ABOVE the law.
Although one has to be a bit more specific to make this comment useful
in the context there is more than a little truth to this (although I
don't know that it's at all limited to state run colleges.)
For example, Harvard is exempt from eminent domain (tho that is a bit
unusual, they have an exemption signed by George Washington, I was
there when it was used once.)
I remember Cornell refusing entry to state police when I was an
undergrad there, even if the police had search warrants, they claimed
they (warrants) were not valid on campus but would cooperate with any
reasonable request if asked (that is, the police had to first check in
at the cornell campus police station and get permission to proceed.)
I tend to doubt that universities are particularly exempt from first
amendment provisions as a general rule. But let me give a hint, the
reason they do not pay taxes has nothing to do with someone ever
passing an exemption for academia, it is derived from their refusal to
acknowledge that the govt has any taxation authority over them, they
traditionally claim to stand beside the govt, not under it (the same
can be said for churches), as a separately constituted authority.
Of course, most academes are far too wimpy to put this kind of thing
to a test, tho some of the older, wealthier schools will reaffirm this
sort of thing from time to time when an issue arises.
I realize a lot of people who really know nothing about this issue
will now tell me how this doesn't fit their world view.
--
-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] The Buckley Case.
Message-ID: <9111172230.AA11097@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 17 Nov 91 10:30:02 GMT
From: buck@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Jesse Buckley)
Subject: The Buckley Case.
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.152856.25079@pool.info.sunyit.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 15:28:56 GMT
You asked here it is...
My story is basiclly this. The first semester I went to MVCC (Mohawk
Valley Community College) I found they had a VAX 11/780 running VMS.
Well I quickly learned that I'd have to get used to it, so I went and
asked the System Admin if I coulod borrow the manuals. I was told they
were way to vaulable and she couldn't let them go. Well, what if I just
read them here? No, she couldn't let me do that, either. (It's worth
mentioning that I was working there as a Lab assistant. (Work Study)) I
found myself in the lab alot. I'd finish up my assignment quickly,
leaving me with time to do other things. I tutored people in the lab
and was informed by the SysAdmin that this was not part of my job so it
was at "my own risk". (This was understood to mean that she didn't care
but I had to do my other work first (putting paper in the printer,
etc.)) After a while I got the itch to learn so I discovered 'help'. I
learned how to do command files, symbols, etc. (scripts and aliases for
you UNIX people) I wrote files to compile fortran and pascal, etc. (In
VMS you need to run three commands to compile and run stuff. (fortran,
link, run)) A few people asked for copies so they lowered their
protections and I copied the stuff in. I mentioned this to her several
times, she didn't understand what they did but she didn't care. Then
one day I was locked out of my account. (No message just a password
change.) It took me two days to find her and then they accused me of
tampering with PCs in a lab I worked in. (2 hours a week) I told all I
ever did with those PCs to "modify" the configuration was to set the
time correctly. She told me I shouldn't have done that. (I did use the
free time there to do my english reports.) I was banned from all PC
rooms and my account would be locked for the rest of the semester. I
left and talked to the director who reiterated this. I asked why?
Because I was in other people accounts. No, just their directories
(coping those files in). They told me it was the same. I pulled my
father in hoping that might at least get me enough CPU time to finish my
English stuff and my fortran programs for my classes. I got the fortran
account back but still was denied access from the PC labs. I tried to
make an academic appeal but, it wasn't covered. I went to the appeal
officer, to the acad VP assistant, and then tpo the VP. I got nothing
but that I was extreamly bad for doing what I did, according to the ACS
people. I finally met with the president and he wouldn't even let me
show him that I could get into someones files (with their permission)
without logging in as them. ACS said you did it so you did. I asked
about my english reports (I had a few that were typed but not printed
out.) He said he would have ACS set something up for me. Not fair but
good enough I thought, I could at least get this stuff done, and the
denial was only till next semester. (10 days left) I finally found this
PC and it didn't have either a 5 1/4 floppy or WordPerfect. I told the
SysAdmin this and she said she would arrange for me to get the stuff
transfered and get WP on the PC. Neither ever happened and I failed
English. My prof would take my excuse that it was on the PC as I didn't
have to type it up. I couldn't have done those reports over again they
took weeks to do. I tried to talk to the president again to tell him
ACS never kept their part of the bargain and he said ACS said they did
and he belived them. The story doesn't end there.
The fifth semester I built many files for myself and opened my dir so
people could run them. This time the SysAdmin locked all them out and
told them they might get expelled. One person threaten me physically.
(grabbed me and pushed me up against a wall.) Well, I can handle getting
yelled at but not violence. I went and talk to the VP. He told me he
would look into it and I should come back after my next class. When I
came back, he told me this was all my fault and that the college would
take no action. That was my last semester there.
--
-Buck (buck@sunyit.edu)
"Just go with the flow control, roll with the crunches, and, when you
get a prompt, type like hell."
--
-------------------
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov17.170539.24018@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.200935.22130@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991Nov17.100752.25444@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 17:05:39 EST
In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>I remember Cornell refusing entry to state police when I was an
>undergrad there, even if the police had search warrants, they claimed
>they (warrants) were not valid on campus but would cooperate with any
>reasonable request if asked (that is, the police had to first check in
>at the cornell campus police station and get permission to proceed.)
I was not familiar with anything like this while I was an undergrad at
Cornell. It is important to note that Public Safety at Cornell does have a
*mandate* from NYS (they act as agents of the state). Any argument along
the lines of what you have described would seem likely to have been the
result of the bureaucratic question of who has jurisdiction to execute
warrants. CU Public Safety was probably asserting that *it* had to supervise
the execution of state warrants.
I would be shocked if it were anything deeper than this. I was heavily
involved with the CCLU (student chapter of ACLU) while at Cornell, and
therefore, believe that I had pretty reliable knowledge about legal matters
at the university.
(For those who are not familiar with Cornell, it is half-private, half-state;
however, in at least some legal matters involving rights of students, faculty,
etc. it has (surprisingly) been considered by the courts to be private.)
>I tend to doubt that universities are particularly exempt from first
>amendment provisions as a general rule. But let me give a hint, the
>reason they do not pay taxes has nothing to do with someone ever
>passing an exemption for academia, it is derived from their refusal to
>acknowledge that the govt has any taxation authority over them, they
>traditionally claim to stand beside the govt, not under it (the same
>can be said for churches), as a separately constituted authority.
This strikes me as not quite a straight explanation. Typically (at least
typical examples that I am familiar with), private universities are not
required to pay property "taxes," but rather make "voluntary" payments of
mutually-agreed amounts to the local community.
Perhaps this was initiated by private institutions considering themselves
"above the law," but it most likely continues, simply because neither the
communities nor the institutions desire the legal battle involved in
changing the technique. (And both sides are apparently satisfied.)
Universities obviously don't pay income tax...since they are non-profit
organizations. Universities are required to collect sales taxes for
various sales on campus (at least in NYS).
As far student/faculty rights go, public institutions are most definitely
bound to grant constitutional rights. Private institutions are generally
not bound to grant such rights (other than fundamental due-process rights).
At private institutions, contractual obligations may grant students/faculty
certain rights, but since the institution is not an agent of the state,
the constitutional restrictions on what *government* may do, do not apply.
>I realize a lot of people who really know nothing about this issue
>will now tell me how this doesn't fit their world view.
Well, you know, when we don't know anything except our "world view,"
we at least have to protect THAT! :)
Incidentally, Harvard, Cornell, and the rest of the Ivy league just cut
a deal with the Feds to stop "conspiring" to fix financial aid packages
for students. They did this in order to settle/avoid an anti-trust suit
regarding tuition-fixing.
That doesn't much sound like institutions that consider themselves above the
rule of government.
greeny greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
"What's the difference between an orange?"
-------------------
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
In-Reply-To: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu's message of Sun, 17 Nov 91 17:05:39 EST
Message-ID:
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
<1991Nov13.200935.22130@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
<1991Nov17.100752.25444@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
<1991Nov17.170539.24018@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 00:57:33 GMT
>From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) [responding to me]
>>I remember Cornell refusing entry to state police when I was an
>>undergrad there, even if the police had search warrants, they claimed
>>they (warrants) were not valid on campus but would cooperate with any
>>reasonable request if asked (that is, the police had to first check in
>>at the cornell campus police station and get permission to proceed.)
>
>I was not familiar with anything like this while I was an undergrad at
>Cornell.
I believe you (that you were not familiar...)
I am referring to the period 71-74.
>It is important to note that Public Safety at Cornell does have a
>*mandate* from NYS (they act as agents of the state).
As I remember they were deputized around the period I was there
specifically as a compromise over this sort of matter (it may have
been a year or so earlier, 1970.) But there's more to it than that,
they were mainly deputized so they could carry handguns or something
trivial like that (or perhaps it provided some protection of liability
in making arrests, or both, it was just basically to make them sorta
like real cops.)
>CU Public Safety was probably asserting that *it* had to supervise
>the execution of state warrants.
Although CUPS was the agent utilized the issue was coming from the
Office of the President (Dale Corson at the time.)
>This strikes me as not quite a straight explanation. Typically (at least
>typical examples that I am familiar with), private universities are not
>required to pay property "taxes," but rather make "voluntary" payments of
>mutually-agreed amounts to the local community.
That they make voluntary payments does not raise any particular doubts
about my comments that they are not legally obliged (except perhaps by
private town/gown contract, I'm sure they commit to this under some
structure for some number of years so the town can plan) to make any
payments.
>Universities obviously don't pay income tax...since they are non-profit
>organizations.
A not-for-profit is generally organized under 501C3 (or one of a few
other sections of the IRS code.) Is this what you're saying Cornell
(as the case at hand) is claiming no taxes under? I'll bet not. Tho I
wouldn't be shocked to hear there's some form they send to the govt
informing them they believe they are not responsible for any taxes
it's not the same as, say, your local charity or community service
org.
They (universities) are tautologically not-for-profit. The term simply
means that you have no shareholders, owners etc. who take profit
distributions out of the corporation by legal power of their interest.
If they even had shareholders or owners in that sense they wouldn't be
academia, they'd be someting like Berlitz or some such.
So their not-for-profit status is somewhat circular, and I don't
believe is the basis for their not paying taxes except inasmuch as it
describes their structure in some colloquial way.
>Universities are required to collect sales taxes for
>various sales on campus (at least in NYS).
Some activities are certainly exempt because they are not considered
part of the University mission in any particular way. I vaguely
remembering this being challenged earlier on by some university, but
can't remember the details so I'll drop it.
>Incidentally, Harvard, Cornell, and the rest of the Ivy league just cut
>a deal with the Feds to stop "conspiring" to fix financial aid packages
>for students. They did this in order to settle/avoid an anti-trust suit
>regarding tuition-fixing.
>
>That doesn't much sound like institutions that consider themselves above the
>rule of government.
At any point of contact where they take from the govt they have to
play by the govt's rules. This is also true of rules regarding govt
research contracts etc.
So that also leads nowhere.
--
-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: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.025221.9676@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.214812.2699@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 02:52:21 GMT
In article <1991Nov13.214812.2699@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes:
>
>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.
>
This isn't surprising at all, considering the Daily Illini's past record...
remember the "colorless fluid" found in the boneyard last year? the DI called
it "condensed water." and assured the public that it wasn't dangerous...
--
Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
C++ forever, P*scal never!
-------------------
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas (Was: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Keywords: Natural Rights, prejudice
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.053055.14880@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
Date: 18 Nov 91 05:30:55 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.152103.17925@anasaz>
In article gerry@cs.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
] Clarence Thomas is the LAST person who should be in ANY
] position of governmental authority.
Naaah - there are LOTS of contenders for last place :-)
] He is a fundementalist christian
Since when did religious prejudice cease to be distasteful?
David Duke may not think Jews and Blacks belong in office,
but if you think someone should be barred from office because
of their religion, YOU certainly don't belong in charge of the EEOC!
] who does not appear to belive in civil liberties
On the contrary, he appeared to believe very strongly
in civil liberties. If you're talking about his EEOC
positions, he seemed to believe in equal opportunity, but not
in using discriminatory methods to correct past discrimination;
since you believe in religious discrimination, this shouldn't
bother you. On the other hand, he also believed in natural law,
the philosophy that you have rights even if the government
violates them - otherwise civil liberties only means, at best,
"whatever liberties you can get the legislature to support",
like Bork says, or "", like the Drug Warriors say.
] and he may be a sexual harrasser.
That, on the other hand, is a perfectly good reason to
disqualify him, if true. I was disappointed when I heard it,
because Thomas was better than what I was expecting from Bush.
I wasn't positively impressed with Thomas's handling of the
hearings, and didn't see enough of
Anita Hill's to have an opinion about her reliability.
On the other hand, bringing a herd of character witnesses
to support him was insulting - if you can't get 10 people
to swear on a stack of Federal Registers that you're honest,
trustworthy, loyal, ..., you're obviously not qualified for
any job in politics - even Richard Nixon would have *no* trouble.
Then there was that little matter of the court case where he
was judge and one of the parties was his good buddy Danforth,
but that was too late in the windstorm to get any consideration.
--
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: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.064755.15904@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
Date: 18 Nov 91 06:47:55 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.214224.10346@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> <19255@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>
In article <19255@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
] 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.
]... 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.
First off all, you're not the kind of Republican we're REALLY worried about :-)
and if all Republicans thought like that, we could all relax.
There's even a Republican Liberty Caucus just for folks with that kind
of attitudes. But a lot of your compadres don't think that way!
- look at the drug war, which the Republican Party is big on -
if you own your own body, it's nobody's business what drugs you take,
though you're obviously responsible for what you do under the influence,
and if you have the right to property, you should be able to buy and sell
anything to anybody who wants it.
- look at taxes - sure, the Democrats spend terabucks on social programs,
but the Republicans are no better - they're just more likely to spend
taxes on military contracts with their friends in industry. And neither
party has had the honesty to restrict spending or keep taxes enough to
balance the budget, so instead we have this crippling deficit. You can't
blame Congress - the last President who even *submitted* a balanced
budget to Congress was Nixon, who had other problems :-)
- then there's wars against people who aren't attacking the US.
Republicans have been using your tax money to fund foreign dictators for
years, and when they embarass us (like Noriega or Saddam Hussein),
Republicans spend your taxes killing their subjects. When they get
overthrown, like Somoza in Nicaragua, Republicans use your taxes to
finance terrorists to overthrow the revolution. Democrats are no better.
Or when their Nielson Ratings get down, they go invade Grenada or bomb Libya.
- then there's basic civil rights, in areas like search&seizure -
the Republicans have been gung-ho about removing protections against
false arrest, trumped-up charges, and manufactured evidence, and put
through "good-faith" rules that give the government the benefit of the
doubt instead of the accused. I prefer the belief that it's better to
fail to convict a guilty person than to wrongly convict one who's innocent.
- guns - Republicans aren't all as anti-gun as George Bush, but they show
their true colors when you stop talking about The NRA and Hunting and
start talking about 'the Founding Fathers wanted the people to be able to
overthrow the government if it got out of hand' or 'Black People in
cities should be able to have Uzis for personal self-defense' -
most of them will start freaking out at that point.
- then there's basic honesty. I know it's not politicians' strong point :-),
but when did you last believe ANYTHING George Bush said? I'd rather have
Richard Nixon back - at least it wasn't Un-American to call him a crook.
With Reagan, you could occasionally believe that he didn't know what he
was saying or really didn't remember, but he was just a mouthpiece.
] 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.
Hey, I resemble that remark :-) yes, folks, I was born Republican and
used to think I was a conservative. While the LP's origins were the
anarchist wing of the YAF, a lot of Libertarians are former liberals who
realized that economic rights are human rights too.
Besides, Republicans are stuffy, and wouldn't know what to do with
marijuana or rock&roll if they saw it - Democrats can Party :-)
] Compared to the Democrats, we're heaven.
The Democrats may be more into theft than the Republicans, but if you
pay your exhorbitant taxes they usually won't throw you in jail.
Yes, they're also more strongly against free enterprise,
while Republicans only want to regulate their competitors.
] 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.
most of them have been for VERY good reasons, though they don't always
think about what they're doing. But when most Republicans say what you
just said, they're not just talking about
"the right to have magically provided by someone else",
they're also talking about rights like "innocent until proven guilty" or
"the right not to be beaten into confessing" or "the right to say
politically incorrect things like '%^%^% The Draft'"
Also, there's a difference between rights you want the government to
enforce, and rights you believe in but won't use violence to enforce.
Discrimination is *wrong*, and you have a right not to be discriminated
against based on race, gender, etc., even if you don't have a right to
*force* somebody else not to do so.
So you still want to be a Republican? :-) Ok, but remember that not all
Republicans believe in freedom - you've got to work to change that.
And remember that there are a *lot* of good people out there in the
Democratic party as well, who really want justice and peace and think
there's more chance to get the Democrats to get a clue than those awful
Republicans who think capitalism is everything - talk to them and clue
them in about economic rights.
--
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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Dealing with Users, the Next Generation (was Re: Brack Expulsion)
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.134602.28050@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 91 13:46:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Nov18.134602.28050
References: <9111152223.AA19536@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>
>> > 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?
>
I'm talking about printers in public PC labs. We do not charge for laser
printing, but we are setting up a page quota system. We're averaging close
to 1200 pages/day through each public printer. 8(
> 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)
The problem applies to PCs as well. Even experienced PC users can turn
into "resource hogs" when presented with PC-network resources. 250-page
dissertations being printed at 1:00 pm, installing (or trying to install)
their own TSRs on a public lab PC, and installing their own "favorite" games
on public PCs: these are all problems we've seen in our public student labs.
> Mutual respect seem to be integral to having a smooth-running
> system.
Absolutely! I've learned more about our systems from student problems than
I ever could on my own time. I don't have time to futz around with things
like inline assembler code or assembler alignment errors, but students have
run into problems with those; in those cases, we learned together.
> 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.
In the early 1980s, we received a grant from AT&T. Included in that grant
were about 12 3B2/310s. Over the years, that number has been reduced to
4 through machine death, cannibalizing for parts, et cetera. Those four
boxes aren't used for anything critical; in fact, they aren't even online
at the moment. I found them gathering dust in a closet, did a clean in-
stallation from diskette, and generally brought them back from the dead.
They're available for anyone to use; we've used them for several short-term
projects (temporary printer server, testing networking code, etc.). They
are made available on an "as is" basis; if they have serious hardware faults,
they're gone (we don't have the money to spend on repairs for them).
Look around; if you've got something gathering dust, why not make it available?
If you have an old PC/AT-370 gathering dust, why not let some Electrical
Engineers have a look at the guts of it? If you have a unix-pc (3B1)
that hasn't been used in years, why not let some grad students hack around
on it? Give them the manuals, make it clear that they're on their own,
and let them run with it.
> 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.
There has to be a way to make it work, even if it is nothing more than an
electronic mail drop for questions/answers. I think that *all* admins should
be able to make time for users. If I have to spend an hour working through a
user's problem, that comes with the territory; I'll just have to make up that
hour's systems work some other time.
One of the most successful methods I've used is the "student leader"
approach. Let's say that I have to install some special nifty soft-
ware hack to support a class. I'll crank out a worksheet for the in-
structor to hand out in class. The first student who comes in with
a problem gets a full run-through on the new procedure. After that,
all problems tend to get routed to that student *instead* of me. This
method accomplishes several things:
- The students are working together (as they should)
- My workload gets eased a bit
- The instructor doesn't have to teach the procedure
- The lead student gets a bit more self-esteem
(not essential, but always nice)
In most classes, one or two students will emerge as the resident
computer wizards; why not use them? After doing this several times,
students have started working in groups; if they have a problem, they
send *one* person to see me. They're happy, the instructor's happy,
and I'm happy.
We've been talking about getting the users more involved in the daily
policies/activities of the computing center. I'm trying to formalize
this on a class-by-class basis. I'd like each class using my systems
to designate a "computing representative" (or some title like that).
That student would get support from us; he/she would get a step-by-step
training session on the software their class is using. After that, they
would serve as the de facto consultant for that class.
We're also trying to get the Engineering student organizations involved.
We've offered training support to all the organizations, hoping that it
will filter down through the userbase. As of now, none of them have
accepted. We are also setting up mailing lists for the various groups.
If we get them in the door with electronic mail, we can show them what
computing really means. If you're interested in doing this, a good place
to start is the honorary fraternities, like Eta Kappa Nu and Chi Epsilon
(Electrical and Civil Engineering, respectively).
--
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: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.135005.28979@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 91 13:50:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Nov18.135005.28979
References: <9111140055.AA12981@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
|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.
Indeed, is turning off someone's account *really* the only way to get
people to come in and see the staff? Or perhaps is it just a terribly
convenient way. What would another department do, put a security guard
at the classroom door? Telephones and USmail are quite sufficient. I
think we have convenience outweighing due process here.
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: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.135828.244@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 91 13:58:28 GMT
References: <9111162006.AA27204@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
>>>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.
In this particular case, there's a fairly easy workaround. By default,
our /etc/profile (which is executed each time *any* user logs in) turns
off messaging. If a user expresses interest in talk(1) or write(1),
I'll show them how to turn it on. I make it clear that, if they turn
it on, they may get unwanted messages; it's up to them to deal with that.
I don't step in unless someone starts repeatedly sending messages to
every message-enabled person, or someone starts sending obscene/profane
messages to everyone. That hasn't happened yet, so I'm pleased with
this setup.
>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.
We have a "no games" policy, but I don't actively search for games;
there's no way to do that without compromising user privacy. I do,
however, check the monthly accounting reports for heavily-used pro-
grams. If I see a unsupported program that is taking up a lot of
resources, I'll use find(1) to determine the owner and send him/her
email asking "By the way, what is "fooblech"? I noticed that it's
using a lot of resources; we might be able to reduce its usage." If
it turns out to be a game, I remind them of the policy and ask them
to delete it. Almost invariably, the users will delete the game.
It boils down to this: we don't allow games, but, if it doesn't
use enough resources to set off the accounting alarms, we're not
going to plow through user files to find it.
NOTE TO ADMINS:
If you're interested in checking out your accounting files, just
write a shell script that:
- performs an ls(1) on your binaries directories
- uses egrep to extract lines from the accounting
records that do NOT match entries in the list from ls(1)
It's much easier than wading through 20 pages of accounting files.
We've found that users are actually policing each other now. I've
seen users asking game players to leave terminal sites when the labs
are full. Amazing, isn't it? 8)
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Mon Nov 18 15:20:31 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA05057
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 18 Nov 1991 20:20:38 -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: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 20:20:31 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111190120.AA05045@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Nov 18 20:19:41 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:
rday@magnus.acs.oh : Re: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: (comp.admin.policy) The Buckley Case.
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: User/admin communication.
rickert@cs.niu.edu : Re: (comp.admin.policy) The Buckley Case.
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
dmpowell@rodan.acs : Re: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Orders (Was Re: Re; Brack Exp
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: (comp.admin.policy) The Buckley Case.
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 01.34
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: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.142510.26118@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Keywords: Ha! This makes me ill!
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
References: <1991Nov10.203554.6461@anasaz> <1991Nov16.012018.10143@rodan.acs.sy
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 14:25:10 GMT
In article <1991Nov16.012018.10143@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.ed
u (Darin M Powell) writes:
>A few quick opinions:
>
>1. Arizona should have an MLK holdiay. A real holiday. On a Monday. Period.
Wrong. As long as the holiday is a state by state option, Arizona should not
"have to" have a MLK holiday. If you don't like that, CHANGE THE LAW.
>2. If the people of Arizona don't want such a holiday, that's their right
Your correct here.
>3. If the NFL thinks Arizona stinks and boycotts, THAT'S THE NFL' RIGHT!!!
I'm sorry, (IMHO) the NFL should not be trying to change a state's holidays. I
think that this type of meddling by "big business" is wrong.(I relise that this
sort of thing happens all of the time, but it is still wrong.)
>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.
I agree that it is now "in" to be anti-PC. When the PC movement first started,
it was a way to have people get along with one another(don't say anything
offencive or derogatory about anyone else.) That is O.K., but, when the
movement went to the coercion of others, it went bad, but so is joining the
anti-PC movement, just because it is "in".
-
--
* 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: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] The Buckley Case.
Message-ID: <9111181507.AA05845@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 18 Nov 91 15:07:46 GMT
> From: buck@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Jesse Buckley)
>
> You asked here it is...
>
> [...]
>
Gee, somehow I can't bring myself to trust sysadmin judgement. 8)
Seriously, I think this is a very good example of why ACS operations
need specific policies, available to users. If the site wants to make
setting the time on PCs illegal, then they had best make some sort of
policy concerning it. Even common sense, which shouldn't be one's
sole point of reference, would fail to protect a person here.
--
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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: User/admin communication.
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.150215.11121@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 91 15:02:15 GMT
References: <9A03910890421012@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sanjay Kapur writes:
>
>I would like to propose that to improve this communication [ between users
>and admins - Wes ] the following be done:
>
>1) Like the student-teacher ratio, the user-admin ratio needs to be reduced at
>large sites.
A worthy goal, but difficult to implement. We have student assistant running
our PC labs (they're scholarship students), and they can handle most of the
PC questions and some Unix questions. Most of the Unix questions, however,
wind up coming to me. That's one admin (me) for 2000 users. When I first
started, the flood of user consulting was almost overwhelming (for reasons
I'll discuss below); it's not that bad today, now that users are working with
each other more.
>2) Like class size in a school, the total number of users on a system
>should be kept at a manageable level.
This one is much too ambiguous. We have several missions:
- Support classroom work in the College
- Support research work in the College
- Develop general computing skills of our students
In support of these missions, we have decided that each student in the
College needs access to our systems. Therefore, every student has an
account on our general Unix system. Presto! There's 1710 users. Is
this unmanageable? No, and here's why. During their first two years,
our students are not taking many computing-intensive courses. Freshmen
and Sophomores tend to use our system almost solely for electronic mail
and general Unix experimentation (if they have the time for such experi-
mentation). As a result, they do not place a heavy burden on me; handouts
and our student assistants can handle the vast majority of their needs. By
the time they become Juniors, they are sufficiently Unix-literate that,
even through they begin to make more extensive use of our system, their
basic knowledge is enough to get them through. I have found that the
majority of my user support goes to about 10% of the userbase. Inclu-
ding faculty and staff, that's about 175-200 users; that is certainly
a manageable number.
It's extremely difficult to predict a "manageable" staff/user ratio.
Our shop is working fairly well with a ratio of about 400:1; a different
group of staff people might choke on that. I've seen computing shops
with a 50:1 ratio that fall apart in user support.
>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.
Bingo! There's the biggest problem I've seen. How many times have we
seen something like this in a computing center's newsletter?
Q: I'm having a problem dialing in from home. I set everything
up as described in your documentation, and I get a carrier,
but it just stops unexpectedly. What's going on?
A: It sounds like a communications problem. You need to talk
to so-and-so or so-and-so to fix it.
Q: Why can't I do XXXXXX? According to the help files, it
should work, but it gives me this error message "YYYYY".
A: We fixed it; it should work now.
Why point every question to someone else? Why not explain the problem
that caused that software to fail? The purpose of newsletters and Q&A
sessions is to EDUCATE your users; what does "We fixed it" do for them?
More importantly, what does that do for other users that may be experi-
encing the same problem? All that happens is that Mr. so-and-so starts
getting more phone calls, and he has to explain the same solution over
and over. That's doesn't help; in fact, it makes the problem worse.
I usually try to give the users as much information as they can han-
dle. When I explain a problem, I always start with "stop me if there's
something you don't understand." You can't predict the knowledge of
an individual user; part of your task is to keep your explanations within
their knowledge.
I've read computing center newsletters from around the world, and this
seems to be a universal problem.
Another major problem is the "can't do that" theme. We
had a user who needed to adjust some parameters on a job on another
system (outside our site). The consultant told him "that can't be done;
you'll just have to work around it". The user came to me, and, after a
little digging through manuals, we found that he could accomplish it with
a one-line addition. The way I see it, his problem came from one of three
sources:
- The consultant didn't know how to do it, didn't want to admit
that fact, and just gave the user a brush-off.
- For some reason, the admins didn't want anyone to do that, so
they just told people that "it can't be done". This is usually
called "security through obscurity".
- The consultant was too lazy to RTFM.
In my opinion, none of these are acceptable reasons.
The big problem in the user's perspective is the "I'm important" attitude.
Many users expect admins (or consultants) to drop whatever they're doing
when they need help. I have a sign in my office that reads "A lack of
planning on your part does NOT create an emergency on my part". If a
student comes in while I'm trying to (for instance) hash out an RFS
problem, he's going to get second priority. As soon as I hear the words
"but this is due this afternoon (or tomorrow)", my usual response is "I'm
sorry, but I can't run from your schedule; this is more important. I'll
help you as soon as I can". They may grumble, but they have to accept it.
Now, if a user demonstrates that he IS planning ahead, administrators must
make every attempt to help them. Most of our users have, after a few epi-
sodes such as those I just described, begun to plan ahead. I'm getting more
and more questions like "I'm working on setting up electronic mail on my
workstation, but I don't really need it for about 2-3 weeks; when can you
help me?" Believe me, I'm going to jump through hoops to help that guy
before his deadline. The mere fact that he IS planning ahead is going to
make my life easier.
There are several agendas in a computing center; the admins have one, the
bureaucrats/moneymen have a second, and the users have their own. One of
our largest responsibilities is the merging of those agendas into a cohe-
sive whole. Don't forget, administrators wouldn't be here if users didn't
exist. Each of these groups has to understand and respect the agendas of
the others.
--
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: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] The Buckley Case.
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.182441.10823@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: rickert@cs.niu.edu
References: <9111181507.AA05845@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 91 18:24:41 GMT
In article <9111181507.AA05845@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>> From: buck@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Jesse Buckley)
>>
>> You asked here it is...
>>
>> [...]
>
> Seriously, I think this is a very good example of why ACS operations
> need specific policies, available to users. If the site wants to make
> setting the time on PCs illegal, then they had best make some sort of
> policy concerning it. Even common sense, which shouldn't be one's
> sole point of reference, would fail to protect a person here.
I am probably a minority of one. But I strongly disagree.
When ACS is run by complete morons who have no comprehension of what computers
are about (as appears to be the case with Buckley's experience), no amount of
"specific policies" will help.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <199111181857.AA23498@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 18 Nov 91 18:44:09 GMT
On Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:45:31 GMT Carl M. Kadie said:
>[Posted for author - Carl]
Interesting...this was apparently written by Mr. Brack, the first
description of what actually happened.
> 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.
What I would love to hear from Mr. Brack is WHY he did these things?
WHY take out the underlining? For fun? To see if it could be done? To
hassle some system person who would have to restore from backup?
Some other reason?
Also, if it was such a minor infraction, how did anyone even know
(or care) that the underlining had been removed? Are there "manual police"
there? Did the system report the change to an administrator? Did someone
happen to be casually be reading the manual and note the change? OR, did
the removing of underlining change the meaning enough to make a difference.
In many manuals different typefaces ARE significant to the reader/user.
Agreed it should not be available to any user, but that doesn't mean that
all things that CAN be done SHOULD be done, does it?
> Everything else was just thrown in so that the body of evidence against
> me would seem more damning than it actually is.
Well, isn't that part of what happens in many criminal trials? Bringing
in related history or issues to show a pattern? (If you murdered ten other
people I might be more likely to belive you murdered this one too, and aren't
just a "innocent bystander" who happened to be standing around with a
smoking gun you found on the street.)
>> How many others have OSU suspended for similar offences? Hundreds? Dozens?
>> A few? None?
But that is a fairly bogus argument. If I get caught going 80 on the
Interstate, does it do any good to tell the cop that "You shoulda caught the
SOB who blew my doors off and was going at least a hundred."?? His answer
is likely to be "Yeah, I shoulda, but I caught YOU instead so don't give
me no shit boy, unless you wanna go to jail RIGHT NOW!"
> 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
Well, I am NOT defending what did, or didn't, to Mr. Brack at OSU.
But it still seems that it would have been much smarter to be a "nice
person." Just as not hassling the cop in the example above would be
a much smarter thing to do instead of ending up trying to dig up bail
money at some odd hour in some strange town.
> hold that even though I wasn't a nice person, my actions did not justify
> dismissal.
Well, maybe mine didn't justify going to jail....but HE had the gun.
> 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.
WELL, yes and no! But in civil and criminal law, I believe the
expression is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Try and tell the cop that "I didn't see the school speed limit sign"
when you get the ticket for 40 in a 25 mph school zone. Good luck.
> 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.
I have suffered both. It is part of living and of growing up.
No one promised that life would be fair. Guess what, it often isn't.
I don't have to LIKE that....but I do have to accept it unless I wanna
spend my life bitching and moaning about it.
Please note that in none of this do I indicate that anyone SHOULD be
treated unfairly, or that they shouldn't avail themselves of the options
for appeal or redress. They should. BUT, they should know that in real
life that sometimes those appeals may actually hurt you. Plea bargains
offer a good example. To coin a bumper sticker, "Shit Happens."
Wipe it off and go on with life.
dan
*****************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu *
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu *
* Boise State University *
* Boise, Idaho 83725 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak *
* 208-385-1234 for them and they don't speak for me. *
*****************************************************************************
-------------------
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <199111181910.AA23891@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 18 Nov 91 19:09:48 GMT
>> 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
VERY interesting. IS it important, or isn't it? The failure to appeal
in a TIMELY manner will seriously hurt the case. In fact, most appeal
processes with which I am familiar have a limited time period during
which an appeal can be made at all. Maybe 30 or 60 or 90 days. A
reasonable amount of time, but limited.
Have you checked on this Mr. Brack? If the time period expires, you
will have no appeals.
dan
*****************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu *
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu *
* Boise State University *
* Boise, Idaho 83725 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak *
* 208-385-1234 for them and they don't speak for me. *
*****************************************************************************
-------------------
From: dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Darin M Powell)
Subject: Re: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.191212.28029@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Keywords: Ha! This makes me ill!
References: <1991Nov10.203554.6461@anasaz> <1991Nov16.012018.10143@rodan.acs.sy <1991Nov18.142510.26118@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 19:12:12 GMT
In article <1991Nov18.142510.26118@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day) writes:
>In article <1991Nov16.012018.10143@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.ed
>u (Darin M Powell) writes:
>>A few quick opinions:
>>
>>1. Arizona should have an MLK holdiay. A real holiday. On a Monday. Period.
>
>Wrong. As long as the holiday is a state by state option, Arizona should not
>"have to" have a MLK holiday. If you don't like that, CHANGE THE LAW.
-- When I said that, all I meant was that, in my personal opinion,
MLK should be honored by a holiday 'cause I think he deserves one.
Of course, nobody can be forced to celebrate if they don't want to.
>I'm sorry, (IMHO) the NFL should not be trying to change a state's holidays. I
>think that this type of meddling by "big business" is wrong.(I relise that this
>sort of thing happens all of the time, but it is still wrong.)
>
-- Well, the owners of the NFL can do whatever they want with
their business, (as long as it's legal). If they don't want to
play in a state w/no King day, they can do that. Having the
superbowl in your state is not a 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
>
>I agree that it is now "in" to be anti-PC. When the PC movement first started,
>it was a way to have people get along with one another(don't say anything
>offencive or derogatory about anyone else.) That is O.K., but, when the
>movement went to the coercion of others, it went bad, but so is joining the
>anti-PC movement, just because it is "in".
>
-- You're right on the mark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darin Powell
dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.edu
"I'm in Boise Idaho! I'm in Anchorage, Alska! I'm in the lobby of a Howard
Johnson's and I wearing a pink carnation!
--- Robert DeNiro (god) in "Midnight Run"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.200120.1252@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 91 20:01:20 GMT
References: <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov15.015915.7845@iitmax.iit.edu>
In article <1991Nov15.015915.7845@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
>
>Whenever I discover that abusive mail is coming from a student
>account, I disable it. Usually, that's the end of it.
This is why account disabling is so dangerous-- you disable the account, your
problems are over. The student whose account is disabled has no one to turn
to and is thus stuck.
--
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: Orders (Was Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.200612.1436@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 20:06:12 GMT
References: <744AE2CA5C41DA48@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <744AE2CA5C41DA48@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur 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. 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?
No, but the burden of proof should be on the LIBRARIAN to show them guilty.
You know, they should be INNOCENT until proven GUILTY.
>
--
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] The Buckley Case.
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.202148.1718@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 91 20:21:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1991Nov18.202148.1718
References: <9111181507.AA05845@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> <1991Nov18.182441.10823@mp.cs.niu.edu>
In article <1991Nov18.182441.10823@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
> I am probably a minority of one. But I strongly disagree.
>
> When ACS is run by complete morons who have no comprehension of what computers
>are about (as appears to be the case with Buckley's experience), no amount of
>"specific policies" will help.
Taking their stick away will help.
--
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: <1991Nov18.202625.1812@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 91 20:26:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1991Nov18.202625.1812
References: <199111181857.AA23498@eff.org>
In article <199111181857.AA23498@eff.org> ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester) writes:
> (Steven Brack writes)
>> 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.
> WELL, yes and no! But in civil and criminal law, I believe the
>expression is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
>Try and tell the cop that "I didn't see the school speed limit sign"
>when you get the ticket for 40 in a 25 mph school zone. Good luck.
If the sign isn't there, you'll win.
>Please note that in none of this do I indicate that anyone SHOULD be
>treated unfairly, or that they shouldn't avail themselves of the options
>for appeal or redress. They should. BUT, they should know that in real
>life that sometimes those appeals may actually hurt you. Plea bargains
>offer a good example. To coin a bumper sticker, "Shit Happens."
Shit happens MORE to those who simply accept it.
--
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@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 01.34
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.215041.29386@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 21:50:41 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-news). Information about CAF-news followings the
abstract. The full CAF-news is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n34
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending October 27, 1991
There is a backlog of CAF-news. To catch up, I will be publishing one
issue a day all this week. For information on how to receive only the
CAF-news abstract, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom caf
The words after a number are a short paraphrase of the article, not
necessarily my opinion.
Notes 1-2 are about policy statements.
1. Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom -- 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.
<1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org>
2. README file for the Computer Policy and Critiques Archive -- This
is a collection of the computer policies of many schools. The
collection also includes critiques of some of the policies. To get the
newest version of the README file, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send other-comp-policies README
<1991Oct26.175424.26881@eff.org>
Notes 3-7 are about the "yehweh" posting, a violent and sexually
explicit story that was posted to the soc.women newsgroup apparently by
a student of the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).
3. (UIC sys admin:) Sorry about the posting. I've taken action to
prevent such postings in the future. The note was not protected speech
because "it can be considered as a generalized form of sexual
harassment".
<9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
4. (Addressed to the UIC sys admin:) "[Y]ou overstepped the bounds of
your authority when you punished the student for his expression." The
speech in the note, although offensive, was Constitutionally
protected. "Statements in a free-speech forum such as soc.women [cannot]
constitute sexual harassment." Moreover, you are not authorized by
your university to decide sexual harassment cases.
<1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org>
5. (The student from whom's account the note was posted:) "Maybe it was
a breakin,a forgery,or I left my terminal unattended, but I DIDN'T
POST IT!!!"
<9110252158.AA17812@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
6. (Student at another school:) My legal advisors say that private BBS
owners might be responsible for the notes their users post. By
analogy, University sys admins might be responsible for their user's
postings. I would be willing sue. "It would be lovely if the
democratically determined newsgroup charters ..., finally had some
teeth."
<9110262137.AA21310@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
7. (Addressed to the previous poster:) "There is a vast difference
between a *private* bbs that one may join or refuse to join because of
the rules, and a university that has a written policy of allowing the
free exchange of ideas." "You decided to read it and you should have
stopped when you'd read enuff to know what it is. And then flamed it,
and set your followups to alt.flame or /dev/null." A call for
newsgroup charters with teeth is a call for net.police.
<9110271907.AA24778@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-11 are about newsgroup policy.
8. "I see the unmoderated Usenet and Altnet newsgroups as free-speech
forums. Their charters state the intended focus of the forum, not the
legal boundaries. The penalty for moving too far from the focus,
should, in my opinion, be social disapproval, not official
punishment."
<1991Oct23.210725.19475@eff.org>
9. Postings to the net, like other expressive actions, should only be
punished if they cause substantial interference with the rights of
others. A few off-topic posts do not constitute substantial
interference. Enclosed are the general rules my school has against
disruptive and coercive action.
<1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org>
10. How about on-line disclaimers that reminds users that they may find
material in Usenet newsgroups that offends them? Also that the user,
not site, is not responsible for what users reads and writes to the
net.
<1991Oct23.210321.283@ms.uky.edu>
11. A judge has said that 'a steady stream of unwelcome messages over
an electronic mail system' can constitute harassment.
<9110231905.AA03782@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 12-13: Miscellaneous
12. The Alt.sex.* hierarchy was killed on PSUVM, Penn State's main
general purpose computer..
<9110231820.AA03361@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
13. UCLA's Computer Use Policy could be improved with better privacy
protection and the elimination of procedures that allow users to
be punished for rule infractions before it is determined that infractions
have actually occurred.
<199110261528.AA24204@eff.org>
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-news is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to listserv@eff.org.
Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "".
Disclaimer: This CAF-news abstract was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie.
It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial
decisions I make are my own.
--
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 Wed Nov 20 07:57:39 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA05532
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 12:57:45 -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, 20 Nov 1991 12:57:39 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111201757.AA05527@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Nov 20 12:57:03 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:
ALILESTE@idbsu.idb : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
draughn@iitmax.iit : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 01.35
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
kadie@eff.org (Car : Prohibiting four-letter words, liability & prior review,
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: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <199111182226.AA00535@eff.org>
Sender: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
References:
Date: 18 Nov 91 22:13:34 GMT
On 18 Nov 91 20:26:25 GMT Matthew T. Russotto said:
>In article <199111181857.AA23498@eff.org> ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
> writes:
>
>>> 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.
>> WELL, yes and no! But in civil and criminal law, I believe the
>>expression is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
>>Try and tell the cop that "I didn't see the school speed limit sign"
>>when you get the ticket for 40 in a 25 mph school zone. Good luck.
>
>If the sign isn't there, you'll win.
All depends. If you are from out of town, have never been there before,
and the sign is indeed gone, you might. If you choose to go back to West
Nowhere, TX, having taken a day of work, etc. And if it is important to
you, you will do that....on the right day, at the right time....and you
might win. I know, I just won one like that...the cop didn't show up, so
I won, period.
But...if it is the same road you drive to work every day, the school
and kids are in sight, and it is Nov 1 and some vandals stole the sign
on Halloween, you are most likely to be SOL.
Plus, the variables of the attitudes of you, the cop, any other
witnesses, whether the judge got laid last night, and so on.
>>for appeal or redress. They should. BUT, they should know that in real
>>life that sometimes those appeals may actually hurt you. Plea bargains
>>offer a good example. To coin a bumper sticker, "Shit Happens."
>
>Shit happens MORE to those who simply accept it.
Actually, that is backwards ... shit happens more to those who try to
catch it and fling it back. You catch, or just pick up, shit to fling, and
it gets on you too. No way around it (other than the new, automated
shit-flinger down at KMart, but it backfires sometimes too).
The best way to avoid shit in the river of life...where shit continually
flows downstream....is to stay out of the way of it...there will always
be some that hits you....and that is the way it goes....but you can dodge
most of it...especially if you don't grab a handful to fling at someone else.
dan
-------------------
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov19.004338.11607@iitmax.iit.edu>
References: <1991Nov15.015915.7845@iitmax.iit.edu> <1991Nov18.200120.1252@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 00:43:38 GMT
In article <1991Nov18.200120.1252@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <1991Nov15.015915.7845@iitmax.iit.edu> 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.
>
>This is why account disabling is so dangerous-- you disable the account, your
>problems are over. The student whose account is disabled has no one to turn
>to and is thus stuck.
All they have to do is stop by the computer center offices.
I'm working on the theory that nearly all abusive mail is sent from
compromised accounts. It's just hard to believe that anyone would
send highly abusive mail from their own account. I'm not talking
about the occaisional "fuck you" here. I mean something like
- BURN IN HELL YOU FAGGOT!!! I BET YOU LIKE TO EAT CUM AND TAKEIT ^H^H^H IT
- UP THE ASS YOU COCKSUCKING ASSHOLE CUNT FAGGOT YOU LIKE FUCKING LITTLE BOYS
- DONT YOU FUCKER YOUR STUPID CLASS SUCKS AND YOU SUCK PRICKS YOU FAGGOT
You get the idea. This has all the signs of being a stolen account.
So I disable the account, and when the owner shows up to ask why the
account is disabled, I produce the message and let it become a vivid
reminder of Why Security Is Important.
Quite often, nobody shows up at all. I assume this is because the
real account owner isn't using the account.
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
>Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Love that quote!
--
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: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111190335.AA14297@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 19 Nov 91 03:35:06 GMT
In article <199111181857.AA23498@eff.org> you write:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:45:31 GMT Carl M. Kadie said:
> >[Posted for author - Carl]
> Interesting...this was apparently written by Mr. Brack, the first
> description of what actually happened.
>
> > 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.
> What I would love to hear from Mr. Brack is WHY he did these things?
> WHY take out the underlining? For fun? To see if it could be done? To
> hassle some system person who would have to restore from backup?
> Some other reason?
Well, let's see: If the man page didn't warn me that the command
was global, if ACS didn't warn me not to use the command
, and if access permissions both on fixman, and on /usr/man/*
were set to allow me to do what I did, where would I, with about 10-12
weeks of experience with Unix, get the idea that the command was a
"bad thing?" The man pages spoke of increased efficiency in displaying
manual pages, which sounded like something I'd want to do. A
hassling some system people, restoring it from backup is as simple as
untaring the usr/man backup set. Not a great hardship. If you don't
want people coming in your business, then don't ghive them an invitation
(the man page), and don't give them permission to come in. By the same
token, giving users permission to run fixman implies somethingh about
what users are allowed to do, especially if the user was given no
information to the contrary.
> Also, if it was such a minor infraction, how did anyone even know
> (or care) that the underlining had been removed? Are there "manual police"
> there? Did the system report the change to an administrator? Did someone
> happen to be casually be reading the manual and note the change? OR, did
> the removing of underlining change the meaning enough to make a difference.
> In many manuals different typefaces ARE significant to the reader/user.
The system was set up to log everything, including what commands
were run. The sysadmins seem to operate in full fascist mode most
of the time, and so tend to notice everything, no matter how minor.
In my case, they noticed the process 2-3 hours after it had started,
and about 1.5 hours after I though I had stopped it by logging off.
As I said, my knowledge of Unix was not quite perfect. 8)
> Agreed it should not be available to any user, but that doesn't mean that
> all things that CAN be done SHOULD be done, does it?
>
You know, they're called permissions for a reason. They indicate
what those responsible for the system have given you *permission* to
do.
>
> > Everything else was just thrown in so that the body of evidence against
> > me would seem more damning than it actually is.
> Well, isn't that part of what happens in many criminal trials? Bringing
> in related history or issues to show a pattern? (If you murdered ten other
> people I might be more likely to belive you murdered this one too, and aren't
> just a "innocent bystander" who happened to be standing around with a
> smoking gun you found on the street.)
Yes, but an inadvertent crosspost has nothing to do with running
fixman, or with criticizing the University in news.
>
> >> How many others have OSU suspended for similar offences? Hundreds? Dozens?
> >> A few? None?
> But that is a fairly bogus argument. If I get caught going 80 on the
> Interstate, does it do any good to tell the cop that "You shoulda caught the
> SOB who blew my doors off and was going at least a hundred."?? His answer
> is likely to be "Yeah, I shoulda, but I caught YOU instead so don't give
> me no shit boy, unless you wanna go to jail RIGHT NOW!"
That wasn't my point. I meant that OSU may have done this many times
before that we don't know about. BTW, if the information I'm getting
from sources at OSU is accurate, this has happened more often than
originally thought.
>
> > 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
> Well, I am NOT defending what did, or didn't, to Mr. Brack at OSU.
> But it still seems that it would have been much smarter to be a "nice
> person." Just as not hassling the cop in the example above would be
> a much smarter thing to do instead of ending up trying to dig up bail
> money at some odd hour in some strange town.
But, whether I am nice to the cop or not, his requirement to protect
my rights is not abated. Who knows, maybe Rodney King was not a
"nice person" either.
> > hold that even though I wasn't a nice person, my actions did not justify
> > dismissal.
> Well, maybe mine didn't justify going to jail....but HE had the gun.
Having a gun does not make him right, any more than being an admin makes Bill Miller or Cliff Collins right.
>
> > 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.
> WELL, yes and no! But in civil and criminal law, I believe the
> expression is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
> Try and tell the cop that "I didn't see the school speed limit sign"
> when you get the ticket for 40 in a 25 mph school zone. Good luck.
But, there was a sign there. I had no warning, and was given nothing
even remotely resembling rules or policies until after the fixman
incident, and those "rules" said nothing about any of the other
"crimes" I allegedly committed.
> > 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.
> I have suffered both. It is part of living and of growing up.
> No one promised that life would be fair. Guess what, it often isn't.
> I don't have to LIKE that....but I do have to accept it unless I wanna
> spend my life bitching and moaning about it.
We all make a choice whether to fight for what we believe to be
right. I don't begrudge you your choice, but I ask that you
understand mine.
>
> Please note that in none of this do I indicate that anyone SHOULD be
> treated unfairly, or that they shouldn't avail themselves of the options
> for appeal or redress. They should. BUT, they should know that in real
> life that sometimes those appeals may actually hurt you. Plea bargains
> offer a good example. To coin a bumper sticker, "Shit Happens."
I am not, by any stretch, an idealist. But, I do believe that
some principles are worth fighting for, and I simply could not
allow ACS's actions to go unopposed.
>
> dan
>
> *****************************************************************************
> * Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu
> * Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu *
> * Boise State University *
> * Boise, Idaho 83725 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak *
> * 208-385-1234 for them and they don't speak for 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: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111190340.AA14311@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 19 Nov 91 03:40:28 GMT
In article <199111181910.AA23891@eff.org> you write:
> >> 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
> VERY interesting. IS it important, or isn't it? The failure to appeal
> in a TIMELY manner will seriously hurt the case. In fact, most appeal
> processes with which I am familiar have a limited time period during
> which an appeal can be made at all. Maybe 30 or 60 or 90 days. A
> reasonable amount of time, but limited.
>
> Have you checked on this Mr. Brack? If the time period expires, you
> will have no appeals.
I am retaining counsel, and will fight OSU from a legal standpoint,
rather than being trapped playing theoir game, by their rules, on their
field.
>
> dan
>
> * Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu *
--
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: Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111190356.AA14385@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 19 Nov 91 03:56:39 GMT
In article <1991Nov8.162827.16063@ms.uky.edu> you write:
> FANSHEN@ccvm.sunysb.edu (Frank Anshen) writes:
> >Punishing somebody without
> >specifying the specific charges against him is certainly not due process and
> >it is not sufficient to decide that he has cleverly walked between the
> >cracks in the rules and thus we will ignore the rules.
>
> As I understand it, Steven *did* participate in a hearing of the charges
> and allegations against him. He states that "no connection" was made be-
> tween the specific charges against him and the policies which he allegedly
> violated.
>
> My questions are simple:
>
> - Did he ask for the specific connections?
Yes, although I shouldn't have had to. Instead of getting the
charges & specifications, I got a list of charges & a list of
specifications, with no connection between them.
> - If they didn't provide the connectoins, did he press them
> to do so?
I did everything I could to get the charges & specifications, but
OSU wouldn't give them to me.
> - Did he have any observers or attorneys present?
I was allowed to have a non-attorney advisor present. I chose my
father. None of the people I wanted to be witnesses showed up.
> - Does he have a transcript of the proceedings?
A transcript costs money & is only available on tape.
>
> - Did he even attempt to defend his actions, or did he
> just sit there and say "you're wrong"?
Although I disagree that my actions needed defending, I did defend
them. I explained each action in terms of why I did it & what its
effect was. I also explained how little guidance I had from ACS
as to what was permissable & what wasn't.
>
> In short, did he exercise his rights in the hearing, or did he just
> sit there and listen?
I exercised what rights I had. For instance, I was not allowed to
ask all the questions I needed to, and the hearing was decided by
a preponedrance of the evidence, requiring me to basically prove
my innocence.
> Personally, I'd like to see a transcript of the hearing, if it exists.
> Until that occurs, we're right back to "they said this, and they're wrong";
> that approach doesn't get us anywhere.
Send me the money for the transcript & I'll send you the tapes.
>
> --
> 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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov19.170907.28174@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov15.015915.7845@iitmax.iit.edu> <1991Nov18.200120.1252@eng.umd.edu> <1991Nov19.004338.11607@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 17:09:07 GMT
draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>I'm working on the theory that nearly all abusive mail is sent from
>compromised accounts.
[...]
>You get the idea. This has all the signs of being a stolen account.
>So I disable the account, and when the owner shows up to ask why the
>account is disabled, I produce the message and let it become a vivid
>reminder of Why Security Is Important.
[...]
In my opinion, your actions are appropriate since you seem to act only
when you have a good reason to think that an account is compromised.
The rule that you are enforcing is "don't use other people's accounts"
(not "don't send rude email"). Your aim is to stop a violation in
progress (not to punish a user after the fact).
- Carl
p.s. Are compromised accounts common at your site? Do you know why?
--
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: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 01.35
Message-ID: <1991Nov19.174013.29122@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 17:40:13 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-news). Information about CAF-news followings the
abstract. The full CAF-news is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n35
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending November 3, 1991
The words after a number are a short paraphrase of the article, not
necessarily my opinion.
Notes 1-3 are news of the week.
1. (Steven Brack, student at Ohio State University:) After a 4 hour
hearing, "I have been dismissed from the university, with no
possibility of reentry until 1/93!"
<1991Oct28.135044.18831@eff.org>
2. "This past summer, the University [of Pennsylvania]'s Data
Communications Dept. began electronic monitoring and logging of users'
annex terminal sessions." "This action was approved by the management
of the Data Communications Dept., who did not consult with any larger
University body."
<54609@netnews.upenn.edu>
3. A judge as ruled that CompuServe (a commercial on-line information
provider) isn't liable for some of the contents of its network. The
judge compared CompuServe to a public library or a bookstore that
can't feasible examine every publication it carries.
<1991Nov1.195246.13037@eff.org>
Notes 4-6 are about the unofficial, draft Statement on Computers and
Academic Freedom. To get a copy of the statement and other comments,
send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf-statement
4. The Draft does not deal with confidentiality well. Computer
systems, especially Unix, necessarily allow users to monitor the
status of other users.
<1991Oct29.163743.15765@ms.uky.edu>
5. The Statement should be developed and refined by the participants
of the CAF discussions, but no statement should claim to speak for all
participants.
<1991Oct30.153518.19993@eff.org>
6. The Draft is useful as is. "I have already forwarded a copy of the
[draft] CAF Statement to the Director of Academic Computer Services at
the University of Iowa, with my personal recommendation that we adopt
something like it as policy."
<8856@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Notes 7-8 are about the law.
7. "Enclosed is 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." (The judge overturned the U. of Wisconsin's speech
restrictions.)
<1991Oct29.041514.16218@eff.org>
8. README file for the CAF law archive -- This is an on-line
collection of law related to computers and academic freedom. It
includes both case law and legislation. To get the newest version of
the README file, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send caf-law README
<1991Oct29.210145.18387@eff.org>
Notes 9-11 are about newsgroup policy.
9. "I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by
most universities are free-speech forums. ... I offer three
justifications for this opinion."
10. A previous poster says that a writer's right to post, can be
overridden by readers' right not to be offended. "[T]here is no
right-not-to-be-offended." To suppress offensive speech is to censor.
"The free flow of ideas is the essence of freedom, both academic,
economic, and political."
<9111021803.AA15019@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
11. University sys admins should enforce newsgroup charters including
charters that discriminate based on sex or viewpoint.
<1991Oct29.150556.5266@eff.org>
Notes 12-13 are about Netnews service.
12. Western Washington University continues its ban on roughly 15 news groups.
<1991Oct30.040844.8212@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
13. Netnews is not just important to the mission of a Computer Science
department; it is critical. It teaches students about electronic
communications and it provides essential information.
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-news is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to listserv@eff.org.
Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "".
Disclaimer: This CAF-news abstract was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie.
It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial
decisions I make are my own.
--
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: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <1991Nov19.192831.1996@eff.org>
References: <9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 19:28:31 GMT
Ohio State University's mishandling of the Steven Brack case has
increased my confidence in and appreication of our systlem of justice.
How can this be? Well, it seems that almost every OSU action that I
consider unfair, is, in fact, illegal.
Consider for example, the conclusion of the hearing:
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
> Well, here it is, the instrument of my dismissal:
[...]
>Not guilty of:
>3335-25-01 (E) Dishonest conduct, including, but not limited to, knowingly
>reporting a false emergency; knowingly making false accusation of misconduct;
>misuse or falsification of University documents by actions such as forgery,
>alteration, or improper transfer; submission to a University official of
>information known by the submitter to be false;
>Guilty of:
>3335-25-01 (F) Theft or attempted theft, or the unauthorized use or possession
>of University property or services, or the property of others while on
>University premises;
>3335-25-01 (G) Failure to comply with directives of authorized University
>officials, identified as such, in the performance of their duties, including
>failure to identify oneself when so requested; or, violation of the terms of a
>disciplinary sanction;
>3335-25-01 (J) Disorderly conduct that interferes with University-authorized
>activities, including teaching, research, administration, or other activities
>conducted, sponsored, or permitted by the University;
>3335-25-01 (K) Violation of other published University regulations, policies,
>or rules, or any other violation of state or federal law committed on
>University premises. This alleged violation resulted from an incident on or
>before May 26, 1991, involving use of Academic Computing Services facilities,
>equipment, and programs.
[...]
There is no finding of fact. This is unfair and makes an appeal almost
impossible.
In _Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct
of Administrative Proceedings_ by Edgar H. Bittle (1986), it says:
--- begin quote----
Findings and Conclusions
One of the lessons of _Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle_{95}
and the above cases is that a board in making its decision should
clearly state the findings of fact upon which the board is basin is
decision, reciting both the charges made and the facts that support
those charges and were used by the board as the basis for its
conclusion that disciplinary or discharge actions should be taken.
[...]
In _State ex rel. Newton v. Board of School Trustees of the Metropolitan
School District of Wabash County_, the court noted
"the existence of such finding is essential to preserve the limited
scope of a reviewing court's inquiry. 'The absence of findings invites
a reweighing of the evidence on review, thereby paving the way for
judical intrusion into matters committed to administrative decision
...' An administrative body has the duty to make a find of the
pertinent facts on which its decision is based in order to facilitate
judical review."{108}
In _Erb v. Iowa State Board of Public Instructions_, the Iowa Supreme
Court noted the requirement to make findings of fact in an
adjudicatory proceedings. The court said:
"[B]oards are required, even without statutory mandate, to make
findings of fact on issues presented in any adjudicatory proceeding.
Such finding must be sufficiently certain to enable a reviewing court
to ascertain with reasonable certainty the factual basis and legal
principle upon which the administrative body acted. _Cedar Rapids
Steel Transportation, Inc. v. Iowa Sate Commerce Commission, 160 N.W2d
825,837 (Iowa 1968), _cert den._ 394 U.S. 918,89 S. Ct. 1189, 22 L.
Ed.2d 451".{109}
[References]
{95} Mt. Health City School Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 276 (1977)
{108} State _ex rel._ Newton v. Board of School Trustees of the
Metropolitan School Dist. of Wabash County, 404 N.E.22d 47, 48-49
(Ind. Ct. App. 1980)
{109} Erb v. Iowa State Board of Pub. Instruction, 216 N.W.2d 339, 242
(Iowa 1974). _see also_ [{108}]
--- end quote---
Here is a sample finding from the book:
--- begin quote --
Findings of Fact
1. The Board has jurisdiction to hear this recommendation for
expulsion. The student and her parents have received notice of the
hearing and the written statement setting forth the specific charges
upon which the recommendation for expulsion is based. The student, her
attorney, and her mother were present throughout the heading and had
the opportunity to ask questions and to present evidence or make a
statement to the Board.
2. On February 28 and 29, 1990, the student, a freshman at the High
School, was involved in possession and sale of controlled substance or
a look-alike controlled substance.
3. The police of the School District prohibited the sale or
distribution of any controlled substance or drug look-alike while the
student is on any school property or under school supervision. Any
student violating the provisions of this policy is subject to
recommendations for expulsion.
4. The student violated the aforestated policy, sold a controlled
substance or look-alike to other studies while at the High School and
is subject to the expulsion procedure of this Board.
-- end quote----
In contrast with this sample, Ohio State University merely lists five (vague)
rules, labeling each with "guilty" or "not guilty".
- 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: Prohibiting four-letter words, liability & prior review, Hazelwood
Message-ID: <1991Nov19.202845.3261@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 20:28:45 GMT
The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center (1985,1988),
p. 28, says:
"In _Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri{30} ...
the high Court ruled that the use of profanity or 'four-letter words'
in a paper distributed on a college campus was not disruptive of the
school environment."
{30} _Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri_, 410 U.S.
667 (1973)
On p. 37, it says:
"Only two court cases have considered the liability question, and in
both cases the courts found that the institution was free from
liability because control was in the hands of the students."{33,34}
...
"Thus, despite arguments by administrators that they need to prevent
libel, it appears that just the opposite is true: Where administrators
have not exercised control over the content of student publications,
the courts have refused to hold their schools responsible for libel
appearing in such publication. If, however, administrators exercise
the power of prior review, then the court will also hold them and
their schools liable for the contents of such publications.
Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation between school
administration and editor functions may also result in the reduction
of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize that substantial
funds are beyond their reach.
{33} _Mazart v. State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981)
{34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d 1300 (La. App. 1983)
Finally, on page 90, it says the _Hazelwood_ decision that allows
censorship of sponsored high school newspapers does not, according to a
footnote in the decision, apply to universities.
--
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 Wed Nov 20 07:59:25 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA05797
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 12:59:33 -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, 20 Nov 1991 12:59:25 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111201759.AA05792@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Nov 20 12:58:34 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@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: "Acceptable Use" Policies. Why doe
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) Re: Feminist Prudes vs. Goya's Nudes
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. W
sethb@fid.morgan.c : Re: Thought Feh!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 01.36
elg@usl.edu (Eric : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: U. of Deleware computer policies
elg@usl.edu (Eric : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Thought Feh!
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: (comp.admin.policy) The Buckley Case.
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.org.eff.talk] Re: "Acceptable Use" Policies. Why does everyone want one?
Message-ID: <9111192118.AA17516@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Nov 91 09:18:11 GMT
From: brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe)
Subject: Re: "Acceptable Use" Policies. Why does everyone want one?
Message-ID:
Date: 16 Nov 91 05:53:10 GMT
gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU wrote:
>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.
It's a lot easier to write down what you allow, and have people
petition for extensions, than to try to think of every last thing
people could do. It's impossible.
>IMHO, if you haven't got the time to intelligently *manage* a system,
>go find a job somewhere else.
Scuse me? It sounds like you're of the opinion that your definition of
"intelligent management" is the only one.
>Legislating problems away, and using policies to cover your ass won't
>solve anything. Uneducated, unaware, un-managed users are a problem.
Look at it from this perspective: if you don't cover your ass, you
lose your job.
>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.
In an ideal situation, it'd be great to "educate your users" and not
have to give them an official thing to sign. But most labs are far
from an ideal situation. What do you do when you say to a student,
"Ok, do you understand that you shouldn't telnet to other systems &
try to log into them?", when they barely have any concept of what a
system IS, much less networks, hacking, or anything else?
The actual number of volatile situations are less than negligible.
For those cases where there is a problem, that sheet's there to back
us up. I'm probably one of the most liberal admins you'll find, but
I've seen it from both sides, and realize that not having rules in
place when something happens can have serious consequences. (There's
a guy here who's now a Communications major, who would've made a damn
fine Computer Scientist. All for a lack of procedure in dealing with
experimental privilege abuse. You shoula seen it.)
>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.
Sounds great, but impossible. Scheduling conflicts, getting someone
to agree to teach it, having people go and not skip it (I'd skip it),
time (what if someone needs to do work right away -- a paper during
the first week of classes?). The problems are tremendous with such an
idea, as good as the idea is.
>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.
I think atmosphere more defines the freedom of an environment than
anything that's required to be signed. We present the agreement as a
necessary evil, and people take it as such. We run this place very
informally, and encourage people to do things. If I find someone
fiddling where they shouldn't (e.g. trying to log into the server
that's blocked for everyone), I don't go and yell at them, I'm
actually excited that someone would even have the initiative to try
such a thing in the first place. We're here to teach, not to dictate.
Rigid security in a university environment (on non-critical systems,
e.g. admissions/accounting) is, in my ever-so humble opinion, totally
unnecessary.
Well, that's how I see things. :)
--
Brendan Kehoe, Sun Network Manager brendan@cs.widener.edu
Widener University Chester, PA
You know something's off when a vendor, in an attempt to show off his latest
powerful box, has demos galore---like Emacs doing the Towers of Hanoi.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women] Re: Feminist Prudes vs. Goya's Nudes
Message-ID: <9111192145.AA03604@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 19 Nov 91 09:45:34 GMT
From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel)
Subject: Re: Feminist Prudes vs. Goya's Nudes
Message-ID: <91319.162616JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 91 21:26:15 GMT
In article <2924217f.2487@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave
Gross) says:
>
>From the Los Angeles Times (11/15/91)
>
> GOYA'S GOTTA GO: A reproduction of a famous Goya painting of
> a nude woman has been taken down from a classroom wall at Penn
> State following a complaint from a woman professor that it was
> a form of sexual harassment. "Nude Maja" had hung in the music
> room on campus for more than a decade. The president of the
> Student Government Assn. called it "ludicrous censorship," but
> the Liaison Committee of the Penn State Commission for Women
> said that female faculty "find if [sic.] difficult to appear
> professional when forced to lecture to a class with a picture
> of a female nude on the wall behind them." Four other paintings
> were taken down to avoid a debate over what should and shouldn't
> be displayed.
As an addendum to that, I heard that one of the reasons it was taken down
was because it was in a classroom where people who could be offended by
looking at the picture couldn't just leave the room to avoid looking at it,
as opposed to an art gallery where one could just walk out. I think there's
some sense to that; after all, I don't feel that something offensive should
be foisted on me when I am in class. Not that I find a Goya painting of a
nude woman offensive (although perhaps distracting in a classroom), but
in a country where we are free to do many things, we should also be free
*not* to be subjected to things we find offensive every day without being
able to leave.
Joy Haftel "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever."
JKH107@PSUVM --Keats
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov19.215003.27317@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 91 21:50:03 GMT
References: <9111190335.AA14297@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>
> If you don't
> want people coming in your business, then don't give them an invitation
> (the man page),
This brings up an interesting point. Should administrators remove/disable
the man pages for adminstrative commands? What about general commands that
most users would never, ever use?
The admin could make the argument that "users don't need to know anything
in section 8 of the manual", while users would argue that "we're students,
we want to know that stuff". Which is the stronger point?
Perhaps a blanket note in the admin man pages is appropriate; something like
"This is an administrative commands; general users should not execute it.
This man page is provided for information ONLY!" might do the job.
Of course, someone's going to have to go through and edit all the man
pages........8(
> The system was set up to log everything, including what commands
> were run. The sysadmins seem to operate in full fascist mode most
> of the time, and so tend to notice everything, no matter how minor.
Um, I wouldn't call it fascist mode. Most systems run some form of process
accounting. Any user can check the actions of any other users.
> In my case, they noticed the process 2-3 hours after it had started,
> and about 1.5 hours after I though I had stopped it by logging off.
So someone did a ps(1) and saw your process; that isn't really "fascist
mode" operation. Any user at all could have seen that job running.
I'm not saying that the people involved acted properly; however, the mere
fact that a given system runs process accounting does NOT imply that they
are fascist. Heck, we wouldn't get 50% of our budget requests without that
accounting data to prove the need.
Don't misinterpret normal activity as "snooping" or "fascism".
--
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: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov19.223113.7527@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 22:31:13 GMT
Several times it has been suggested that Ohio State University's
Academic Computing Services would love to comment a the case of a
certain student, but privacy law prevent any such comments.
Ten days ago, I posted this critique of ACS policy and invited
comments from ACS. The critique sticks strictly to the text of ACS
policy; it refers to no specific cases.
I am beginning to wonder if ACS is silent because its policy is
indefensible.
- Carl
>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):
>[From: Mitchell D Dysart - Carl]
> Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks
> The Office of Academic Computing
> The Ohio State University
> Approved June 6, 1990
>The use of computers and computer networks in no wat exempts us from the
>nominal requirements of ethical behavior in the University community. Use
>of a computer network that is shared by many users imposes certain obligations.
>In particular, data, software, and computer capacity have value and must be
>treated accordingly.
>Legitimate use of a computer or computer network does not extend to whatever
>we are capable of doing with it. Although some rules are built into the
>computer's operating system, these restrictions do not limit completely what
>we can do and see. We are responsible for our actions whether or not the
>rules are built into the system, and whether or not we can circumvent those
>rules.
>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.
> 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.
> o Respect the finite capacity of systems, and limit your own
> use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of
> other users.
> o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
> system.
>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.
>I have read the above conditions and agree to abide by these standards.
>Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: ____________
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--
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: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Thought control? Feh!
Message-ID: <1991Nov19.233229.17781@fid.morgan.com>
References: <1991Nov8.001755.7879@igor.tamri.com> <1991Nov13.231459.13923@fid.morgan.com> <1991Nov14.171922.14714@igor.tamri.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 23:32:29 GMT
I said:
# 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.
Don Baldwin replied:
>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?
I agree that firing someone for refusing to date her (or his) boss is
bad, and said boss should be punished (and the fired employee
compensated). I agree that circumstances should be changed to make
such activities less common (ideally, never, except that the cost of
totally extinguishing _any_ form of behavior is too high). I also
agree that the circumstances you describe are much more common than
the hypothetical (or at least rare) case that I mentioned.
HOWEVER, I do not want to solve one problem by introducing another.
Rules prohibiting unwanted touching in the workplace are fine. Rules
prohibiting taking any job-related action based on social activities
(or the lack thereof) are fine. Rules that do not tell me exactly
what behavior is prohibited are not acceptable. Rules that I cannot
obey are not acceptable. (I was once told by a woman "Don't look at
me." She didn't seem to like it any better when I let doors slam in
her face, didn't step aside to let her pass, etc., since I couldn't
see her.)
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of "Computers and Academic Freedom News" 01.36
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.021429.13031@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 02:14:29 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-news). Information about CAF-news followings the
abstract. The full CAF-news is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n36
--- begin abstract ---
[Special issue: Best of October
The words after the numbers are a short paraphrase of the article, not
necessarily my opinion.
Note 1 is a CAF Statement.
1. Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom -- 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.
<1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org>
Notes 2-6 are about incidents and policy at specific universities.
2. The University of Waterloo has lifted its ban on newsgroups "from
alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny". Enclosed is the story of the ban.
<1991Oct03.060346.5082@looking.on.ca>
3. (Student at WWU:) Alt.sex was removed on the order of one person,
the Vice Provost for "information and communication".
<1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
4. Many of Ohio State's so-called charges against Steven Brack are
trivial (for example, using two Macs at once). Mr. Brack is also
charged with a Constitutionally-protected activity (posting a
vulgarity). The vagueness of the so-called charges (alleged activities
are never matched to the University rules they violate) makes it
impossible for Mr. Brack to defend himself.
<1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org>
5. UCLA's Computer Use Policy could be improved with better privacy
protection and the elimination of procedures that allow users to be
punished for rule infractions before it is determined that infractions
have actually occurred.
<199110261528.AA24204@eff.org>
6. (Addressed to the UIC sys admin:) "[Y]ou overstepped the bounds of
your authority when you punished the student for his expression." The
speech in the note, although offensive, was Constitutionally
protected. "Statements in a free-speech forum such as soc.women
[cannot] constitute sexual harassment." Moreover, you are not
authorized by your university to decide sexual harassment cases.
<1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org>
Notes 7-9 are about newsgroup policy.
7. "I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by
most universities are free-speech forums. ... I offer three
justifications for this opinion."
8. University sys admins should enforce newsgroup charters even
charters that discriminate based on sex or viewpoint.
<1991Oct29.150556.5266@eff.org>
9. Postings to the net, like other expressive actions, should only be
punished if they cause substantial interference with the rights of
others. A few off-topic posts do not constitute substantial
interference. Enclosed are the general rules my school has against
disruptive and coercive action.
<1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org>
Notes 10-12 are about the application of library policy to newsgroups.
10. (Computer administrator at Iowa State:) Having a selection policy
based on Library policy is the proverbial ounce of prevention.
<1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu>
11. The National Science Foundation's network rules are unclear. The
rules should recognize that the NSF has created an on-line electronic
library system. Enclosed is a copy of the American Library
Association's Diversity Statement (a statement that discusses both
sexual and sexist material).
<1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org>
12. A judge as ruled that CompuServe (a commercial on-line information
provider) isn't liable for some of the contents of its network. The
judge compared CompuServe to a public library or a bookstore that
can't feasibly examine every publication it carries.
<1991Nov1.195246.13037@eff.org>
Note 13 is about K-12 net access.
13. Net access and use by grade and high schoolers should be
supervised by an instructor.
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-news is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to listserv@eff.org.
Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "".
Disclaimer: This CAF-news abstract was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie.
It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial
decisions I make are my own.
--
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: elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.030440.21821@usl.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 91 03:04:40 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.164013.888@eff.org> <1991Nov7.205000.17894@rice.edu> <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu>
Sender: elg9316@usl.edu (Green Eric L)
Distribution: usa
In article <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu> jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>In article <1117>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> As you might imagine, this makes it very hard for Steven to defend
>> himself. How would you feel if you were expelled from school without
>> even knowing what you were being punished for? It is also a violation
>> of the procedural due process as guarenteed by the Constitution.
>>
>Umm, Universities are not courts of law nor are they federal
>governmental entities. The procedural protections of the U.S.
>Constitution do not apply. Yes, Steven Brack was probably treated
>unfairly and summarily, without being given an adequate chance to
>defend himself. But nothing the University did violates anything in
>the U.S. Constitution because in this instance they are not subject to
>the particular restrictions in that document. And if you were to read
Note that Ohio State University is not a private institution like Rice
University. Rice is a private university, and can pretty much do what
it likes. Ohio State University is an extension of the government of
the state of Ohio, and thus, via the 14th amendment, must guarantee
certain rights to its clientelle... e.g., that it won't discriminate
on the basis of race, it won't prohibit free speech by students, etc.
The question of "due process", then, becomes a concept fraught with
difficulty, when you're talking about a state institution. It is much
like the question of, say, disability pension eligibility hearings.
What is "due process", in this instance? Is the government body conducting
the hearings (the University, the state Department of Human Services)
required to follow those procedures defined over the centuries as
"due process" in the English civil code?
In the end, of course, it doesn't matter much. Brack is out of OSU,
period. It's much like the case here at the university that I'm posting
this from, about fifteen years ago... the NCAA investigated the
university for basketball recruiting infractions, the university protested
and sued the NCAA, and the NCAA, in retaliation, gave the university sports
programs the "death penalty" for the next three years. It's a case of
fighting a battle and losing the war. OSU administrators are no different
from NCAA administrators, here... if you fight them, you're the enemy,
and they have the power, so they'll use it against you -- cooking up
any charges necessary to do what they want to do.
>But in the end, a person attends a university, even a state university,
>at the discretion of that university. Attendance is not a right, it is
>a privilege. Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to
Note, though, that there DOES exist precedent that a person's rights to,
e.g., free speech, do not stop at the university gates. I.e., a university
cannot dismiss a student for exercising his free-speech rights. This
DOES directly affect Mr. Brack's case, since the cause of dismissal was
directly related to his infantile postings to various USENET groups.
Is this protected speech? Or is it, rather, misuse of the university's
computer resources? This is a question which apparently was never
considered or addressed by the university when it decided to kick Brack
out for posting these messages.
--
--
Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70506 (318) 989-8950
Internet: elg@elgamy.raidernet.com UUCP: uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg
"It's never too late for a happy childhood" -- The Doctor
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: U. of Deleware computer policies
Message-ID: <9111181713.AA13375@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
Date: 18 Nov 91 07:13:04 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Academic Honesty
>
>Faculty and students are reminded that computer-assisted plagiarism is
>still plagiarism. Unless specifically authorized by a class
>instructor, all of the following uses of a computer are violations of
>the University's guidelines for academic honesty and are punishable as
>acts of plagiarism:
[....]
>
>- working together on an assignment, sharing the computer files
>or programs involved, and then submitting individual copies of the
>assignment as your own individual work
[....]
>
>For further information on this topic, students are urged to consult
>the University of Delaware Official Student Handbook, to consult with
>their individual instructors, and to refer to the pamphlet "Academic
>Honesty & Dishonesty: Important information for faculty and students."
>
>Faculty members are urged to develop specific policies regarding all
>aspects of academic honesty and to communicate those policies to their
>students in writing.
>
As a computer science major in school, and now a professional in system
engineering, I'm somewhat concerned with this statement. In the "real world",
we work with our collegues constantly to determine the best or most efficient
or least painful (etc.) way of doing whatever needs to be done. This includes
sharing source code and common routines. In fact, all source code exists in a
central repository that anyone can access; there are even fairly sophisticated
inquiry functions to allow extraction based on specified criteria.
My point here is this: How does talking with a collegue (presumably in this
case a student) about an assignment constitute plagarism? Is there a
difference between talking about an upcoming paper and how to best approach it
and talking about an upcoming computer project and how best to approach it? I
understand that from a pedagogical standpoint it's important to make each
student learn the concepts on one's own, but at the same time I fail to see
how consultation becomes plagarism. For example, what if several students got
together to develop a common set of test data? This would constitute
plagarism under the above-quoted policy, but I hardly think that it is.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
-------------------
From: elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.033134.22954@usl.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 91 03:31:34 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org> <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu>
Sender: elg9316@usl.edu (Green Eric L)
Distribution: usa
In article <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>> wrong. Steven, at the time a freshman, has already been punished with
>> computer and school explusions. Ohio State University, a government
>> school, has gotten away scot free.
>
>State Universities are not government schools. They are wholly or
>partly funded by state revenues, but they are not government entities.
>They are separately chartered institutions, often supported by income
>from state owned land that is set aside specifically to provide revenue
>for the university, hence the term "land-grant university". The
Note that the same is true of local school systems, which are state-chartered
institutions which are not under the direct control of the state government
(well, in some states, at least). The courts have repeatedly held that
constitutional protections apply to these institutions. In particular,
due process must be given to all who are being expelled, including
telling them about options for appeal. The courts have repeatedly ruled
in favor of expelled students who have not been given "due process".
Similarly, cities and towns are state-chartered institutions which are not
under the direct control of state government. Yet it is recognized that all
authority held by laws (rules, regulations) of a city or town is derived from
the State, and thus is covered by constitutional protections via the 14th
Amendment. It seems that being a seperate entity chartered by the state does not
remove one from having to obey the laws restricting the actions of the
state.
The situation at Rice University, of course, is different. Rice is not a
government institution. Rice must abide by federal rules only insofar as
following those rules is prerequisite for getting federal funds, and the
Bill of Rights, which is a restriction on what laws the State can pass, doesn't
apply to Rice, a private institution.
--
--
Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70506 (318) 989-8950
Internet: elg@elgamy.raidernet.com UUCP: uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg
"It's never too late for a happy childhood" -- The Doctor
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111200445.AA24349@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 20 Nov 91 04:45:11 GMT
In article <1991Nov19.215003.27317@ms.uky.edu> you write:
> brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
> >
> > If you don't
> > want people coming in your business, then don't give them an invitation
> > (the man page),
>
> This brings up an interesting point. Should administrators remove/disable
> the man pages for adminstrative commands? What about general commands that
> most users would never, ever use?
Not only should warnings be placed there, but also file permissions
should be used, at least for user protection.
>
> The admin could make the argument that "users don't need to know anything
> in section 8 of the manual", while users would argue that "we're students,
> we want to know that stuff". Which is the stronger point?
>
> Perhaps a blanket note in the admin man pages is appropriate; something like
> "This is an administrative commands; general users should not execute it.
> This man page is provided for information ONLY!" might do the job.
>
> Of course, someone's going to have to go through and edit all the man
> pages........8(
Or set file permissions properly. 8)
BTW, I believe Unix pattern matching is powerful enough to allow batch
editing of those files, esp. if "ed" scripts can be created.
> > The system was set up to log everything, including what commands
> > were run. The sysadmins seem to operate in full fascist mode most
> > of the time, and so tend to notice everything, no matter how minor.
>
> Um, I wouldn't call it fascist mode. Most systems run some form of process
> accounting. Any user can check the actions of any other users.
I'm talking about how sensitive they were to the one command.
> > In my case, they noticed the process 2-3 hours after it had started,
> > and about 1.5 hours after I though I had stopped it by logging off.
>
> So someone did a ps(1) and saw your process; that isn't really "fascist
> mode" operation. Any user at all could have seen that job running.
How many sysadmins have the time to sit around ps'ing their
users? They probably had to be watching all users very closely to have
noticed me running fixman. Also, I don't think it's the admins'
business what notesfiles I read, or who I "mail" to. But that's not
the point. Statistics can be taken from syslog files without ever
associating a process with a user.
>
> I'm not saying that the people involved acted properly; however, the mere
> fact that a given system runs process accounting does NOT imply that they
> are fascist. Heck, we wouldn't get 50% of our budget requests without that
> accounting data to prove the need.
I grant your point. But when any process, including accounting, is
used to "persecute" (not exactly what I mean, but I'm tired) a user,
it becomes a bad thing. I believe a shell script could give
usage statistics without revealing users' "private" information.
Would tyou justify purchasing a new disk by checking what sort of files
users had in their directories? I would hope not. You would probably
look at disk information (from du probably), rather than individual
users' files.
>
> Don't misinterpret normal activity as "snooping" or "fascism".
While such activity may be normal, I quarrel with the use it was put
to, namely finding "dirt" on users.
>
>
> --
> 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: Thought control? Feh!
Message-ID: <9111200451.AA24449@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 20 Nov 91 04:51:09 GMT
In article <1991Nov19.233229.17781@fid.morgan.com> you write:
>
> Don Baldwin replied:
>
> >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.
>
I know personally of an OSU systems person who was fired for
reporting her coworker's sexual harassment, and now is not
allowed top post news, so she can't raise a net.fuss about it.
I guess they learned something from dealing with me. 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
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] The Buckley Case.
Message-ID: <9111200505.AA24500@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 20 Nov 91 05:05:51 GMT
In article <1991Nov18.182441.10823@mp.cs.niu.edu> you write:
> In article <9111181507.AA05845@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
> >
> > Seriously, I think this is a very good example of why ACS operations
> > need specific policies, available to users. If the site wants to make
> > setting the time on PCs illegal, then they had best make some sort of
> > policy concerning it. Even common sense, which shouldn't be one's
> > sole point of reference, would fail to protect a person here.
>
> I am probably a minority of one. But I strongly disagree.
>
> When ACS is run by complete morons who have no comprehension of what computers
> are about (as appears to be the case with Buckley's experience), no amount of
> "specific policies" will help.
>
If, for whatever reason, ACS wants to prohibit setting the time on PCs,
then a rule that says that users may not set the time on PCs would let
the users know where they stand. A stupid written rule is fightable,
a stupid but ambiguous policy is virtually impregnable.
> Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
--
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
--------------------
--
| 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 20 14:18:53 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA16450
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 19:19:13 -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: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 19:18:53 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111210018.AA16427@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Nov 20 19:17:41 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:
amorgan@Neon.Stanf : Re: (soc.women) Re: Feminist Prudes vs. Goya's Nudes
thompson%se01@seg0 : Re: (soc.women) Re: Feminist Prudes vs. Goya's Nudes
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
morgan@ms.uky.edu : System Accounting: Fascist
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Plagiarism, was Re: U. of Deleware computer policies
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
fwp1@CC.MsState.Ed : Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. W
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Finger & Liberty
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. W
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
john@anasaz (John : Re: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
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: amorgan@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: [soc.women] Re: Feminist Prudes vs. Goya's Nudes
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.094523.12289@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References: <9111192145.AA03604@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 09:45:23 GMT
In article <9111192145.AA03604@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In article <2924217f.2487@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>,
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) says:
>>
>>From the Los Angeles Times (11/15/91)
>>
>> GOYA'S GOTTA GO: A reproduction of a famous Goya painting of
>> a nude woman has been taken down from a classroom wall at Penn
>> State following a complaint from a woman professor that it was
>> a form of sexual harassment. "Nude Maja" had hung in the music
>> room on campus for more than a decade. The president of the
>> Student Government Assn. called it "ludicrous censorship," but
>> the Liaison Committee of the Penn State Commission for Women
>> said that female faculty "find if [sic.] difficult to appear
>> professional when forced to lecture to a class with a picture
>> of a female nude on the wall behind them." Four other paintings
>> were taken down to avoid a debate over what should and shouldn't
>> be displayed.
>
>As an addendum to that, I heard that one of the reasons it was taken down
>was because it was in a classroom where people who could be offended by
>looking at the picture couldn't just leave the room to avoid looking at it,
>as opposed to an art gallery where one could just walk out. I think there's
>some sense to that; after all, I don't feel that something offensive should
>be foisted on me when I am in class. Not that I find a Goya painting of a
>nude woman offensive (although perhaps distracting in a classroom), but
>in a country where we are free to do many things, we should also be free
>*not* to be subjected to things we find offensive every day without being
>able to leave.
>
>Joy Haftel "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever."
>JKH107@PSUVM --Keats
Sort of. One of the major problems is defining what sort of things it is
reasonable to be offended over and what sort of things it is not reasonable.
If, for example, I annonounced that I was offended being forced to sit in
a room with, ya know, black people and asked that they be removed; no one
(I hope) would waste any time in flaming me from here to whatever hole I
crawled out of. People do exist who are 'offended' by the fact that they
have to treat other races/sexes/religions as equals. We as a society
have decided (correctly IMNSHO) that this is bullshit, that this is not
a valid reason to take offense.
The question is not so much having a right to live in an environment where
we are not subjected to things we find offensive, but rather making sure
that our dislikes are reasonable. I could claim that the color of the
wallpaper is 'offensive' to me, that the clothing the teacher is wearing
offends me, or a thousand other things. Which are legitimate and which
are not?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions above are not mine. I stole them all from the person sitting next
to me. If you don't like them, I can get you his address and you can kill him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan "Long live the Goon Show" Morgan | "You rotton swine, you!" - Bluebottle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Watch out! This gun is loaded and so am I." - Major Denis Bloodnok
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-Yakaboo! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-Yakaboo!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
From: thompson%se01@seg01.wg2.waii.com (Jim Thompson)
Subject: Re: [soc.women] Re: Feminist Prudes vs. Goya's Nudes
Message-ID: <9111201224.AA21310@se33.wg2.waii.com>
Sender: se01!thompson@seg01.wg2.waii.com
Date: 20 Nov 91 12:24:40 GMT
>In article <2924217f.2487@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>,
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) says:
>>
>>From the Los Angeles Times (11/15/91)
>>
>> GOYA'S GOTTA GO: A reproduction of a famous Goya painting of
>> a nude woman has been taken down from a classroom wall at Penn
>> State following a complaint from a woman professor that it was
>> a form of sexual harassment. "Nude Maja" had hung in the music
>> room on campus for more than a decade. The president of the
>> Student Government Assn. called it "ludicrous censorship," but
>> the Liaison Committee of the Penn State Commission for Women
>> said that female faculty "find if [sic.] difficult to appear
>> professional when forced to lecture to a class with a picture
>> of a female nude on the wall behind them." Four other paintings
>> were taken down to avoid a debate over what should and shouldn't
>> be displayed.
>
>As an addendum to that, I heard that one of the reasons it was taken down
>was because it was in a classroom where people who could be offended by
>looking at the picture couldn't just leave the room to avoid looking at it,
>as opposed to an art gallery where one could just walk out. I think there's
>some sense to that; after all, I don't feel that something offensive should
>be foisted on me when I am in class. Not that I find a Goya painting of a
>nude woman offensive (although perhaps distracting in a classroom), but
>in a country where we are free to do many things, we should also be free
>*not* to be subjected to things we find offensive every day without being
>able to leave.
>
>Joy Haftel "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever."
>JKH107@PSUVM --Keats
There was a story about the Goya earlier this week on NPR's All Things
Considered. The gist of the report was that the painting was being moved
not because it had offended anyone but because, as Joy suggested, it was
distracting the students, in particular some of the young men, and was
making teaching difficult. It seems that the painting hung directly
behind the teacher, so the students couldn't help looking right at it.
The NPR reporter stressed the the Goya was not being put into storage,
but would hang elsewhere on campus, in (I think) a study room in the
student union.
Besides, Salvador Dali's "Candid Camera", complete with flaming giraffes,
would have been a much better choice. :-)
--
Jim Thompson - thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com | Conjunction Junction,
Western Geophysical Exploration Products | what's your function?
Houston, Texas |
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111201411.AA12703@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
References: <9111190340.AA14311@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 91 13:11:36 GMT
Steve Brack writes:
>
> I am retaining counsel, and will fight OSU from a legal standpoint,
> rather than being trapped playing theoir game, by their rules, on their
> field.
Good luck. I sincerely hope that you're successful, but perhaps
by not exercising the University appeal process
simultaneously with other action, you might run the risk of having
the University claim breach of academic contract. Carl Kadie can
cite the relavant cases, I believe. Of course, you lawyer has
already explored this permuatation, I'm sure.
P.S. I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV or the Net, and I
don't even read misc.legal (mostly because I don't get the group!).
Bob
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: System Accounting: Fascist Tool?
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.141526.10801@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 91 14:15:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Nov20.141526.10801
References: <9111200445.AA24349@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>> > The system was set up to log everything, including what commands
>> > were run. The sysadmins seem to operate in full fascist mode most
>> > of the time, and so tend to notice everything, no matter how minor.
>>
>> Um, I wouldn't call it fascist mode. Most systems run some form of process
>> accounting. Any user can check the actions of any other users.
>
> I'm talking about how sensitive they were to the one command.
Well, I must admit that I would be surprised (and perhaps concerned) to
see a "regular" user executing an "administrative" command. My level of
concern would reflect the possible impact of that particular command. A
user running, for instance, acctcom (review accounting data) is not going
to get the same treatment as one running (or trying to run) fsck (file sys-
tem integrity checker).
>> So someone did a ps(1) and saw your process; that isn't really "fascist
>> mode" operation. Any user at all could have seen that job running.
>
> How many sysadmins have the time to sit around ps'ing their
> users?
Well, I'm usually logged in to at least one of our systems at any given
time. I usually run a ps about once an hour (if/when I think of it). Part
of my job is system configuration/tuning; to do that properly, I *have* to
keep track of what the users are doing. I also review the previous day's
accounting each morning. If I see that an administrative command was
run, *and* I know that the staff didn't run it (easy to do; we only have
5 people on staff), I might set up a filter to watch for the execution of
that command.
> They probably had to be watching all users very closely to have
> noticed me running fixman.
Well, you said that it ran for about 3 hours, even though you thought you
had killed it. I would *definitely* notice a program that had been running
for several hours.
> Also, I don't think it's the admins'
> business what notesfiles I read,
It's the business of one admin, the news administrator. Many sites base
their feed on readership statistics. The only way to find that informa-
tion is to keep stats on which users read which groups. I agree that the
information should be kept "blind"; the reports should only say "X users
read sci.foo", not "Joe Shmo reads sci.foo".
> or who I "mail" to.
Again, there's one admin who needs that information; in this case, it's
the postmaster. Frequent mail to a given site usually indicates that
the site should be included in /etc/hosts (to ensure a direct delivery
instead of a multi-site routing; we *do* want to make the mail system
more efficient, you know). Some sites (such as ours) are also
asked to provide reports of facilities use on a departmental basis. In
that case, I'd go through the mail log, extract all users in a given
department (cross-index to password file), and generate the report. As
in the situation above, the information is "blind"; my reports say things
such as "Electrical Engineering students have sent XXXX mail messages this
month, of which YYY were local, ZZZ were on-campus, and AAA were off-campus"
instead of "Joe Shmo sent XX messages to these sites......". We have some
classes in which electronic mail is used for class assignments/discussion.
Professors/academic staff have a natural interest in the effectiveness of
their method; as a result, we have to prepared to give them a general re-
port of the type I described.
There are occasions on which I do look at an individual's mail usage.
As part of my normal diagnostics, I extract all the error messages from
the mail logs. If I see that a particular user has a lot of problems,
I'll send that user some email to offer help. That's between me and
that user; I certainly don't broadcast the information.
> But that's not
> the point. Statistics can be taken from syslog files without ever
> associating a process with a user.
Yes, they can; however, the default accounting tools link the information
with a userid. I have written shell scripts to extract the information I
need in a "blind" manner; I'm sure that many sysadmins have not.
> I grant your point. But when any process, including accounting, is
> used to "persecute" (not exactly what I mean, but I'm tired) a user,
> it becomes a bad thing. I believe a shell script could give
> usage statistics without revealing users' "private" information.
Agreed. Many sysadmins, for whatever reason, choose to use the built-in
accounting tools.
Part of the problem is the basic design of the Unix operating system.
Unix has always been an extremely open OS; any user can get a huge
amount of infomation about the system and its users. Some vendors are
trying to overcome this; there are some very secure variants of Unix
available (Gould UTX and AT&T System V MLS come to mind; both of those
have been certified as B1-capable by the NCSC). However, academic
installations have traditionally maintained the "open" nature of Unix.
In a situation such as this, it becomes the admin's responsibility to
safeguard the information to which he has access. Some admins do a
better job than others; you can't lump us all in the same group.
> Would tyou justify purchasing a new disk by checking what sort of files
> users had in their directories? I would hope not. You would probably
> look at disk information (from du probably), rather than individual
> users' files.
When we present an item for purchase, the money often comes from a general
"improvement fund". The various academic departments, naturally, aren't
always pleased to give us the money. If, however, we present a graphic that
shows that, for example, the ME Department's students are taking up 65% of
our disk space, the ME Department is far more likely to support the expense.
If a department wants us to install a particular program, I'd want to know
how much disk space its users occupy. I recently had a call from another
admin who was being asked to install ansys (a finite elements package); he
wondered how much space ansys users would need. I got him an answer with
three "ls -lR|grep xxxxxx|awk" commands. For those of you who haven't
caught on yet, this information was also "blind"; I don't care how much
space user XXXXXX swallows, as long as he's under quota. I *do* however,
need to know what types of files my users have (in a general sense).
>> Don't misinterpret normal activity as "snooping" or "fascism".
>
> While such activity may be normal, I quarrel with the use it was put
> to, namely finding "dirt" on users.
"Finding dirt" implies that someone was watching your actions closely.
That may have been the case; however, your "fixman" job would have drawn
attention from *anyone* running a ps command, whether or not they were
specifically looking for you. I have users who check ps themselves, when
the system response is slow. I often get mail saying "what is this pro-
gram XXXX that YYYY is running? It's been going for days!". Of course,
I usually reply with something like "it's ok, that's not a runaway job",
since user XXX doesn't need to know that particulars of user YYY's work.
In conclusion, let me say (one more time) that sysadmins do, on occasion,
need some specific information on user activities. I believe that all
admins should strive to obtain the information they need in the most general
method possible. I understand your strong feelings in this area, but I
can't agree with the broad strokes with which you're painting our work.
System administrators may be obnoxious, but system administration is not.
--
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: Plagiarism, was Re: U. of Deleware computer policies
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.142702.12385@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 91 14:27:02 GMT
References: <9111181713.AA13375@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>>- working together on an assignment, sharing the computer files
>>or programs involved, and then submitting individual copies of the
>>assignment as your own individual work
>
>My point here is this: How does talking with a collegue (presumably in this
>case a student) about an assignment constitute plagarism? Is there a
>difference between talking about an upcoming paper and how to best approach it
>and talking about an upcoming computer project and how best to approach it?
In some ways, I think that there are significant differences. For instance,
discussing a history paper may yield pointers to reference works or previously
published papers. If you "lift" verbatim packages from those works, you run
a substantial risk of getting caught. However, discussing a computer program
naturally leads to sharing code, even if it's just an algorithm scribbled on
a sheet of paper. I've seen students passing around library books, extracting
code from the examples as they go. In my mind, this is plagiarism. It's much
more difficult to prove, but it's still unethical in my mind.
As you mentioned in your original posting, code sharing is widespread in
the "real world", but someone had to develop that code in the first place.
If the current CS student just "reuses" code from textbooks/examples/other
sources, there's a strong chance that he will never really understand what
he's doing.
Personally, I think that COBOL is alive because of this technique. I've
spoken with many DP types who've said things like "I'd love to go to C,
but I don't know how to do XXX, and we've already got COBOL code that does
it, so why not stick with it?" It's a sad commentary on that particular
person, but it's a common problem. Of course, I just revceived an advert
for a COBOL-to-C translator..........8(
I've seen students run old FORTRAN code through the PD "f2c" program, using
the results in their assignments. In fact, I knew a student who received a
B in the file processing class (which used C) by simply writing FORTRAN all
semester and converting it to C. While that is definitely ingenious, it
is NOT education.
>I
>understand that from a pedagogical standpoint it's important to make each
>student learn the concepts on one's own, but at the same time I fail to see
>how consultation becomes plagarism. For example, what if several students got
>together to develop a common set of test data? This would constitute
>plagarism under the above-quoted policy, but I hardly think that it is.
I'd argue that it's the instructor's responsibility to generate test datasets.
That's been the method used in every programming course I've ever taken. When
the instructor hands out the assignment, there is at least one set of test
data.
The advent of computing in academia has forced us to redefine many concepts;
I think that plagiarism is definitely in need of redefinition/reevaluation.
--
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: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.172415.4422@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 17:24:15 GMT
[Posted for the author - Carl]
In article <1991Nov20.030440.21821@usl.edu> Eric Lee Green writes:
> In article <1991Nov7.205342.18057@rice.edu> jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
> >>
> >Umm, Universities are not courts of law nor are they federal
> >governmental entities. The procedural protections of the U.S.
> >Constitution do not apply. Yes, Steven Brack was probably treated
> >unfairly and summarily, without being given an adequate chance to
> >defend himself. But nothing the University did violates anything in
> >the U.S. Constitution because in this instance they are not subject to
> >the particular restrictions in that document. And if you were to read
>
> Note that Ohio State University is not a private institution like Rice
> University. Rice is a private university, and can pretty much do what
> it likes. Ohio State University is an extension of the government of
> the state of Ohio, and thus, via the 14th amendment, must guarantee
> certain rights to its clientelle... e.g., that it won't discriminate
> on the basis of race, it won't prohibit free speech by students, etc.
Even Rice has to abide by laws such as the Civil Rights Acts, &c.
>
> The question of "due process", then, becomes a concept fraught with
> difficulty, when you're talking about a state institution. It is much
> like the question of, say, disability pension eligibility hearings.
> What is "due process", in this instance? Is the government body conducting
> the hearings (the University, the state Department of Human Services)
> required to follow those procedures defined over the centuries as
> "due process" in the English civil code?
At its most basic, due process means creating a level playing field so
that all sides have an opportunity to state their case in an objective
setting.
>
> fighting a battle and losing the war. OSU administrators are no different
> from NCAA administrators, here... if you fight them, you're the enemy,
> and they have the power, so they'll use it against you -- cooking up
> any charges necessary to do what they want to do.
Very true. But, the fact that this happens does not justify its
happening.
>
> >But in the end, a person attends a university, even a state university,
> >at the discretion of that university. Attendance is not a right, it is
> >a privilege. Mr. Brack managed to anger that university enough to
>
> Note, though, that there DOES exist precedent that a person's rights to,
> e.g., free speech, do not stop at the university gates. I.e., a university
> cannot dismiss a student for exercising his free-speech rights. This
> DOES directly affect Mr. Brack's case, since the cause of dismissal was
> directly related to his infantile postings to various USENET groups.
> Is this protected speech? Or is it, rather, misuse of the university's
> computer resources? This is a question which apparently was never
> considered or addressed by the university when it decided to kick Brack
> out for posting these messages.
I made one post wherein I used the word f*ck. It was accidentally
crossposted to rec.aquaria. I admit it wasn't a good idea, but
I don't believe it was infantile.
In any event, even the speech we don't like should be protected.
I apologized to the newsgroup in question, and have never posted
anything like that since (mainly because I no longer read alt.flame 8).
> --
> Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70506 (318) 989-8950
> Internet: elg@elgamy.raidernet.com UUCP: uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg
> "It's never too late for a happy childhood" -- The Doctor
--
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: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Subject: Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <2054@ra.MsState.Edu>
Date: 20 Nov 91 17:09:49 GMT
References: <1991Nov19.223113.7527@eff.org>
Sender: usenet@ra.MsState.Edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Nntp-Posting-Host: jester.cc.msstate.edu
In article <1991Nov19.223113.7527@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) says:
>Several times it has been suggested that Ohio State University's
>Academic Computing Services would love to comment a the case of a
>certain student, but privacy law prevent any such comments.
>
>Ten days ago, I posted this critique of ACS policy and invited
>comments from ACS. The critique sticks strictly to the text of ACS
>policy; it refers to no specific cases.
Don't. They'll try to crucify you no matter what you say.
I rather suspect that the same principles would apply to usenet
discussions.
>I am beginning to wonder if ACS is silent because its policy is
>indefensible.
Any university official who engaged in a debate on the policies of
his/her institution in a group with the poor signal to noise ratio
found here would be a fool. Any poorly worded phrase would be
interpreted in the worst possible light. Any prejudices expressed by
the individual respondent would be ascribed to the institution as a
whole. The institution would not be given the fair and impartial
hearing so loudly demanded for individuals.
Usenet is not a forum conducive to policy debates. Your opponents
can lie. They can make inflamatory and personally insulting remarks
that would get them thrown out of any structured policy meeting. Laws
against slander and libel are effectively unenforcable in the usenet
medium.
-Fwp
Note: I am not taking OSU's side in this debate. I have reached
no particular conclusion about the merits of either side
in this issue. I am exclusively taking issue with the
implication that OSU or ACS has an obligation to participate
in discussion in a public forum where opponents are under
no obligation to play fair.
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: OSU Lantern (was re: Brack expulsion)
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 20 Nov 91 18:38:00 GMT
>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
>
>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.
>
I was referring to Campus newspapers and also to Computers. The recent court
decisions are against the broadness of a rule. In the reasons given by the
court, the first amendment is not mentioned.
>
>- 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.
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.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 20 Nov 91 18:41:00 GMT
>From: "Carl M. Kadie"
>From: IZZYCY1@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (The Jester)
>Date: 14 Nov 91 20:03:00 GMT
>
>
>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
When you get an unlisted phone number, you pay both for the phone and for it
being unlisted.
Your account is something that is provided by someone else. If you want
privacy, go to a service like Prodigy where you pay for your own account and
it is up to you to be listed in the list of members.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.194244.9179@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov19.223113.7527@eff.org> <2054@ra.MsState.Edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 19:42:44 GMT
fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
[...]
>From the University Administrator's guide to dealing with the press:
> Don't. They'll try to crucify you no matter what you say.
>I rather suspect that the same principles would apply to usenet
>discussions.
[...]
>Any university official who engaged in a debate on the policies of
>his/her institution in a group with the poor signal to noise ratio
>found here would be a fool. Any poorly worded phrase would be
>interpreted in the worst possible light. Any prejudices expressed by
>the individual respondent would be ascribed to the institution as a
>whole. The institution would not be given the fair and impartial
>hearing so loudly demanded for individuals.
>Usenet is not a forum conducive to policy debates. Your opponents
>can lie. They can make inflamatory and personally insulting remarks
>that would get them thrown out of any structured policy meeting. Laws
>against slander and libel are effectively unenforcable in the usenet
>medium.
[...]
I find the idea that policy should only be discussed in a forum in
which people can be thrown out replusive.
Unlike the press, Usenet (and Altnet) allows effective rebuttals. And
although, making policy via Usenet might be hard, I have found it to
be a wonderful forum for discussion policy. I have noticed very few
lies in alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk. There have been _ad homen_
attacks, but I don't think that these were effective.
I think the readers of alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk respect the idea
that a person can speak for themselves and not their University. But
an especially fearful correspondent can post anonymously by emailing
to me (or anyone else they trust) and having me (or someone else) post
their note. You can even email to me anonymously.
- 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: <1991Nov20.195744.9522@eff.org>
References:
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 19:57:44 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 was referring to Campus newspapers and also to Computers. The recent court
>decisions are against the broadness of a rule. In the reasons given by the
>court, the first amendment is not mentioned.
[...]
The UWM case was about the application of the First Amendment to a
public university. Part of the case involved an offensive email
message. Here part of the conclusion of the UWM Post v. U. of
Wisconsin decision:
---start---
III. CONCLUSION
*20 The founding fathers of this nation produced a remarkable document in
the Constitution but it was ratified only with the promise of the Bill of
Rights. The First Amendment is central to our concept of freedom. The God-
given "unalienable rights" that the infant nation rallied to in the Declaration
of Independence can be preserved only if their application is rigorously
analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here are
real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But freedom of speech
is almost absolute in our land and the only restriction the fighting words
doctrine can abide is that based on the fear of violent reaction. Content-
based prohibitions such as that in the UW Rule, however well intended, simply
cannot survive the screening which our Constitution demands.
---end---
Also, according to the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student
Press Law Center (1985,1988):
"In _Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri{30} ...
the high Court ruled that the use of profanity or 'four-letter words'
in a paper distributed on a college campus was not disruptive of the
school environment."
{30} _Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri_, 410 U.S.
667 (1973)
According to the same book, the _Hazelwood_ decision has a footnote
saying that _Hazelwood_'s restrictions to not apply to universities.
- 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: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Subject: Re: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.040002.15054@anasaz>
Date: 20 Nov 91 04:00:02 GMT
Keywords:
In article <1991Nov16.012018.10143@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Darin M Powell) writes:
]A few quick opinions:
]
]1. Arizona should have an MLK holdiay. A real holiday. On a Monday. Period.
Any particular reason why we should? I see no significant benefit to this.
]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!!!
So what? Are we arguing about rights or responsibilities? My argument
is that the tremendous outcry about Arizona's not having a paid
holiday was:
-unnecessary
-grossly unfair
-incredibly self righteous
-counterproductive
-irresponsible
-provocative
-terribly uninformed.
Yes, people do have a right to all if this sort of behavior, but we
don't have to like it or approve of it.
]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.
Bullshit. One of the primary characteristics of political correctness
is the desire to suppress all dissenting opinion, and to prevent the
expression of information, even if factually correct, that leats
to non-PC goals. This is in distinct contrast to most (not all) of
those against PC.
> 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.
But if you think PC people should have this done to them, doesn't it
make you anti-PC?
--
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! - -
--------------------
--
| 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 21 10:36:24 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA15037
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 21 Nov 1991 15:36:29 -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, 21 Nov 1991 15:36:24 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111212036.AA15032@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Nov 21 15:35:31 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:
john@anasaz (John : Re: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of CAF-News 01.37
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: (alt.censorship) Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Rev
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: (comp.admin.policy) The Buckley Case.
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
zane@infopls.chi.i : Re: Clarence Thomas (Was: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Repu
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: Common carrier and message bases
brack@uoftcse.cse. : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
mathew@mantis.co.u : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
kadie@eff.org (Car : Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
russotto@eng.umd.e : 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: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Subject: Re: Arizona, MLK and PC nonsense
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.040220.15161@anasaz>
Date: 20 Nov 91 04:02:20 GMT
Keywords:
In article <1991Nov18.191212.28029@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Darin M Powell) writes:
]In article <1991Nov18.142510.26118@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day) writes:
]
]>In article <1991Nov16.012018.10143@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.ed
]>u (Darin M Powell) writes:
]>>A few quick opinions:
]>>
]>>1. Arizona should have an MLK holdiay. A real holiday. On a Monday. Period.
]>
]>Wrong. As long as the holiday is a state by state option, Arizona should not
]>"have to" have a MLK holiday. If you don't like that, CHANGE THE LAW.
]
] -- When I said that, all I meant was that, in my personal opinion,
] MLK should be honored by a holiday 'cause I think he deserves one.
] Of course, nobody can be forced to celebrate if they don't want to.
]
Oh, then you must agree with us that it should not be a PAID holiday,
since if it is, we taxpayers ARE being forced to celebrate the holiday
by paying salaries to state workers who are not working that day.
--
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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 01.37
Message-ID: <1991Nov21.023013.18841@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 02:30:13 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News followings the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n37
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending November 10, 1991]
================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
=======================================================
Notes 1-2 are critiques of university computer policies.
1. The policy of Ohio State University's Academic Computer Services is
too vague. "It seems to claim that the ACS staff does not need to
follow due process procedures to expel a user from the ACS computers."
<1991Nov9.152336.10203@eff.org>
2. The policy of the University of Texas Computer Science department
is too broad. It does not detail the process leading to a computer
expulsion. It offers little privacy protection. It prohibits some
Constitutionally-protected speech.
<1991Nov5.023409.6759@eff.org>
Notes 3-6 are about the computer policies at Rice University.
3. The policy of Rice University is vague and offers little privacy
protection.
4. Rice has a detailed due-process procedure for computer infractions.
A description of the procedure is enclosed.
<9111091713.AA18825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
5. (A student at Rice:) Rice's requirement that students get
permission before using computer media to communicate off-campus is
unnecessary and overly restrictive. It also creates the possibility of
selective enforcement.
<9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
6. (The same Rice student:) Rice's policy allows users to be punished
for infractions before it has been determined that an infraction has
actually occurred. This has happened to me.
<1991Nov9.034938.7383@rice.edu>
Note 7 is about the offensive-to-many "yehweh" posting.
7. "Those women who received the post via email do have a case for
sexual harassment. They should push those cases not [cases based on]
the general post [to soc.women]." The general post is like a library
book except that with a kill file you can 'rip up offensive material'
without effecting the ability of others to access the material.
<9111071452.AA06180@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about interlibrary loan policy. Such policy might guide
computer network policy.
8. Of the two main interlibrary loan policies, one says that
interlibrary loans should only be used to obtain material for research
and serious study. The other says that interlibrary loans can be used
to request any material.
<1991Nov8.210320.15630@eff.org>
9. "For [the National Science Foundation Net] to say 'you can not
offer this nonacademic, nonresearch material via FTP' is like the
National Interlibrary System telling a library that they can not offer
nonserious, nonresearch material via [some other] interlibrary loan
system." Such a requirement would violate both interlibrary loan
policies.
<1991Nov8.221534.17684@eff.org>
Notes 10-13 are about Steven Brack's dismissal from Ohio State
University and OSU policy,
10. (Steven Brack, a [former] student at Ohio State University:)
Enclosed is the letter of dismissal I received from OSU.
<9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
11. "How would you feel if you were expelled from school without even
knowing what you were being punished for?" Steven Brack's hearing was
unfair because "he was not given was the correspondence between his
alleged actions and the rules that the actions, if true, would
violate." This is "a violation of the procedural due process as
guaranteed by the Constitution."
<1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org>
12. According to the ACLU handbook: _The Rights of Students_, before
you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to know the
specific acts you are charged with committing and the specific rules
that those acts violate.
<1991Nov6.220216.4349@eff.org>
13. (A former OSU student:) "OSU defines, quite rigidly, whaich
entities at the University may impose sanctions, & what sanctions each
may impose. [Academic Computing Services] is not listed anywhere in
that section of the handbook." It apparently uses this lack of
authority as an excuse for ignoring due process.
<9111090242.AA25801@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
================== Remember ================================
The words after the numbers were a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
=======================================================
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie.
It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial
decisions I make are my own.
--
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: Re: [alt.censorship] Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <0F58862A7E202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 03:17:00 GMT
>
>Indeed, is turning off someone's account *really* the only way to get
>people to come in and see the staff? Or perhaps is it just a terribly
>convenient way. What would another department do, put a security guard
>at the classroom door? Telephones and USmail are quite sufficient. I
>think we have convenience outweighing due process here.
Maybe if you replaced the words "convenience" by "cost" and I am referring to
money spent doing the work, then your argument may be reversed.
>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
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: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <11CBAC8CEE202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 03:34:00 GMT
>This is why account disabling is so dangerous-- you disable the account, your
>problems are over. The student whose account is disabled has no one to turn
>to and is thus stuck.
>
And exactly what incentive do you want to give a system administrator to not
get their problems over with?
>--
>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: [comp.admin.policy] The Buckley Case.
Message-ID: <152334F80E202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 03:58:00 GMT
>In article <1991Nov18.182441.10823@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>
>> I am probably a minority of one. But I strongly disagree.
>>
>> When ACS is run by complete morons who have no comprehension of what computers
>>are about (as appears to be the case with Buckley's experience), no amount of
>>"specific policies" will help.
>
>Taking their stick away will help.
Just be careful that they do not get a shotgun as a substitute for the stick.
Imagine the following conversation between a University Administrator(UA) and a
System Administrator(SA):
UA: Why did this computer incident happen?
SA: I could not control the situation because you took my stick away last
month. I need something to control the situation.
UA: I should have never let the computer policy committee persuade me to do
such a stupid thing. Here, take this shotgun, and don't let anything
like this incident happen again.
SA: Yes, Boss.
>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: <166C15041E202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 04:07:00 GMT
>> WELL, yes and no! But in civil and criminal law, I believe the
>>expression is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
>>Try and tell the cop that "I didn't see the school speed limit sign"
>>when you get the ticket for 40 in a 25 mph school zone. Good luck.
>
>If the sign isn't there, you'll win.
In NY state, 30mph is the speed limit unless a sign allows you to go faster.
Going at 40 mph if no sign is posted will get you a ticket.
>
>Shit happens MORE to those who simply accept it.
Actually it is the other way around. Shit happens to "troublemakers" much
more than to people who figure out a way to beat the system without getting
caught. Acceptance that shit happens is very different from accepting shit.
If you know shit happens, you can avoid it. Once it has happened, it
does not matter if you accept it or not, it has nonetheless happened.
>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: zane@infopls.chi.il.us (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas (Was: Dave (The Stud) Duke likes Republicans!
Keywords: Natural Rights, prejudice
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 19:37:58 CST
References: <1991Nov18.053055.14880@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:
> Anita Hill's to have an opinion about her reliability.
> On the other hand, bringing a herd of character witnesses
> to support him was insulting - if you can't get 10 people
> to swear on a stack of Federal Registers that you're honest,
> trustworthy, loyal, ..., you're obviously not qualified for
> any job in politics - even Richard Nixon would have *no* trouble.
>
> Then there was that little matter of the court case where he
> was judge and one of the parties was his good buddy Danforth,
> but that was too late in the windstorm to get any consideration.
> --
> Pray for peace; Bill
> #Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel
> # CIA has "always aspired to be more than a team, to be a family" - Robert Ga
> # "Big Brother is Watching" - George Orwell
"A man don't need 50 pages to prove his innocence."
-- Andrew Jackson in response to a 50 page letter by JC
Calhoun about his innocence in the conspiracy to court-martial and hand
Andrew Jackson.
---
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9111211548.AA31006@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 03:48:57 GMT
From: les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.025626.25894@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 18 Nov 91 02:56:26 GMT
Edward Piecewicz addresses "Jester," who hides behind a frivolous pseudonym
instead of using his real name, saying:
>May I ask what exactly do you find wrong with the "finger" command? I'm
>sure people have a right to know who is using their system.
I believe that people have no such a right -- anonymity should be
permitted as far as snoopers are concerned. If operating costs are to
be allocated on the basis of usage, of course, there must be a
reasonably secure accounting system, but user lists and usage need not
be disclosed to outsiders.
--
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: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9111211549.AA02568@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 03:49:17 GMT
From: alien@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Tom von Alten)
Subject: Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <8060011@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com>
Date: 18 Nov 91 19:11:38 GMT
In comp.org.eff.talk, les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest) writes:
> ...but user lists and usage need not
> be disclosed to outsiders.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how is it that "outsiders" are able
to run "finger" on the machine? Or is everyone but the system
administrators "outside"?
"Finger" seems to be a way to answer the question "who is this person
with the login ?" The fundamental issues of who gets to know what
about me under what circumstances are at issue. It seems like a reasonable
choice of the owner of a computer whether or not they will allow anonymity,
and TJ is saying that he does not want to use systems where it is not
allowed.
Calling the finger program "evil" seems a bit much to me, however. Of all
the things to be concerned about in the world, this is very low on my list.
Most of us are willing to have our name associated with our comments,
but a few are not. Is it an important privacy issue? I don't know.
It does seem to me that the influence of anonymous remarks is likely
to be limited.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Common carrier and message bases
Message-ID: <9111211550.AA26860@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 03:50:11 GMT
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Common carrier and message bases
Message-ID: <1991Nov19.151442.25462@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 15:14:42 GMT
In article <1991Nov18.220325.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ih04@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>
> I am working on a column about free speech on StarText, an electronic
>newspaper offered by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. They recently stopped
>offering a "letters to the editor" style feature, and part of the reason
>was the fear of liability for the messages that people posted on it. I
>would like to know if the EFF has any information on this and related
>"common carrier" issues, and I would love to be able to offer StarText a
>better perspective of the legality of offering subscriber comments online.
I'm not sure why the Startlegram is worried about this. Don't they
publish letters to the editor in their print edition? Presumably those
letters are reviewed for defamatory or otherwise legally troubling
content, of course.
If the problem with the "letters to the editor" feature of their online
services is that they don't (or can't) review everything before it is
posted, then there is less of a liability problem. In that case, the Star-
Telegram is acting more like a bookstore owner or similar information
distributor, and the law tends not to hold such vendors liable for the content
of the information they distribute. It is this reasoning that led to a summary
judgment for CompuServe in the recent libel suit called Cubby Inc. v.
CompuServe.
I'd be happy to talk to StarText managers about this, by the way.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"... my work consists of two parts: the one presented
mnemonic@eff.org | here plus all that I have *not* written. And it is
(617) 864-0665 | precisely this second part which is the important one."
EFF, Cambridge | --Wittgenstein, writing about the TRACTATUS
-------------------
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111211705.AA05125@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 17:05:15 GMT
In article <166C15041E202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu> you write:
> >> WELL, yes and no! But in civil and criminal law, I believe the
> >>expression is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
> >>Try and tell the cop that "I didn't see the school speed limit sign"
> >>when you get the ticket for 40 in a 25 mph school zone. Good luck.
> >
> >If the sign isn't there, you'll win.
>
> In NY state, 30mph is the speed limit unless a sign allows you to go faster.
> Going at 40 mph if no sign is posted will get you a ticket.
Yes, but the law saying that 30 mph is the limit unless otherwise
posted was placed in the public domain, where anyone could read it.
ACS's policy, if one even existed at the time, was not. I}i had no
way of knowing what was & was not against the rules. There were no
signs posted regarding using to computers at once, nor were there
any warnings about using expletives in NetNews postings.
>
> >Shit happens MORE to those who simply accept it.
>
> Actually it is the other way around. Shit happens to "troublemakers" much
> more than to people who figure out a way to beat the system without getting
> caught. Acceptance that shit happens is very different from accepting shit.
> If you know shit happens, you can avoid it. Once it has happened, it
> does not matter if you accept it or not, it has nonetheless happened.
Once you have been figuratively "covered," as I have, there is
really little reason not to throw some back. 8) But, as I've
maintained, this is a personal decision that I've made to fight this.
This does not mean that everyone should do this, just that I feel it
necessary. I also feel that if more people stopped taking the sh*t
that was thrown at them, then maybe less shit would be thrown.
> >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
-------------------
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (VALIS)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <89FRBB10w164w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: 21 Nov 91 11:54:18 GMT
References: <1991Nov20.172415.4422@eff.org>
Followup-To: alt.flame
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> [Posted for the author - Carl]
> From brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu Wed Nov 20 12:20:39 1991
> I made one post wherein I used the word f*ck.
In three-inch-high banner letters, as I recall. Wasn't the entire
message "F*ck you, Oleg"?
> I admit it wasn't a good idea, but
> I don't believe it was infantile.
Well, it certainly wasn't going to win you the Booker Prize.
mathew
--
Another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 18:23:40 GMT
Universities that prohibit offensive expression in computer media, may
be prohibiting on-line searches of library catalogs.
Libraries all of the world are working to make their on-line catalogs
available via the Internet. But do these on-line catalogs violate the
speech restrictions on some universities?
For example, suppose you telnet into Illinet Online ("telnet
garcon.cso.uiuc.edu 620"). This on-line catalog has holding
information for most the the libraries in the State of Illinois.
You are looking for an arts magazine:
----Illinet session---
LCSgated>f t magazine of the arts
SUMMARY DISPLAY
RESULT: 38 bibliographic items.
LCSgated>s 24
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DISPLAY
FUCK YOU; A MAGAZINE OF THE ARTS NEW YORK
uc 10-053242
LCSgated>
---- end session------
Now that your interest has been aroused, you try:
---- Illinet session-----
LCSgated>f t fuck $ all
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DISPLAY
1. Moe, David Ishtar Robinhood fuck spelling : a poem / c1978. 5
leaves, sewn at center; unpaged ocm04-147599
2. Fuck hate : :poems / ca. 1966: :4: p. ocm07-408611
3. FUCK YOU; A MAGAZINE OF THE ARTS uc 10-053242
4. McCloskey, Michael. FUCK YOU; A VOLUME OF SHORT STORIES. uc
12-031984
5. MICHELS, PETER M. FUCK THE WAR. 1972. uc 17-000346
6. B.A.L.L. (Musical group) Period (another American lie) :sound
recording: / :1987: 1 sound disc ocm17-376469
LCSgated>
---end session---
It looks like Boston University and Ohio State University will need to
cut their connections to on-line catalogs. The on-line catalogs also
might violate the restrictions of the Computer Science Department at
the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Newcastle's
University Computing Services, and James Madison University. (I'm
enclosing the relevant parts of the polices.)
Conclusion: I see nothing wrong with narrowly-drawn rules against
harassment, but there is no place for rules against offensiveness in a
University. As this example shows, to prohibit offense, is to prohibit
free inquiry.
- Carl
===================================================
The Boston University's [Office of] Information Technology says: "[You
must not] transmit[] or mak[e] accessible offensive [...] material."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu]
Ohio State University, in at least one case, characterized the the
phrase "fuck you" as obscene and brought a student up on charges for
posting it. [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/brack@ohio-state.edu]
The Computer Science Department at the University of Texas at Austin
says "Users of electronic mail and bulletin boards should avoid
sending messages that are ... patently offensive ... ."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/cs.utexas.edu] (While the phrase
"patently offensive" is not defined, it is the same phrase used by the
FCC in its definition of indecency. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude
that the "words that can't be said on TV" might be prohibited at UT.)
The University of Newcastle's University Computing Services says:
"You may not use the University's computing facilities to send ...
offensive ... messages." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/newcastleu]
The Draft Computer Ethics Statement at James Madison University says
"The following are examples of unethical or irresponsible use of the
computer: ... Sending electronic mail messages containing material
offensive to the receiver."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/jmadisonu]
========================================================
--
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: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov21.182206.22136@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 18:22:06 GMT
References: <11CBAC8CEE202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <11CBAC8CEE202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>This is why account disabling is so dangerous-- you disable the account, your
>>problems are over. The student whose account is disabled has no one to turn
>>to and is thus stuck.
>>
>
>And exactly what incentive do you want to give a system administrator to not
>get their problems over with?
>
>>--
>>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
I just wouldn't allow you a quick and painless means of doing so which
screws a student over.
--
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)
--------------------
--
| 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 22 06:28:40 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA12993
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 22 Nov 1991 11:28:44 -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, 22 Nov 1991 11:28:40 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111221628.AA12988@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Nov 22 11:27:43 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 : Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
marchany@vtserf.cc : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What
ckd@eff.org (Chris : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Re; Brack Expulsion: What
jgreely@morganucod : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
FFDMG@ALASKA.BITNE : Administrative Remedies
FFDMG@ALASKA.BITNE : Re: Plagiarism, was Re: U. of Deleware computer policies
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Reply from Boston U. Wanted! Was: Re: Schools that outlaw
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
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: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 18:23:40 GMT
Universities that prohibit offensive expression in computer media, may
be prohibiting on-line searches of library catalogs.
Libraries all of the world are working to make their on-line catalogs
available via the Internet. But do these on-line catalogs violate the
speech restrictions on some universities?
For example, suppose you telnet into Illinet Online ("telnet
garcon.cso.uiuc.edu 620"). This on-line catalog has holding
information for most the the libraries in the State of Illinois.
You are looking for an arts magazine:
----Illinet session---
LCSgated>f t magazine of the arts
SUMMARY DISPLAY
RESULT: 38 bibliographic items.
LCSgated>s 24
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DISPLAY
FUCK YOU; A MAGAZINE OF THE ARTS NEW YORK
uc 10-053242
LCSgated>
---- end session------
Now that your interest has been aroused, you try:
---- Illinet session-----
LCSgated>f t fuck $ all
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DISPLAY
1. Moe, David Ishtar Robinhood fuck spelling : a poem / c1978. 5
leaves, sewn at center; unpaged ocm04-147599
2. Fuck hate : :poems / ca. 1966: :4: p. ocm07-408611
3. FUCK YOU; A MAGAZINE OF THE ARTS uc 10-053242
4. McCloskey, Michael. FUCK YOU; A VOLUME OF SHORT STORIES. uc
12-031984
5. MICHELS, PETER M. FUCK THE WAR. 1972. uc 17-000346
6. B.A.L.L. (Musical group) Period (another American lie) :sound
recording: / :1987: 1 sound disc ocm17-376469
LCSgated>
---end session---
It looks like Boston University and Ohio State University will need to
cut their connections to on-line catalogs. The on-line catalogs also
might violate the restrictions of the Computer Science Department at
the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Newcastle's
University Computing Services, and James Madison University. (I'm
enclosing the relevant parts of the polices.)
Conclusion: I see nothing wrong with narrowly-drawn rules against
harassment, but there is no place for rules against offensiveness in a
University. As this example shows, to prohibit offense, is to prohibit
free inquiry.
- Carl
===================================================
The Boston University's [Office of] Information Technology says: "[You
must not] transmit[] or mak[e] accessible offensive [...] material."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu]
Ohio State University, in at least one case, characterized the the
phrase "fuck you" as obscene and brought a student up on charges for
posting it. [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/brack@ohio-state.edu]
The Computer Science Department at the University of Texas at Austin
says "Users of electronic mail and bulletin boards should avoid
sending messages that are ... patently offensive ... ."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/cs.utexas.edu] (While the phrase
"patently offensive" is not defined, it is the same phrase used by the
FCC in its definition of indecency. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude
that the "words that can't be said on TV" might be prohibited at UT.)
The University of Newcastle's University Computing Services says:
"You may not use the University's computing facilities to send ...
offensive ... messages." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/newcastleu]
The Draft Computer Ethics Statement at James Madison University says
"The following are examples of unethical or irresponsible use of the
computer: ... Sending electronic mail messages containing material
offensive to the receiver."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/jmadisonu]
========================================================
--
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: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov21.182206.22136@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 18:22:06 GMT
References: <11CBAC8CEE202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <11CBAC8CEE202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>This is why account disabling is so dangerous-- you disable the account, your
>>problems are over. The student whose account is disabled has no one to turn
>>to and is thus stuck.
>>
>
>And exactly what incentive do you want to give a system administrator to not
>get their problems over with?
>
>>--
>>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
I just wouldn't allow you a quick and painless means of doing so which
screws a student over.
--
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: <1991Nov21.182617.22242@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 18:26:17 GMT
References: <166C15041E202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
In article <166C15041E202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>> WELL, yes and no! But in civil and criminal law, I believe the
>>>expression is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
>>>Try and tell the cop that "I didn't see the school speed limit sign"
>>>when you get the ticket for 40 in a 25 mph school zone. Good luck.
>>
>>If the sign isn't there, you'll win.
>
>In NY state, 30mph is the speed limit unless a sign allows you to go faster.
>Going at 40 mph if no sign is posted will get you a ticket.
You have to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me, don't you?
Say it was a 40mph road (posted), with a small section being a 25MPH school
zone, but the sign for that zone had been removed.
>>Shit happens MORE to those who simply accept it.
>
>Actually it is the other way around. Shit happens to "troublemakers" much
>more than to people who figure out a way to beat the system without getting
>caught. Acceptance that shit happens is very different from accepting shit.
>If you know shit happens, you can avoid it. Once it has happened, it
>does not matter if you accept it or not, it has nonetheless happened.
So now YOUR advice is not to worry about whether you are right or wrong, just
DON'T GET CAUGHT? That's something I would expect from me, not you.
--
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: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <2795@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 91 20:49:55 GMT
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Libraries all of the world are working to make their on-line catalogs
>available via the Internet. But do these on-line catalogs violate the
>speech restrictions on some universities?
>Conclusion: I see nothing wrong with narrowly-drawn rules against
>harassment, but there is no place for rules against offensiveness in a
>University. As this example shows, to prohibit offense, is to prohibit
>free inquiry.
I'm afraid I would have to disagree with this message. In none of the
policy statements quoted does it say anything about restricting on-line
catalog searches. The statements do mention "offensive language" and
while the F-word is in the titles of certain books, I think the
an interpretation of those policies would indicate that in this
particular context, the F-word isn't offensive.
Again, I think you, as an outsider to the institutions in question,
imposed your interpretation of the policies in this scenario. I think
common sense would rule the day and slap down any attempt to do
what you say can happen. If indeed such an event did happen, I think
the public outcry would force the institution to re-think its
INTERPRETATION of the policy. Certainly, the power of the press can
force institutions to re-examine their positions in sensitive issues
like this.
The main points to consider are:
1. the policies are attempting to protect someone from
an UNSOLICITED "offensive" (whatever that may be) message.
2. This clearly wouldn't hold in your example since the user
is the one who initiated the message thread. I'm not aware
of library systems that send stuff to users without asking
for it, :-).
Of course, if I followed your line of reasoning, I suppose the
institutions in question could come after YOU for violating their
policy :-). Clearly, I don't think this is the case.
I strongly disagree with the last line of your quote. I don't think
you've shown in your example that "to prohibit offense is to prohibit
free inquiry". Your example of library searches is clearly a case of
free inquiry and cannot be subject to such a strict interpretation of
those policies. While you may argue that they COULD, I would counter
with the likelihood of that happening is slim. Indeed, it would seem to
me that looking up those references in a plain old card catalog would
be subject to prosecution (if I follow you line of reasoning.
-Randy Marchany
INTERNET: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
of
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov21.223506.17624@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> <2795@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 22:35:06 GMT
marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
>I'm afraid I would have to disagree with this message. In none of the
>policy statements quoted does it say anything about restricting on-line
>catalog searches. The statements do mention "offensive language" and
>while the F-word is in the titles of certain books, I think the
>an interpretation of those policies would indicate that in this
>particular context, the F-word isn't offensive.
The Federal Communications Commission says the word is "patently
offensive". Ohio State University calls it obscene. The Supreme Court
suggested that the newspaper headline "Motherfucker acquitted" was
"offensive to good taste" (Papish v. University of Missouri, 410 U.S.
667, 93 S.Ct. 1197, 35 L.Ed.2d 618 (1973)). The second book listed,
_Fuck Hate_, is rare because it was seized for obscenity and most
copies were destroyed. I don't know any more details, but would guess
that its title didn't help it.
>Again, I think you, as an outsider to the institutions in question,
>imposed your interpretation of the policies in this scenario. I think
>common sense would rule the day and slap down any attempt to do
>what you say can happen.
What you call common sense, I call selective enforcement.
> If indeed such an event did happen, I think
>the public outcry would force the institution to re-think its
>INTERPRETATION of the policy. Certainly, the power of the press can
>force institutions to re-examine their positions in sensitive issues
>like this.
I hope the the power of the Net will cause institutions to re-examine
their positions.
In the mean time, students and faculty and these institutions
don't know what is and is not prohibited.
>The main points to consider are:
> 1. the policies are attempting to protect someone from
> an UNSOLICITED "offensive" (whatever that may be) message.
None of the policies use the word "unsolicited". Only the James
Madison University policy suggests it.
> 2. This clearly wouldn't hold in your example since the user
> is the one who initiated the message thread. I'm not aware
> of library systems that send stuff to users without asking
> for it, :-).
In my first query I asked for books with "magazine of the arts" in the
title. I did not explicitly ask for books that said "fuck you."
[...]
>I strongly disagree with the last line of your quote. I don't think
>you've shown in your example that "to prohibit offense is to prohibit
>free inquiry". Your example of library searches is clearly a case of
>free inquiry and cannot be subject to such a strict interpretation of
>those policies. While you may argue that they COULD, I would counter
>with the likelihood of that happening is slim. Indeed, it would seem to
>me that looking up those references in a plain old card catalog would
>be subject to prosecution (if I follow you line of reasoning.
[...]
This suggests that if the official university library can get away
with breaking the rules of Boston University, then everything is OK.
Why should only the official library get to break the rules? Shouldn't
the rules apply to everyone or no one?
With a literal reading, the rules would prohibit a student or faculty
member at Boston University, Ohio State University, U. Texas, or U.
of Newcastle from doing a similar library search at their school and
sending me the result. The rules would also prohibit a student from
James Madison U. from sending the results to the caf-talk mailing list
(assuming that at least one reader of this mailing list would find the
note offensive.).
- 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: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <9111212040.AA04961@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
Date: 21 Nov 91 19:39:59 GMT
>
> Universities that prohibit offensive expression in computer media, may
> be prohibiting on-line searches of library catalogs.
>
> Libraries all of the world are working to make their on-line catalogs
> available via the Internet. But do these on-line catalogs violate the
> speech restrictions on some universities?
>
> For example, suppose you telnet into Illinet Online ("telnet
> garcon.cso.uiuc.edu 620"). This on-line catalog has holding
> information for most the the libraries in the State of Illinois.
>
[...]
>
> It looks like Boston University and Ohio State University will need to
> cut their connections to on-line catalogs. The on-line catalogs also
> might violate the restrictions of the Computer Science Department at
> the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Newcastle's
> University Computing Services, and James Madison University. (I'm
> enclosing the relevant parts of the polices.)
>
> Conclusion: I see nothing wrong with narrowly-drawn rules against
> harassment, but there is no place for rules against offensiveness in a
> University. As this example shows, to prohibit offense, is to prohibit
> free inquiry.
>
> - Carl
>
> ===================================================
>
> The Boston University's [Office of] Information Technology says: "[You
> must not] transmit[] or mak[e] accessible offensive [...] material."
> [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu]
>
> Ohio State University, in at least one case, characterized the the
> phrase "fuck you" as obscene and brought a student up on charges for
> posting it. [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/brack@ohio-state.edu]
>
> The Computer Science Department at the University of Texas at Austin
> says "Users of electronic mail and bulletin boards should avoid
> sending messages that are ... patently offensive ... ."
> [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/cs.utexas.edu] (While the phrase
> "patently offensive" is not defined, it is the same phrase used by the
> FCC in its definition of indecency. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude
> that the "words that can't be said on TV" might be prohibited at UT.)
>
> The University of Newcastle's University Computing Services says:
> "You may not use the University's computing facilities to send ...
> offensive ... messages." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/newcastleu]
>
> The Draft Computer Ethics Statement at James Madison University says
> "The following are examples of unethical or irresponsible use of the
> computer: ... Sending electronic mail messages containing material
> offensive to the receiver."
> [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/jmadisonu]
Of course a careful perusal of the above quotations reveals that
receipt of potentially offensive material is not discouraged;
rather, the deliberate trnasmission from a specific user that is
offensive is what is apparently intended. I don't believe the
policies even imply that access to online catalogs or other media
should be restricted if the media contains potentially offensive
material. I'm not sure what the assertion is based on. It
certainly doesn't seem to be supported by the facts.
Carl's conclusion is that to prohibit offense is to prohibit free
inquiry. I don't disagree with the premise, merely the evidence.
Bob
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 23:47:00 GMT
>In article <11CBAC8CEE202B53@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>>This is why account disabling is so dangerous-- you disable the account, your
>>>problems are over. The student whose account is disabled has no one to turn
>>>to and is thus stuck.
>>>
>>
>>And exactly what incentive do you want to give a system administrator to not
>>get their problems over with?
>>
>>>--
>>>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
>>
>> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
>
>
>I just wouldn't allow you a quick and painless means of doing so which
>screws a student over.
>--
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
You got the point. It is quick and painless for the system administrator to
disable the account and that is the reason it is used. Now how about coming
up with an incentive for the user not to screw the system administrator over?
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:
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 22 Nov 91 00:19:00 GMT
>>>Shit happens MORE to those who simply accept it.
>>
>>Actually it is the other way around. Shit happens to "troublemakers" much
>>more than to people who figure out a way to beat the system without getting
>>caught. Acceptance that shit happens is very different from accepting shit.
>>If you know shit happens, you can avoid it. Once it has happened, it
>>does not matter if you accept it or not, it has nonetheless happened.
>
>So now YOUR advice is not to worry about whether you are right or wrong, just
>DON'T GET CAUGHT? That's something I would expect from me, not you.
>
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
I do not advocate doing wrong. I am simply saying that sometimes the system
may be in the wrong and you have to beat it to do the right thing. Sometimes
what you may consider to be the right thing may land you in big trouble, and in
that case, you should be prepared beforehand and not get caught. (As an
example take a Soviet dissident about ten years back or a Chinese dissident
nowadays.)
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: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
In-Reply-To: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil's message of 21 Nov 91 19:39:59 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
<9111212040.AA04961@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 01:29:47 GMT
RFS> == Robert F Solon
CK> == Carl M. Kadie
CK> The Boston University's [Office of] Information Technology says: "[You
CK> must not] transmit[] or mak[e] accessible offensive [...] material."
CK> [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu]
RFS> Of course a careful perusal of the above quotations reveals that
RFS> receipt of potentially offensive material is not discouraged;
RFS> rather, the deliberate trnasmission from a specific user that is
RFS> offensive is what is apparently intended. I don't believe the
RFS> policies even imply that access to online catalogs or other media
RFS> should be restricted if the media contains potentially offensive
RFS> material. I'm not sure what the assertion is based on. It
RFS> certainly doesn't seem to be supported by the facts.
Boston University's policy, as quoted above, says that merely making the
material accessible is a violation. On a Unix system, that would imply
that you could be in trouble for not removing read permission for
"other" on a file that merely contained the words "fuck you".
Certainly *some* entry in Boston U.'s card catalog will offend someone.
(Hey, go look for yourself; just telnet to library.bu.edu.)
If you pissed off enough of the "powers that be," you probably would get
in trouble for merely "making accessible" a file that someone could
construe as offensive. If you didn't, well, you probably wouldn't. If
you're the library system, well, hey, IT doesn't run that machine anyway
;-) Selective enforcement is, as usual, alive and well.
--Chris
--
Christopher Davis | WEIRD QUOTES OF THE WEEK:
System Manager & Postmaster | "Carpe grepem."
Electronic Frontier Foundation | "Seize the WAIS?"
+1 617 864 0665 NIC: [CKD1] | -- two overworked technodweebs
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov22.034123.23111@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> <9111212040.AA04961@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 03:41:23 GMT
>> The Boston University's [Office of] Information Technology says: "[You
>> must not] transmit[] or mak[e] accessible offensive [...] material."
>> [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu]
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
[...]
>Of course a careful perusal of the above quotations reveals that
>receipt of potentially offensive material is not discouraged;
[...]
The library catalog system itself violates the Boston University
rules.
- 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: Re; Brack Expulsion: What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov22.034601.23270@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 03:46:01 GMT
[Posted for the author - Carl]
In article <89FRBB10w164w@mantis.co.uk> (VALIS) write:
> > From brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu Wed Nov 20 12:20:39 1991
> > I made one post wherein I used the word f*ck.
>
> In three-inch-high banner letters, as I recall. Wasn't the entire
> message "F*ck you, Oleg"?
While 3" might be a slight exaggeration, I did 'banner' my message.
>
> > I admit it wasn't a good idea, but
> > I don't believe it was infantile.
>
> Well, it certainly wasn't going to win you the Booker Prize.
>
Have you considered that I might have been provoked just a little bit?
I never claimed it was a good idea, just that it wasn't a punishable
offense under OSU's rules.
>
> mathew
--
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: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID:
Date: 22 Nov 91 05:14:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: morganuc.JGREELY.91Nov22001421
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
Sender: news@cis.ohio-state.edu (NETnews )
In-Reply-To: kadie@eff.org's message of 21 Nov 91 18: 23:40 GMT
Originator: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu
In article <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Universities that prohibit offensive expression in computer media, may
>be prohibiting on-line searches of library catalogs.
It seems more likely that Carl Kadie is hunting for more windmills to
tilt at.
>It looks like Boston University and Ohio State University will need to
>cut their connections to on-line catalogs.
How do you get to this based on the policies of one group (ACS) at
OSU? I am aware of no university-wide computer policies on possibly-
offensive speech, not to mention a university-wide restriction to
"PG-rated" information sources (PC-rated, maybe :-)).
>Ohio State University, in at least one case, characterized the the
>phrase "fuck you" as obscene and brought a student up on charges for
>posting it. [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/brack@ohio-state.edu]
Quite a leap, Carl. Did you remember to grab a parachute? Although I
would not agree that shouting "fuck you" in a crowded room should be
an actionable offense (if, in fact, it was in this instance), I don't
see how you manage to convert this into a university policy on all
methods of electronic distribution of the word "fuck".
"I don't say 'fuck' because it shocks
people, I say it because it doesn't
shock *me*."
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
From: FFDMG@ALASKA.BITNET (Dean Gottehrer)
Subject: Administrative Remedies
Message-ID: <199111220743.AA04972@eff.org>
Sender: FFDMG%ALASKA.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 13:42:50 GMT
Steven Brack has discussed his plans to sue OSU even though he has not
appealed his dismissal through any administrative appeals process that
exists at OSU. A general principle of administrative law that exists in
this state and I suspect in others is that before you go to court you
have to exhaust your administrative remedies. That means you have to
appeal the situation through all of the administrative procedures
set up in the institutional process before the courts will accept your
case. I am no attorney (standard disclaimers), but Mr. Brack's attorney
will likely give him good advice on this subject and it may be that he
needs to appeal through the administrative process before he can head
to court. There are, however, exceptions to that rule. I'd be interested
in hearing from Mr. Brack what his attorney tells him on this point.
The reason courts have held that is that the institution needs to be
given every opportunity to follow its own process and correct its
mistakes before a court steps in to tell it what to do or not do.
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
From: FFDMG@ALASKA.BITNET (Dean Gottehrer)
Subject: Re: Plagiarism, was Re: U. of Deleware computer policies
Message-ID: <199111220756.AA05308@eff.org>
Sender: FFDMG%ALASKA.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu
Date: 21 Nov 91 13:56:03 GMT
Wes Morgan and others have discussed the question of what is plagiarism
in the context of computers and computer programs, especially in coursework.
I think it would help in thinking this through that the essence of the
difference between plagiarism and research is attribution. All scholars--
well, most at the very least and very likely all--build on the work of
those who have gone before them. Is you use the work of another in your
work, it is plagiarism if you don't tell the reader that you have used
the work of the other. If you tell the reader whose work you have used,
it is scholarship. Publication and coursework are the two areas where
this is important. In my courses, when I taught in areas where the danger
of plagiarism existed I made it a point to instruct students in what was
acceptable and what was not. In some instances I was willing to accept
work that was begun elsewhere, in another class say, as long as new work
was added to it in mine. In other classes, I was not. Depended on the
instructional objectives. Faculty have an obligation, I believe, to make
the rules clear. This is a principle we have discussed ad nauseum in
Mr. Brack's situation outside of the classroom. I believe it applies
equally inside the classroom. If my students were any indication, the days
have passed when a professor could assume that his students knew what
was plagiarism and what was not. Nevertheless, I did once flunk a
journalism student in an advanced writing course who copied wholesale
from a university publication and claimed that he did not know this was
plagiarism. I thought that unforgivable in someone who sought to earn his
livelihood where putting words together was his stock in trade and stealing
those someone else had put together was a metaphoric felony offense.
In the example from Bob Solon, here's what he wrote:
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
>>- working together on an assignment, sharing the computer files
>>or programs involved, and then submitting individual copies of the
>>assignment as your own individual work
Note that there was collaboration and then individuals submitted that as
their own work. If the professor did not prohibit collaboration or even
encouraged it (I have done both), then the offense was in presenting
work developed in a group as your own.
To paraphrase a saying of a former prof of mine, the three most important
things to remember about avoiding plagiarism are attribution, attribution
and attribution.
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Reply from Boston U. Wanted! Was: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <9111221344.AA12143@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
References: <1991Nov22.034123.23111@eff.org>
Date: 22 Nov 91 12:44:05 GMT
>
> >> The Boston University's [Office of] Information Technology says: "[You
> >> must not] transmit[] or mak[e] accessible offensive [...] material."
> >> [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu]
>
> nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
> [...]
> >Of course a careful perusal of the above quotations reveals that
> >receipt of potentially offensive material is not discouraged;
> [...]
>
> The library catalog system itself violates the Boston University
> rules.
>
> - Carl
>
Really, Carl, I think you're reaching on this one.But to be fair,
let's ask:
Can any reader associated with Boston University confirm or
deny Carl's interpretation of the the above quotation from the B.U.
Office of Information Technology?
Bob
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov22.155626.11919@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 15:56:26 GMT
In article <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
[...]
>It looks like Boston University and Ohio State University will need to
>cut their connections to on-line catalogs.
[...]
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>How do you get to this based on the policies of one group (ACS) at
>OSU? I am aware of no university-wide computer policies on possibly-
>offensive speech, not to mention a university-wide restriction to
>"PG-rated" information sources (PC-rated, maybe :-)).
[...]
>Quite a leap, Carl. Did you remember to grab a parachute? Although I
>would not agree that shouting "fuck you" in a crowded room should be
>an actionable offense (if, in fact, it was in this instance), I don't
>see how you manage to convert this into a university policy on all
>methods of electronic distribution of the word "fuck".
[...]
A student was accused by the University (not by ACS) of obscenity for
transmitting the phrase "fuck you". To quote the so-called charges:
" 2. You allegedly posted an obscene message on a bulletin board and
copied it to several other networks. The contents of the message
was [sic] in conflict with established standards of practice for
most of the additional networks."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/brack@ohio-state.edu]
As far as I know Ohio State University has no written rules on this
matter, so it is impossible to know for sure what is and is not
allowed. A reasonable person, however, might conclude:
* OSU considers the phrase "fuck you" obscene (not just offensive).
* OSU thinks that the phrase violates the standards of networks
(NSFnet?).
* OSU will enforce what it thinks are the standards of networks.
* OSU considers the offensive actionable.
We can't know for sure (because there is no written policy), but a
reasonable person might conclude that OSU prohibits the transmission
of the phrase "fuck you" on networks. The only way avoid such
transmission to cut OSU off from on-line searches of library catalogs.
I'm not saying that OSU is right or legal (in fact, I think it is
wrong and illegal). I'm not saying that they actually will cut off
their connection to library catalogs. What I'm claiming is:
Consistent application of unwritten OSU policies can reasonably be
construed prohibit access to on-line library catalogs.
- 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.
--------------------
--
| 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 24 06:14:34 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA07775
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 11:14:42 -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, 24 Nov 1991 11:14:34 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199111241614.AA07766@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Nov 24 11:13:25 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: Reply from Boston U. Wanted! Was: Re: Schools that ou
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.cwis-l) Privacy rights of CWIS end users
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsa : Re: Reply from Boston U. Wanted! Was: Re: Schools that ou
marchany@vtserf.cc : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Reply from Boston U. Wanted! Was: Re: Schools that ou
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalo
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: "Acceptable Use" Policies. Why doe
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
kadie@eff.org (Car : Abstract of CAF-News 01.38
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
jones@pyrite.cs.ui : The dread F word
sean@sdg.dra.com : Re: (eff.mail.cwis-l) Privacy rights of CWIS end users
jgreely@morganucod : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
sct@po.cwru.edu (S : Re: Finger & Liberty
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: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
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: Reply from Boston U. Wanted! Was: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov22.160921.12252@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov22.034123.23111@eff.org> <9111221344.AA12143@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 16:09:21 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> The Boston University's [Office of] Information Technology says: "[You
> must not] transmit[] or mak[e] accessible offensive [...] material."
> [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu]
[...]
> The library catalog system itself violates the Boston University
> rules.
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
> Can any reader associated with Boston University confirm or
>deny Carl's interpretation of the the above quotation from the B.U.
>Office of Information Technology?
The question is not just whether the no-on-line-catalogs
interpretation is right or wrong. We must also ask if it is
reasonable.
If the no-on-line-catalogs interpretation is wrong *and* reasonable,
Boston University needs to rewrite its policy so that the
interpretation is made unreasonable.
- 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: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Privacy rights of CWIS end users
Message-ID: <199111221732.AA14053@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 22 Nov 91 07:32:37 GMT
From: updegrove@a1.relay.upenn.edu (Dan Updegrove)
Subject: Privacy rights of CWIS end users
Message-ID: <199111221525.AA11205@eff.org>
Date: 22 Nov 91 05:02:01 GMT
As part of the final preparations before rolling out PennInfo, the
University of Pennsylvania's CWIS, we have been concerned about assuring
the end user community that their individual use of the system would in no
way be monitored. At the same time, we wished to disclose that each session
will leave some trace in log files, such that aggregate usage statistics
could be compiled and bugs fixed.
To this end, we have drafted and received approval from our General
Counsel's office for the following document to be added to the "About
PennInfo" folder. We would be interested in any comment on the document,
general issues of privacy-vs.-instrumentation, and experiences with such
issues in actual CWIS practice.
Thanks,
Dan Updegrove
Assistant Vice Provost
Privacy Rights of PennInfo End Uses
The University of Pennsylvania is committed to protecting the
privacy rights of individuals who access PennInfo. As a matter of
policy, no one will be authorized to make any attempt to determine
how any individual uses PennInfo or peruses certain documents.
Users should be advised, however, that log files are maintained to
enable the Office of Information Systems and Computing (ISC) to
diagnose technical problems and monitor overall system usage. It
will be possible, for example, to determine how many times each
document is accessed and the average duration of PennInfo sessions.
The individual log files provide no way to determine who accesses
any given document. Log files and PennInfo system software are
maintained on a tightly-secured computer, and only properly-
authorized ISC staff have login priveleges on this computer.
Questions or concerns about PennInfo privacy protection should be
addressed to _____ .
-------------------
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Reply from Boston U. Wanted! Was: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <9111221802.AA24106@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Sender: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
References: <1991Nov22.160921.12252@eff.org>
Date: 22 Nov 91 17:02:01 GMT
>
> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> The question is not just whether the no-on-line-catalogs
> interpretation is right or wrong. We must also ask if it is
> reasonable.
>
> If the no-on-line-catalogs interpretation is wrong *and* reasonable,
> Boston University needs to rewrite its policy so that the
> interpretation is made unreasonable.
>
Pardon me?
Carl,
It's your interpretation of the B.U. policy fragment which is
unreasonable, not the policy itself.
Bob
--
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Directorate of Resource Management Systems (APCAPS)
DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-BCC (614) 238-8256 AV: 850-8256
-------------------
From: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <2800@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 91 18:03:56 GMT
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> <1991Nov22.155626.11919@eff.org>
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
In article <1991Nov22.155626.11919@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In article <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
>Kadie) writes:
>A student was accused by the University (not by ACS) of obscenity for
>transmitting the phrase "fuck you". To quote the so-called charges:
>" 2. You allegedly posted an obscene message on a bulletin board and
> copied it to several other networks. The contents of the message
> was [sic] in conflict with established standards of practice for
> most of the additional networks."
> [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/brack@ohio-state.edu]
>As far as I know Ohio State University has no written rules on this
>matter, so it is impossible to know for sure what is and is not
>allowed. A reasonable person, however, might conclude:
>* OSU considers the phrase "fuck you" obscene (not just offensive).
>* OSU thinks that the phrase violates the standards of networks
>* OSU will enforce what it thinks are the standards of networks.
>* OSU considers the offensive actionable.
>We can't know for sure (because there is no written policy), but a
>reasonable person might conclude that OSU prohibits the transmission
>of the phrase "fuck you" on networks. The only way avoid such
>transmission to cut OSU off from on-line searches of library catalogs.
>Consistent application of unwritten OSU policies can reasonably be
>construed prohibit access to on-line library catalogs.
I believe the ABSENCE of a statement would also lead me to conclude that
the exact opposite of your conclusions is true. Besides, your
conclusions would seem to violate the ALA guidelines which you posted
in earlier messages to this group.
I think this whole thread started out stretched way beyond the
point of absurdity. The whole issue here is CONTEXT. As
you are well aware, you have to look at the context of the entire
situation where the "fuck you" appeared before you can jump to such an
extreme conclusion regarding online library searches. As I mentioned in
a previous post to this thread, the appearance of the word "fuck" in
a library search is far different in context/intent than it appearing in
not quite 3" banner form in a usenet message. First of all, there had to
be a complaint about the message which makes sense in a Usenet-type
environment. but surely doesn't make sense from a library search
scenario. I seriously doubt that someone who does a library search
and comes across the word "fuck" in an entry is going to complain about
it being there. The response would be something on the order of the
old joke, "doctor, it hurts when I move my arm. Well, don't move your
arm, son." ,i.e., don't look up those entries if they bother you.
If OSU considers the phrase used in the ORIGINAL CONTEXT offensive, who
are we to judge them? If OSU thinks the phrase (used in that CONTEXT,
which is the point I think you missed) violates the standards of network
"standards", who are we (from the outside) to judge? If they consider
the action to be a no-no, we can't stop them from thinking that.
If their user community agrees to abide by these dictums, who are we
to judge whether or not they had a choice. They most certainly do as
do all of our users.
I think this whole issue clearly demonstrates the need for sites to have
a policy (that will be modified with time), the need to educate our
respective user communities on the ETHICS and responsibilities to the
network community as a whole and the need to take each transgression on
a case by case approach and not generalize to ridiculous extremes.
-Randy Marchany
INTERNET: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Reply from Boston U. Wanted! Was: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov22.184055.15579@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov22.160921.12252@eff.org> <9111221802.AA24106@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 18:40:55 GMT
nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:
[...]
>It's your interpretation of the B.U. policy fragment which is
>unreasonable, not the policy itself.
[...]
As specified in the first note, the full policy is available via
anonymous ftp as ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/polices/bostonu.edu. In
addition, it is available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send other-comp-policies bostonu.edu.
The full rule is:
5. You must not use the system irresponsibly, or needlessly affect
the work of others. This includes transmitting or making accessi-
ble offensive, annoying or harassing material; intentionally dam-
aging the system; intentionally damaging information not belonging
to you; or intentionally misusing system resources or allowing
misuse of system resources by others.
I argue that:
1) The rule clearly says that making offensive material accessible is
irresponsible (and/or needlessly affects the work of others). And that
such irresponsibility is prohibited.
2) If it is irresponsible and bad for a user to make offensive
material available, then it is at least as as irresponsible and bad
for the University to make offensive material available.
3) By the criteria use by the FCC and the Supreme Court, the titles of
some books are offensive.
4) Therefore, the Boston University should either change its policy or
stopping making library catalogs available.
If you think this augment is unreasonable, please specify how.
- 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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov22.183858.26504@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> <1991Nov22.155626.11919@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 18:38:58 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>It looks like Boston University and Ohio State University will need to
>>cut their connections to on-line catalogs.
>
>As far as I know Ohio State University has no written rules on this
>matter, so it is impossible to know for sure what is and is not
>allowed. A reasonable person, however, might conclude:
>
>* OSU considers the phrase "fuck you" obscene (not just offensive).
>* OSU thinks that the phrase violates the standards of networks
>(NSFnet?).
>* OSU will enforce what it thinks are the standards of networks.
>* OSU considers the offensive actionable.
>
How about appending the phrase "when applied to individuals" to these
four statements? I don't think that OSU claims to forbid the use of
a particular word, merely its use as an imperative.
There is a major difference between:
"'F*** you' is the title of a book in the library"
and
"F*** you, Wes Morgan"
The former is merely a statement of fact, while the latter is intended
for and directed to an individual. There is a HUGE difference, wouldn't
you agree?
>We can't know for sure (because there is no written policy), but a
>reasonable person might conclude that OSU prohibits the transmission
>of the phrase "fuck you" on networks.
When it is applied to or directed toward an individual, perhaps.
>The only way avoid such
>transmission to cut OSU off from on-line searches of library catalogs.
This is a moot point, since the library catalogs are statements of fact
rather than personal attacks.
>What I'm claiming is:
>Consistent application of unwritten OSU policies can reasonably be
>construed prohibit access to on-line library catalogs.
I honestly believe that you're grasping at straws, Carl; I don't think
your interpretation is reasonable.
--
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@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: "Acceptable Use" Policies. Why does everyone want one?
Message-ID: <9111221917.AA29866@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 22 Nov 91 07:17:14 GMT
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: "Acceptable Use" Policies. Why does everyone want one?
Message-ID: <3856@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 20 Nov 91 16:19:35 GMT
In article brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
| Sounds great, but impossible. Scheduling conflicts, getting someone
| to agree to teach it, having people go and not skip it (I'd skip it),
| time (what if someone needs to do work right away -- a paper during
| the first week of classes?). The problems are tremendous with such an
| idea, as good as the idea is.
A card carrying CANT, full of reasons why a good idea can't be don't.
Administrators should start solving the problem, not defining why it
can't be solved.
In this case the problem is NOT getting the students to attend a
lecture, it's getting them to understand the information. Therefore you
have an ethics quiz for students which must be taken before they get
computer access. Then offer the lecture and put out a booklet on the
info. Charge enough for each to recover the costs.
You have no trouble making classes impossible to pass without buying a
textbook, why do you have a thing about having an ethics exam before
getting computer access?
Once you identify the problem (training needed) the students will
solve the how. Frats will have cram sessions, CS majors will trade
tutoring for beer, used copies of the notes will be sold in the free
market, etc. If you stop trying to define the solution and stick to the
problem, survival and greed instincts kick in and the problem gets
multiple solutions.
Sorry if this is long, and don't take it as personal, I'm just fed up
with management, administration, and politicians telling me the problem
can't be solved because their solution is unworkable.
--
bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
GE Corp R&D Center, Information Systems Operation, tech support group
Moderator comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 386-users digest.
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
-------------------
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <5E8556935E000B3D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 22 Nov 91 19:16:00 GMT
>Consistent application of unwritten OSU policies can reasonably be
>construed prohibit access to on-line library catalogs.
>
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
The above is an interesting sentence.
Consistent application of unwritten policy ????
Next you will be asking for a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment!!!
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 01.38
Message-ID: <1991Nov22.192050.16776@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 19:20:50 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News followings the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n38
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending November 17, 1991]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are about an article in the University of Illinois at C-U's
student newspaper. The article quoted a Computing Service Organization
sys admin as saying "if someone is caught using language that would be
vulgar or rude to a 'reasonable person,' the University steps in.".
1. (A student at U. of Illinois (me, in fact):) "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)." Enclosed are excerpts from University code.
2. The University sys admin says he was misquoted by the newspaper.
<1991Nov14.054421.24194@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Notes 3-4 are about speech restrictions at Iowa State University.
3. A sys admin at Iowa State says that they reprimanded a user for
saying, in effect, that someone should be dead. The user should not
have been punished. Rudeness is not a crime. Rude speech is generally
protected.
4. Iowa State University policy prohibits the sending of "rude"
material. This policy is very likely infringes on
Constitutionally-protected rights. References are enclosed.
<1991Nov14.203127.16256@eff.org>
Notes 5-6 are about Steven Brack and Ohio State University.
5. The Joint Statement says that the procedure for student appeals
'should be clearly formulated and communicated in advance.' Academic
Computing Services not only doesn't seem to notify users of their
right to appeal; it doesn't seem to recognize their right to appeal.
<1991Nov13.142722.13085@eff.org>
6. (Steven Brack:) "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." Enclosed is more information about what I did.
<1991Nov13.214531.2899@eff.org>
Note 7 is about Rice University's requirement that users obtain
permission before sending email or posting notes off-campus.
7. (University admin:) "The University wants some reasonable
acknowledgment that a user ... understands the responsibilities they
have as a user of the networks." The policy was created after a
student threatened to sue Rice for revoking his access. (Access was
revoked after someone threatened to sue Rice and the student over
email that the student sent.)
<9111122320.AA07027@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about the law.
8. According to a wire service report, a commercial BBS has dropped
all screening/censoring (including screening of off-topic notes)
because it feels that this will reduce its liability.
<1991Nov13.144642.13768@eff.org>
9. According to a newspaper story, a U.S. District Judge has told
Alabama A&M that it's students (allegedly involved in a fight) 'must
be informed of specific charges against them and given the names of
those who are to testify against them.'
<1991Nov15.212358.28314@eff.org>
Notes 10-11 are about system administration.
10. (A user:) "If the users software interferes with the running of
the lab, he/she is warned about it, & continues to do it, then your
solution [ordering the user to stop] seems the only one available."
<9111152223.AA19536@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
11. (A sys admin:) Enclosed are three steps that would improved
user/sys admin communications. One of the steps is to reduce
the user-admin ratio at large sites.
<9A03910890421012@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Notes 12-13 are about policy making.
12. Instead of a list of Acceptable Use polices, we should have a list
of Unacceptable uses. I am appalled by the idea that I must beg
permission for anything not on the list of Acceptable Uses.
<9111162029.AA27328@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
13. (The creator of first "finger" service:) "A missing feature in
finger is anonymity for those who wish it." I didn't think do add it.
<1991Nov15.221601.2527@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie.
It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial
decisions I make are my own.
--
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: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov22.195838.17940@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> <1991Nov22.155626.11919@eff.org> <2800@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 19:58:38 GMT
marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
[...]
>I believe the ABSENCE of a statement would also lead me to conclude that
>the exact opposite of your conclusions is true. Besides, your
>conclusions would seem to violate the ALA guidelines which you posted
>in earlier messages to this group.
[...]
Since the application of the unwritten so-called obscenity rule to
Steven Brack was likely a violation of law, there is no reason to
think that OSU would find ALA policy constraining.
[...]
>The whole issue here is CONTEXT.
[...]
>First of all, there had to
>be a complaint about the message which makes sense in a Usenet-type
>environment. but surely doesn't make sense from a library search
>scenario. I seriously doubt that someone who does a library search
>and comes across the word "fuck" in an entry is going to complain about
>it being there.
Does a phrase any less obscene because no one complains?
People did complain about the word "fuck" in Merriam-Webster
dictionary. Complaining about a library catalog is no less far
fetched. Are you suggesting that if one person does complain then its
OK to cut off access to library catalogs?
I also suspect that context is the issue. I think it might go
something like this:
1) In the context where the "obscenity" comes from a powerful person
or institution, ignore it.
2) In the context where the "obscenity" comes from a weak person who
we find obnoxious, press charges.
[...]
>If OSU considers the phrase used in the ORIGINAL CONTEXT offensive, who
>are we to judge them?
[..]
OSU didn't say the phrase was offensive. It said that it was obscene.
OSU is a public institution and a university. As citizens and scholars
it is our duty to defend the Constitution and academic freedom.
- 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: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov22.201056.18184@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org> <1991Nov22.155626.11919@eff.org> <1991Nov22.183858.26504@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 20:10:56 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>How about appending the phrase "when applied to individuals" to these
>four statements? I don't think that OSU claims to forbid the use of
>a particular word, merely its use as an imperative.
How can we know one way or the other? Is the phrase less "obscene"
because it is not addressed to a specific individual?
[...]
>There is a major difference between:
> "'F*** you' is the title of a book in the library"
>and
> "F*** you, Wes Morgan"
>The former is merely a statement of fact, while the latter is intended
>for and directed to an individual. There is a HUGE difference, wouldn't
>you agree?
[...]
As far as I know, Oleg did not complain. I would think that to anyone
but Oleg, the phrase "F*** you" would be more offensive than "F***
you, Oleg". (Also, I don't the addition or removal of "Oleg" changes
the obsceneness of the phrase at all.)
- 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: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: The dread F word
Message-ID: <9271@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 91 20:21:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: ns-mx.9271
References: <1991Nov22.183858.26504@ms.uky.edu>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
by morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan):
>
> There is a major difference between:
> "'F*** you' is the title of a book in the library"
> and
> "F*** you, Wes Morgan"
This is an interesting and useful statement. An interesting consequence
of this is that if I use the imperitive form, by typing:
"F*** you, Doug Jones"
It would seem to be just as bad as if I typed it out explicitly:
"Fuck you, Doug Jones"
The sentiment is exactly the same, and the use of *** to avoid actually
spelling out the forbidden word does little to hide its meaning or
diminish its impact.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Subject: Re: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Privacy rights of CWIS end users
Message-ID: <1991Nov22.141845.72@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 22 Nov 91 14:18:45 CST
References: <199111221732.AA14053@eff.org>
In article <199111221732.AA14053@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> As part of the final preparations before rolling out PennInfo, the
> University of Pennsylvania's CWIS, we have been concerned about assuring
> the end user community that their individual use of the system would in no
> way be monitored. At the same time, we wished to disclose that each session
> will leave some trace in log files, such that aggregate usage statistics
> could be compiled and bugs fixed.
This is really an issue of attitude and trust. Most automated library catalogs
have the capability of doing fairly extensive logging of how the catalog is
used (the logs often include what, when, where, but usually not who, or why).
The people running the library systems have the attitude that this information
should not be used to track individual use, and have historically resisted
attempts to do so.
How much trust people have that their privacy will be preserved when using
PennInfo will depend on the behavior of the people running PennInfo. For
example, although the log files may not include "who," it is sometimes
possible to combine the data with other information to recreate the
where + when + who = what.
The PennInfo user has to trust that the PennInfo manager (and on up the chain
to the University trustees) won't allow that to happen.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
-------------------
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
In-Reply-To: kadie@eff.org's message of Fri, 22 Nov 1991 15: 56:26 GMT
Message-ID:
Originator: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu
Sender: news@cis.ohio-state.edu (NETnews )
References: <1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
<1991Nov22.155626.11919@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 21:11:04 GMT
In article <1991Nov22.155626.11919@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>A student was accused by the University (not by ACS) of obscenity for
>transmitting the phrase "fuck you".
I was under the impression (based on what may or may not be the actual
charges) that he was accused of violating ACS policy on transmitting
"obscenity". I don't see how ruling that a stated policy was violated
automatically translates to expanding that policy to cover all
electronic distribution of information for the entire university.
>* OSU considers the phrase "fuck you" obscene (not just offensive).
By the way, the aforementioned "Fuck You" is present in the OSU
library system, which is accessible from the Internet...
>* OSU thinks that the phrase violates the standards of networks
>(NSFnet?).
Quite possibly. I don't know if OARnet has adopted the proposed
policies which include forbidding transmission of "obscene, harassing,
or threatening" materials.
>* OSU will enforce what it thinks are the standards of networks.
OARnet members are required to enforce OARnet policies, and I believe
most regionals work the same way. Since most network policies are
left intentionally vague, enforcing them can be tricky.
"Obscenity is the crutch of
the inarticulate motherfucker."
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
From: sct@po.cwru.edu (Stephen Trier)
Subject: Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9111230139.AA13671@cwns4.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Sender: sct@pop.cwru.edu
References: sct@po.cwru.edu (Stephen Trier)
Date: 23 Nov 91 00:39:08 GMT
CWRU's finger service (for the campus-wide ID's only) does support varying
degrees of anonymity. For example, typing "finger sct@po.cwru.edu" gives
lots of information about me, but typing "finger dwn@po.cwru.edu" reveals
nothing about my roommate save that he exists. CWRU's whois service
gives only name, phone number, and user ID. By comparison, the University
phone book from which the whois database is generated also includes campus
address, home address, and home phone number.
Both services were designed this way because of a single (very loud!)
complaint received last year, from a user who felt the "Last Read Mail"
field of finger's output was an invasion of privacy.
--
Stephen Trier "Seattle-based Boeing is part of an international group
sct@po.cwru.edu of major aircraft manufacturers studying the next SCT
design." - UPI
"What? I'm obsolete already?" - me
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov23.184249.14357@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov13.215045.3194@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 18:42:49 GMT
Here is some more information about the "elements of the charges" and
"issuance of findings" for formal administrative hearing. It comes
from a great book:
_School Discipline and Student Rights: an advocate's manual_ by
Paul Weckstein, revised edition, 1982, Center for Law and
Education.
The books is 5 1/2 by 11 and over 500 pages long. It is encyclopedic,
listing and summarizing almost every case on this topic.
p. 397
------------begin quote------------
Elements of the Charges
One common formulation is "the specific charges and grounds which if
proven, would justify expulsion [or suspension under the regulations
of the Board of Education."
[references to four cases: three high school and one college]
Even this, however, probably does not supply enough guidance as to the
meaning of "charges." A break down into (a) the alleged facts or acts
of the students and (b) the regulations which such acts are claimed to
violate would better indicate the comments of the charge. See, for
example, _Mills v. Board of Education, supra_ ("state specific, clear
and full reason for the proposed action, including the specification
of the alleged act upon which the disciplinary action is based and the
reference to the regulation subsection under which such action is
proposed").
------------end quote----
p. 456
---- being quote--------
Right to Written Findings of Fact, Reasons, Etc.
Courts have generally held that students are entitled to written
findings of fact, at least for long-term discipline, and have
sometimes required additional detail, in terms of reasons, references
to evidence etc. See, for example:
[18 references for, 1 against]
------end quote---------
--
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: <1991Nov23.190239.14673@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov13.215045.3194@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 19:02:39 GMT
Here is some information from
_The Redefinition of the Exclusionary Rule as to Student Procedural
Due Process in High Education_. A monograph from the Office of the
General Counsel [of Southern Illinois University] by Dr. Larry L.
French, General Counsel, 1977.
------------begin-----
Introduction
The debate whether education is a right or privilege, is no long a
subject of controversy, because the student's right to the benefit of
a state educational system is an interest protected by the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution{1}.
[...]
The "exclusionary rule", as defined herein, pertains to any policy
from which a violation of, could result in exclusion from school
either on a temporary or permanent basis.
[...]
The landmark decision of _Dixon v. Alabama State Board of
Education_{4} remains as the basic authority providing students in
higher education the right to appropriate due process protection in
disciplinary proceedings which involve long term suspension or
expulsion (dismissal). Such due process means any accused student must
be given adequate notice and an opportunity for hearing _prior to_ the
initial disposition of his case.
[...]
Although the facts of [_Goss v. Lopez_{5}] were directed at the
secondary level of public education, they are as well applicable to
proceedings in high education, both as to academic and non-academic
matters.
[...]
As to what constitutes proper notice of charges, it may be said that a
student must be given, at a time reasonably prior to the commencement
of the proceedings, a written statement in which the charges are
explicitly set forth as well as the the specific ground or grounds,
which if proven, would justify the penalty commensurate with the
violation.
[...]
[References]
{1} _Board of Regents v. Roth_, 92 Supreme Court 2701 (1972).
{4} 294 F2d 150 (5th Circuit, 1961) cert. den.
{5} 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
---- end quote----
--
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: <1991Nov23.193050.15133@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov13.215045.3194@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 19:30:50 GMT
Here is information from another monograph:
_Procedural due process guidelines for disciplinary hearings resulting
in suspension or expulsion in higher education_ by Ernest T. Buchanan
III. Published by Education/Law Research Associates, 1972
[...]
6. Notification of Charges and of the Hearing
[...]
The notice of charges must identify the person against whom charges
are bing brought, describe the proscribed conduct, set forth the text
of university regulations upon which the charges are based,{56} and
conclude with the statement that the described conduct is believed to
violate the cited regulations.
[...]
12. Findings of Fact and Violation; Determination of Guilt
or Innocence; Notification of Decision
Once the evidentiary hearing has been completed, the recording of the
proceeding should be reviewed, and a written set of findings of fact
should be prepared by the chairman of the board or the hearing
examiner.{72}
[...]
These findings of fact, together with the record of the testimony given
at the hearing, are used by the fact finder to determine whether or
not the student is guilty or innocent of the conduct charged.
[...]
Findings of fact, the determination of guilt or innocence, and the
penalty, if any, should be reduced to a written report, and this
report must be delivered to the student at the earliest possible
time.{77}
[References]
{56} _State ex rel Sherman_, p. 826; _Dixon_, 294 F. 2d 150, p. 158;
_Buttney, p. 288.
{72} _Speake_, 317 F. Supp. 1253, p. 1257; _Siegal_, p. 826;
_Esteban_, 277 F. Supp. 649, p. 651.
{77} _Speake_, 317 F. Supp. 1253, p. 1257; _Esteban_, 277 F. Supp.
649, p. 651. Examples of finding of fact are set out in _Wassoon, 284
F. Supp. 936, pp. 947-948; _Counts_, 312 F. Supp 598, p. 604.
--
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: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Nov23.232557.18832@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 23:25:57 GMT
[Posted for the author == Carl]
In article <1991Nov22.201056.18184@eff.org> Carl Kadie writes:
>
> As far as I know, Oleg did not complain. I would think that to anyone
> but Oleg, the phrase "F*** you" would be more offensive than "F***
> you, Oleg". (Also, I don't the addition or removal of "Oleg" changes
> the obsceneness of the phrase at all.)
Oleg never made any complaint to OSU, as far as I know. From what
I've seen & heard of Oleg's posting "style," I don't think much of
anything would offend him. The only documented complaint I have
is from a professor of Mechanical Engineering who wished me cautioned
about using improper language in improper newsgroups.
--
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}. |
