From kadie Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 01, No. 37
[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]
In this issue:
Carl M. Kadie 211 >Ohio State ACS policy (wa<>XX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Carl M. Kadie 266 >Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS
Carl M. Kadie 46 >Rice University's Owlnet User Agreement
Joseph Watters 140 [comp.admin.policy] Rice <>Owlnet Disciplinary Procedures
Douglas Triggs 72 [comp.admin.policy] Re: R<> University Computing Policies
Douglas Triggs 42 >Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Craig S Nelson 58 [soc.women, et al.] Re: yahweh is good posting
Carl M. Kadie 71 interlibrary loan policy
Carl M. Kadie 63 >
Brack 98 Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Carl M. Kadie 37 >
Carl M. Kadie 85 >
Brack 46 >Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Circulation: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Publication: Helen C. O'Boyle (helen@eff.org)
To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory
is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom README
Disclaimer: This CAF-news 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.
The addresses for the list are:
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
Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Ohio State ACS policy (was Re: Re; XXXXX Expulsion. What Happened?)
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.152336.10203@eff.org>
References: <91309.07: 56: 40.921770.NMETRO@ricevm1.rice.edu> <1991Nov7.153727.28800@eff.org> <1991Nov9.140334.9055@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 15:23:36 GMT
This is a critique of the policy that was just posted. It is an
expanded version of a critique that was posted in late July to
CAF-talk. It mentions no particular cases.
Everything in quotes ("") is from the Joint Statement on Rights and
Freedoms of Students.
> Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks
> The Office of Academic Computing
> The Ohio State University
> Approved June 6, 1990
No details are given as to how this policy was created. (Maybe someone
can post a note with this information.) A policy "should be developed
at each institution within the framework of general standards and with
the broadest possible participation of the members of the academic
community." In other words, this policy should be consistent with the
University's general policies and should be developed with the help of
the system's users.
>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.
Agreed.
>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.
The policy could be improved by mentioned that ACS will respect
the privacy and freedom of expression of its users.
> 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.
What is unreasonable? Who decides? Is any warning given?
> o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
> system.
What procedures? How are they decided? Are they posted?
>Those who cannot accept these standards of behavior may be denied access to
>the relevant computer systems and networks.
Will they be expelled from the computer forever? Can they ask for a
hearing? Are the standards every made explicit? Who decides that
the user cannot accept the standards? Is there any due process
build in? Are students told of their rights?
This policy lacks due process protections. The gist of the policy
seems to be that 'if we decide that you break a rule (that we created,
and you may not even know about), we can expel you from the computer
forever.'
Note that (at most schools) faculty can not (by themselves) expel a
students from a class. It would be very strange of nonacademic
University employees could (by themselves) expel students from a
computer.
Here are excerpts from the Joint Statement about due process.
" VI. Procedural Standards in Disciplinary
Proceedings
In developing responsible student conduct, disciplinary
proceedings play a role substantially secondary to
example, counseling, guidance, and admonition. At the same
time, educational institutions have a duty and the
corollary disciplinary powers to protect their educational
purpose through the setting of standards of scholarship and
conduct for the students who attend them and through
the regulation of the use of institutional facilities. In the
exceptional circumstances when the preferred means fail
to resolve problems of student conduct, proper procedural
safeguards should be observed to protect the student from
the unfair imposition of serious penalties."
"The jurisdictions of faculty or student judicial bodies,
the disciplinary responsibilities of institutional officials and the
regular disciplinary procedures, including the student's right to
appeal a decision, should be clearly formulated and communicated in
advance."
"In all situations, procedural fair play requires that the student be
informed of the nature of the charges against him, that he be given a
fair opportunity to refute them, that the institution not be arbitrary
in its actions, and that there be provision for appeal of a decision."
"The institution has an obligation to clarify those standards of
behavior which it considers essential to its educational mission and
its community life. [...] Offenses should be as clearly defined as
possible and interpreted in a manner consistent with the
aforementioned principles of relevance and reasonableness.
Disciplinary proceedings should be instituted only for violations of
standards of conduct formulated with significant student participation
[...]."
"2. Students detected or arrested in the course of serious violations
of institutional regulations, or infractions of ordinary law, should
be informed of their rights. No form of harassment should be used by
institutional representatives to coerce admissions of guilt or
information about conduct of other suspected persons."
"C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
Pending action on the charges, the status of a student
should not be altered, or his right to be present on the
campus and to attend classes suspended, except for
reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and
well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being
of students, faculty, or university property."
"When the misconduct may result in serious penalties and if the
student questions the fairness of disciplinary action taken against
him, he should be granted, on request, the privilege of a hearing
before a regularly constituted hearing committee."
The law on due process is explained in _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd
edition, by Louis Fischer, et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. (The
book is aimed at K-12 teachers). It says:
--- begin quote ---
On the other hand, oppressive, authoritarian procedures that do not
respect students' rights to know why they are being disciplined and do
not provide opportunities for students to present their defense in a
fair way are crumbling as a result of the application of the
Constitution to the schools. In sum, on may think of the right of due
process as applying to student disciplinary matters on a continuum
represented in the following diagram:
May act without due process:
Trivial or vary minor matters, or emergencies. The latter must be
followed by due process as soon as possible.
Some modicum of due process is necessary:
Disciplinary matters that may lead to short-term suspensions
or entry on the students' record.
Extensive, careful due process is required:
Disciplinary matters that may result in long-term suspension or
expulsion, or in a significant penalty such as a short suspension
during final exams.
---- end of quote ---
>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: ____________
The Univerisity should not (and likely, legally can't) require
computer users to sign a statement that impinges on the rights
guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and 14th Amendments.
In sum,
* There is no indication that the policy was created with user
participation.
* The policy lacks privacy and freedom of expression guarantees.
* The policy is vague. A user would have trouble guessing
if a particular action is acceptable.
* It seems to claim that the ACS staff does not need to follow due
process procedures to expel a user from the ACS computers. This gives
the ACS staff more power than professors to penalize students. (It
also gives them unchecked power to penalize faculty.)
* It asks users to sign away their rights.
This critique mentioned no particular cases; I look forward to a
vigorous defense of the policy by ACS (or ACS staff or others.)
- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Computer Use Policy of U. Texas Dept. of CS
Message-ID: <1991Nov5.023409.6759@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov5.011528.4635@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 02:34:09 GMT
This is a critique of the UT CS Computer Use Policy.
Overall, I think the UT policy is better than most, but in three
places I think it is too broad. (References given at the end.)
[...]
> The policy applies to all those who use CS computers. Depending on
> the seriousness of an offense, violation of the policy can result in
> penalties ranging from reprimand to loss of account to referral to
> University authorities for disciplinary action.
[...]
The procedure for computer expulsion should be detailed. Who decides
to apply expulsions? How can they be appealed? How can a formal
hearing be requested? [goss, constraints.constitutional,
constraints.contractual]
[...]
> User acknowledgment of this policy statement authorizes CS computer
> systems staff to examine the user's files if required as part of their
> official duties.
[...]
If you believe that academic freedom on computers is important, then
you might want to give computer files the same protection as
traditional files in University-assigned office space. In any case,
there should be protection against unreasonable searches. Making a
user sign a statement does not make an unreasonable search reasonable
(or legal.)
The policy is vauge. Who can authorize a search? For what reasons? Is
the user notified before the search? After? Ever? [cole-v-richardson,
constraints.constitutional, gillard-v-schmidt]
[...]
> Users of electronic mail and bulletin boards should avoid sending
> messages that are libelous, patently offensive, or that intimidate, threaten,
> demean, or harass individuals or groups, or that would otherwise bring
> discredit to the University or the Department.
[...]
This rule likely violates United States law. Most offensive speech,
demeaning speech, and speech that brings discredit to the department
is protected by academic freedom and the Constitution. University
speech restrictions like these are being overturned in the courts. The
rule probably also violates the University's general policy on freedom
of expression.
(Also, "group harassment" is an contradiction in terms.)
[uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin, constraints.constitutional,
constraints.contractual, doe-v-u-of-michigan, perry-v-perry,
rust-v-sullivan, san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd, stanley-v-magrath,
student-publications.control, student-publications.libel,
student-publications.sharp]
REFERENCES
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
caf-law
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).
=================
access.minors
=================
Comment from the ACLU's Handbook on the _Rights of Authors and
Artists_ (1984). It says that protecting minors was held to be an
inadequate justification for such a severe interference with adults'
First Amendment rights.
=================
bbs.kahn
=================
Full copy of "Defamation Liability of Computerized Bulletin Board
Operators and Problems of Proof" by John R. Kahn
=================
bbs.riddle
=================
Full copy of "THE ELECTRONIC PAMPHLET--COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS AND THE LAW"
by Michael H. Riddle
=================
brandenberg-v-ohio
=================
In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right
to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law.
It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10:
Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may
not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce
'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.'
=================
cole-v-richardson
=================
Comment from the ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_, revised
edition, by David Rubin, 1984, p.92. It says that there are legal
limits to what a (public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some
of these same limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to
sign as a condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
constraints.contractual
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).
=================
cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners
cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the
stories are false.
=================
doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
ecpa.1986
=================
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
gillard-v-schmidt
=================
Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could
not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant.
=================
goss
=================
Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer,
et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme
Court says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless
the matter is trivial or there is an emergency.
=================
meritor-v-vinson
=================
This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
university speech code decisions.
=================
perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
=================
privacy.email
=================
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex
=================
privacy.workplace
=================
Comments from and about _The new hazards of the high technology
workplace_ see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898. Talks about email
and other electronic monitoring.
=================
rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine.
=================
stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression."
=================
student-publications.control
=================
Comments from _School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ by Martha
M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. It says, in part, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper".
=================
student-publications.libel
=================
McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe on what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
student-publications.sharp
=================
A paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It says
that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the
First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
=================
uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
=================
=================
Last update
Mon Nov 4 20:00:45 EST 1991
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Rice University's Owlnet User Agreement
Message-ID:
Keywords: Rice University Owlnet user agreement
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <1991Nov8.205943.26769@rice.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 17:16:47 GMT
[I'm crossposting to both comp.admin.policy and
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk.]
In <1991Nov8.205943.26769@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph
A. Watters) writes:
>The following is the text of the user agreement that all account
>applicants electronically sign when applying for an account. All new
v>users are provided a paper copy of this agreement. Other
>organizations have permission to use portions of this text in their
>own agreements.
[...]
>6) You agree not to interfere with other users on this or any other
> networks which you access from this account.
This is vague.
>7) You understand that Owlnet system management reserves the right to
> examine any and all data and files that exist on the system, at any
> time, without your prior consent.
[...]
Is this consistent with the University's general privacy policy? How
does it compare to the privacy protection for personal files in
university-assigned space in an office, lab, or dormitory (for
example, files in a graduate student's desk)?
The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says "1. Except
under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied by students
and the personal possessions of students should not be searched unless
appropriate authorization has been obtained. For premises such as
residence halls controlled by the institution, an appropriate and
responsible authority should be designated to whom application should
be made before a search is conducted. The application should specify
the reasons for he search and the objects or information sought. The
student should be present, if possible, during the search. For
premises not controlled by the institution, the ordinary requirements
for lawful search should be followed."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Rice Univ, Owlnet Disciplinary Procedures
Message-ID: <9111091713.AA18825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 20:33:35 GMT
Per Carl Kadie's request, the following is Rice University's Owlnet
disciplinary action/due process procedures. There are three other
postings related to this one: Rice's appeal processes as listed in
its student handbook; Owlnet and Rice University computing policies;
and the Owlnet user's agreement that all users electronically sign
when applying for an Owlnet account.
Please keep in mind that the disciplinary procedures may change a bit
due to student input to be gathered in about a week, and they may also
change a bit due to comment/discussion on this newsgroup and from
information gathered from the draft Statement on Computers and
Academic Freedom.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Enforcement of Owlnet Policies
Levels of Disciplinary Action
Depending on the nature and severity of the policy violation, Owlnet
may take one or more of the following disciplinary actions:
Electronic mail warning (1 to 2)
Temporary access revocation (lockout) (up to 1 semester)
Severely restricted system usage (1 semester to until obtain degree)
Permanent access revocation
Alternative punishment not involving access or usage restrictions
If warranted, Owlnet will refer the case to an appropriate University,
Local, State, or Federal authority for further disposition.
General Enforcement Guidelines
Unless otherwise stated in a specific policy, the following enforcement
guidelines will be used by Owlnet management and administration in
dealing with policy violations:
For non-system security, integrity, or performance related incidents,
the user will generally receive at least one warning before a lockout.
However, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction, and/or
the generally recognized awareness level of the user, a lockout on the
first offense may be implemented. The purpose of the initial lockout
is to force the user to meet with the Director or Deputy Director
about the incident.
Suspected, attempted, or actual system security or integrity related
incidents will be addressed by immediate lockout followed by more
thorough investigation. The purpose of lockout in these cases is to
prevent further damage to the system or data, and to force the user to
meet with the Director or Deputy Director.
Demonstrated intent to violate policy will be considered the same as an
actual policy violation.
Violations or intended violations of University Appropriate Use of
Computers Policy will be considered violations of Owlnet policy as
well.
Notification of Infraction
Users who are locked out will be notified the next time they attempt to
access the system that they have been locked out, the specific incident
that led to the lockout, the policy that the incident violated, and any
further action they are expected to take, such as to meet with the
Director, Deputy Director, or Steering Committee. Users with a known
mailing address will be sent a written notification containing the same
information.
Disciplinary Process
Initial disciplinary action will be authorized or taken by the Director
or Deputy Director of Owlnet. A user who is locked out will normally
be directed to meet with the Director or Deputy Director regarding the
incident. The lockout will remain in effect at least until the user
meets with the Director or Deputy Director. Depending on the nature
and severity of the incident, the Director or Deputy Director may,
based on the information gathered in the meeting with the user, unlock
the account, impose additional punishment, and/or refer the case to the
Steering Committee, the University, Local, State, or Federal
authorities for disposition. Incidents where the recommended
punishment would be expected to result in severe academic consequences
for the student will be referred to the Steering Committee. Incidents
where it appears that University, Local, State, or Federal statutes or
regulations have been violated will be referred to the appropriate
authority for investigation and disposition.
For violations that do not require referral to other authorities, a
user has the right to a fair hearing by the Owlnet Steering Committee
concerning the policy violation and the disciplinary action taken. A
user may send a written statement concerning the incident to the Owlnet
Steering Committee by way of the Committee Chair, the Director of
Owlnet. If the user wishes to appear in person to the Owlnet Steering
Committee, this request should be given, in writing, to the Director or
Deputy Director, and a meeting with the Steering Committee will be
arranged. If appropriate, the user's faculty advisor or supervisor may
be informed of and involved in the Steering Committee review of the
incident. The Steering Committee will recommend punishment by the end
of the day of the hearing.
If a user is locked out for policy violations, the user may remain
locked out during the hearing process. Lockout time accrued prior to
and during the hearing process will be credited against the total
punishment imposed. After the hearing process has concluded, if a
student has suffered unwarranted academic consequences (i.e.
consequences that occur because the hearing process resulted in a
lockout that was longer than the punishment that was imposed) then the
Owlnet Steering Committee and/or the Committee on Examinations and
Standings will take steps to redress those consequences.
Appeal of Owlnet Disciplinary Actions
Given that disciplinary actions taken by Owlnet can result in
significant academic consequences for the affected student, appeals of
disciplinary actions should follow the procedures set forth in Section
XXXII, Student Grievance Procedures, of the Rice Student Handbook.
Disciplinary actions by Owlnet fall under part A, Academic Grievances.
If a user is locked out for policy violations, the user may remain
locked out during the appeal process. Lockout time accrued prior to
and during the appeal process will be credited against the total
punishment imposed. After the appeal process has concluded, if a
student has suffered unwarranted academic consequences (i.e.
consequences that occur because the appeal process resulted in a
lockout that was longer than the punishment that was imposed) then the
Owlnet Steering Committee and/or the Committee on Examinations and
Standings will take steps to redress those consequences.
END
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: doubt@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Douglas Benjamin Triggs)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies
Message-ID: <9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 08:49:07 GMT
In article <1991Nov9.062656.23834@ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>
> |The following are the current set of computing policies which Owlnet
> |users and/or Rice University users are expected to abide by.
>
> [policies deleted]
>
> With all due respect, I have never seen such an uptight, authoritarian
> unrealistic, and chilling set of rules in my computer career. I have a
> hard time believing any academic institution would dare embarrass
> itself by admitting to these rules.
(^: Geez, I feel much better now. I've been complaining about the
atmosphere around here for a while, and about the way the rules work.
Haven't complained too much directly to Joseph Watters, but as he said,
there's an open meeting coming up next Wednesday.
> Require permission ahead of time to send email or use ftp offsite?
> Lock accounts with no warning? My God, why not just shoot them in the
> head? It'd be kinder.
In one way, it isn't so bad. For the most part, the rules are not
enforced except when problems occur. But, as students, we don't know
when they will be enforced and when they won't. That makes it rather
oppressive, not to mention that despite Rice's rather better than
average facilities, we essentially are prohibited from doing anything at
all interesting, because it might interrupt with the "smooth" working of
the system.
If I wasn't already here, and didn't think Rice was such a damnfine place
to be, I'd much rather be someplace with a much better atmosphere even if
I had to give up the quality of facilities I have access to now.
> This is the 90s. Encourage use of the system! Encourage email and ftp
> and exploration. Don't hang a hundred rules over their heads. No small
> increase in orderliness will outweigh the chilling effect upon the
> users, both individually and collectively.
That's one problem I have with Owlnet. Creativity and exploration are
anything but encouraged. If you mess up, you get locked out. And the
whole attitude of people like Joseph Watters seems to be wholly
professional, wholly bureaucratic, and somewhat coldly legal.
> Perhaps we should rate the policies of various academic institutions
> and corporations. Rice would rate way way into the "unreasonable"
> category, especially where due process is involved.
Unreasonable? I wouldn't call it that. Oppressive to work under, yes.
> I wonder what user input was used in making those policies?
Beats me. We've been making a little noise lately, though, and we'll have to
see what comes of it. I doubt it will significantly change the underlying
organization of things, but it might help incrementally.
The phrase "though police" does get tossed about at times here, and it
applies to IS (Information Systems -- the umbrella over almost all of the
computer facilities here, unfortunately) as much as Owlnet (which is just the
undergraduate engineering network). Lots of ugly politics around here.
doubt
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "If I make it to breakfast, it probably means I haven't gone to sleep yet." |
+------------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| // Douglas Triggs | COMPUTER IS HUNGRY. | doubt@owlnet.rice.edu |
| \X/ GM # 8400000E | PLEASE FEED. | Rice University |
+------------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
Disclaimer: All opinions of Rice University are their own. (^:
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: doubt@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Douglas Benjamin Triggs)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.034938.7383@rice.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 1991 03:49:38 GMT
References: <1991Nov7.175433.17247@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Nov7.192212.6047@eff.org> <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu> <1991Nov07.231559.20273@eng.umd.edu> <1991Nov8.025634.28048@rice.edu>
Sender: news@rice.edu
Distribution: usa
In article <1991Nov8.025634.28048@rice.edu>, jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
> violation of stated Owlnet and University computing policies. Except
> in cases of violation of system security or integrity, users are
> generally given one or two warnings, usually written, on the first
> and/or second policy violation. Subsequent offenses of the same type
> are addressable by access denial. If a student is denied access, they
???
This doesn't seem to be quite the way it works here. I've been on the
recieving end of one of the "access denials," and wasn't wasn't given a
warning of any sort ahead of time, nor does this seem to be the general
practice. Of course, the reason given for my more or less immediate lockout
was that I knew what I was doing, which is true. (The violation was
not threatening the security of Owlnet in any way.)
> And by the way, Owlnet will be conducting an open meeting in a week or
> so where the student users will be able to give comment and input on
> the formulation of the internal Owlnet process. So we will have a
> policy and procedure that (hopefully) the students will find fair and
> reasonable also.
Some of us here see this as a sort of misdirection. (^: We made a big
ruckus recently about certain actions that the administration had
undertaken... And now they're holding a meeting for us. I must admit that
sort of thing that happened with the Brack expulsion seems to have never
really a possibility here. While we consider some of the policies of Owlnet
here to be somewhat braindead, no one is really too worried about being
unfairly wiped out by the Owlnet administration.
Owlnet here is somewhat responsive, but things could always be better...
doubt
--
#### No Bananas Allowed ################################# Banana Free .sig ####
# # # #
# // Douglas Triggs # COMPUTER IS HUNGRY. # doubt@owlnet.rice.edu #
# \X/ GM # 8400000E # PLEASE FEED. # Rice University #
###############################################################################
Disclaimer: It wasn't me... I matriculated LAST year...
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: Mortal@cup.portal.com (Craig Scott Nelson)
Subject: [soc.women, et al.] Re: yahweh is good posting
Message-ID: <9111071452.AA06180@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 5 Nov 91 07:07:41 GMT
First I want to state that I pay to access Usenet and I feel that it should
be an open forum for anyone to speak their mind. No Censorship at all.
What if the poster had been a woman? I know this seems impossible, but if it
had been a female law student who was seeing if she could push the bounds of
free speech on the net, wouldn't a post like the "Yahweh is Good" be the
perfect attention getter?
But unfortunately the poster is male, according to the sysop at the posters
site. He posted what he did to get attention and we, including my self, have
been suckered into it.
Mr Poster, I would like to know why you posted what you did and nothing else,
no add homen attacks, just your reasoning for posting what I would call
"junk without any redeeming purpose"?
The only problem he can't answer those questions because he has been censored
by his sysadmin for a while. I would want to hear him defend the junk he put
on here and not just be allowed to escape from his responsibility for posting
it.
Those women who received the post via email do have a case for sexual
harrassment. They should push those cases not the general post.
The analogy of the library is still valid. The net is like wandering around
the library and just picking up books bye looking at the titles on the spine.
Most libraries have different sections, reference, young adult, etc... If you
find a book out of place in the library what do you do?
A) You give it to the librarian and he/she puts it in the right place
B) You steal it and throw it away later
C) You rip it up right where you are.
Most people here I believe agree that A is the answer, this deserves to be
put in alt.sex.bondage.really.sick.stuff.
But unlike the library you have the C option with kill files. You can make it
never exist in your world. Most of the people are egocentric by saying that
they shouldn't have to be exposed to it. I am exposed to homeless people
everyday and I think I we shouldn't have to have homeless people in the
world. Or I hate nuclear bombs and I don't want my tax dollars going into
building offensive weapons of war.
Get Real, Life is full of stuff you that will offend you. I understand that
women have it a bit tougher than men. Why don't you fight back? Tired of
being made an object by construction workers, turn the tables with a group of
your friends and cat call the construction workers.
Got a little off the subject.
Censorship I feel is bad no matter what is being censored. The net has a
potential to put power into the common man's opinion. That power will be
abused but we have to put up with the kooks so that we can be free. Freedom
has its sacrifices. I will let myself be offended to keep myself free. I
really hate that guy who keeps posting the anti-Holocast stuff, but I feel he
has the right to post it as I have the right not to read it.
Thank you for listening
"Language is a Virus From Outer Space"- William S. Burroughs
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: interlibrary loan policy
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.210320.15630@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 21:03:20 GMT
About a month ago, we had a discussion that if a local computer site
is like a library, then maybe NSFnet is like an interlibrary loan
system. So, what are the approate/acceptable use polies for
interlibrary loan systems?
In article <1991Oct7.115649.39@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com wrote:
>For more information consult
>
> Boucher, Virginia. Interlibrary loan practices handbook. Chicago :
> American Library Association, c1984.
>
>
>excerpts from the National Interlibrary Loan Code (1980), a copy of which
>is found in an appendix in the book above.
>
>II. Purpose
>
>The purpose of interlibrary loan as defined in this code is to obtain, for
>research and serious study, library material not available through local,
>state, or regional libraries.
>
>IV. Responsibilities of Borrowing Libraries
>
> F. The borrowing library should carefully screen all requests for loans
> and reject any that do not conform to this code.
>
>
[...]
Here is a quote from another interlibrary loan policy in the same
book:
---begin--
Model Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or Other Special
Groups of Libraries
[...]
II. Purpose
The purpose of interlibrary loan as defined in this code is to obtain
library material not avalable in the local library.
[..]
III. Scope
Under the terms of this agreement, it is permissible to request on
interlibrary loan any type of library material [if they want libraries
can make an exception for items like rare books, etc - cmk]
[...]
Any member of the borrowing library's clientele should
be eligible for interlibrary loan.
-- end --
So, when does each policy apply?
The preface of the model code says:
"The 'Model Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or
Other Special Groups of Libraries' is intended to provide guidlines
fo
--
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: interlibrary loan policy
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.221534.17684@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov8.210320.15630@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 22:15:34 GMT
[I posted that last note before I finished it. Here is a
continuation.]
So, when does each policy apply?
The preface of the model code says:
"The 'Model Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or
Other Special Groups of Libraries' is intended to provide guidelines
for any group of libraries interested in developing an interlibary
loan code to met special needs. The Model Code, while complementing
the "National Interlibrary Loan Code, 1980" allows libraries more
flexibility and creativity in satisfying interlibrary loan needs in a
specific situation."
Here is the interlibrary for the National Interlibrary Loan Code, 1980:
"Interlibrary loan is essential to the vitality of libraries of all
types and sizes and is a means by which a wide range of material can
be made available to users. This code is designed primarily to
regulate lending relations between research libraries and between
libraries operating outside networks or consortia. It is recognized
that through specific agreements, libraries organized geographically,
by mutual subject interest, or other bases will have developed code of
their own. It is not the intent of this code to prescribe the nature
of interlibrary lending under such arrangements. (See 'Model
Interlibrary Loan Code for Regional, State, Local, or Other Special
Groups of Libraries').
So, if the NSFnet is like an interlibrary loan system can it restrict
use of, say, anonymous ftp over NSFnet to material that is "for
research and serious use"? One policy says yes the other says no.
Let's look leave this question and look at another.
Is it the leading or the borrowing library's resonsibility
to enforce the code?
The more restrictive National Interlibrary Loan Code says:
IV.F "The borrowing library should carefully screen all request for
loans and reject any that do not conform to this code."
V.A "The decision to loan material is at the discretion of the lending
library. Each library is encouraged, however, to interpret as
generously as possible its own lending policy with due consideration
to the interest of its primary clientele."
Applied to NSFnet, I would interpret this to mean that it is the
person or organization who is requesting the FTP transfer who is
reasonable for the NSFnet rules, not the archive owner. I suppose that
if NSFnet was the only net around, it might make sense to share
responsibility. But many sites are connected to several nets
(including campus nets). For NSF 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 any interlibrary loan system.
- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 6 Nov 91 03:39:45 GMT
Well, here it is, the instrument of my dismissal:
[BEGIN QUOTE]
T H E Office of Student Life Student Life Services
O H I O 2060 Drake Union
S T A T E 1849 Cannon Drive
UNIVERSITY Columbus, OH 43210-1267
Phone 614-292-0748
October 29, 1991
Steven Samuel Brack
2021 Roanwood Drive
Toledo, OH 43613
Dear Mr. Brack:
At your hearing befoZeI:he University Judicial Panel on October 25, 1991, the
panel found you in violation of Rules 3335-25-01 (F), (G), (J), and (K), but
not in violation of [Rule] 3335-25-01 (E), of the _Code of Student Conduct_ and
imposed the following disciplinary action:
Disciplinary dismissal from The Ohio State University effective immediately and
continuing for the next four quarters. You will be eligable to reapply to the
University Winter Quarter[,] 1993.
}iThis action will not affect your grades or academic standing. It remains
confidential within the University system.
You have the right of appeal. An appeal must be submitted to the Dean of
Student Life (208 Ohio Union, 1739 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio, 43210)
within 14 days of the date of this letter. You must state the reasons for your
appeal, as listed in Rule 3335-27-07 of the Code,
If you have any questions about the sanction or an appeal, please contact the
Judicial Affairs office.
Sincerely,
Peter Pappas [SIGNATURE]
Peter Pappas
Chairperson
University Judicial Panel
PP:de
Enclosure
cc: Dean, College of Engineering
[END QUOTE]
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.
As you can see, my "victory" was Pyhrric at best. 8)
-- Steve
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org>
References: <9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 19:51:06 GMT
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
> Well, here it is, the instrument of my dismissal:
[...]
So was Steve Brack expelled from Ohio State University for posting
"fuck you" to alt.flame? Or was it for accidentally posting the
message to rec.aquaria? Or was it for using two Mac computers at once
in an empty computer lab? Or was did they decide that he most likely
did use the account of another after being expelled from ACS
computers?
If the letter that Steve Brack posted is all there is, we don't know.
Steve Brack doesn't no. In other words, the charges that Steven Brack
were found guilty of are secret, even from Steven.
As you might imagine, this makes it very hard for Steven to defend
himself. It is also a violation of the procedural due process as
guarenteed by the Constitution. How would you feel if you were
expelled from school without even knowing what you were being punished
for?
Steven *was* given something. He was given a list of actions he was
accused to taking, for example, using two Macs. He was also given a
list of rules, for example, rule 335-25-01 (K): "violation of other
published University regulations, policies, or rules...".
What he was not given was the correspondence between his alledged
actions and the rules that the actions, if true, would violate. What
he was not give were charges. What he was not given was procedural due
process. What he was not given was justice.
- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Steve Brack's Letter of Dismissal
Message-ID: <1991Nov6.220216.4349@eff.org>
References: <9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> <1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 22:02:16 GMT
Ohio State's refusal to give Steven Brack a specification of the
charges makes it impossible for Steven Brack to defend himself. Their
refusal is likely also a violation of law.
R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61.
-----------begin quote----------
[Question:] What is the right to adequate notice of charges?
[Answer:] Before you can be severely punished, you have a right to
know the specific acts you are charged with committing. A hearing is
useless if you have no idea what accusations you're supposed to be
defending your self against. This idea is one of the oldest in
criminal law and is now established in such administrative proceedings
as school suspension hearings.
Often a student is charged with "violating school rules" or "serious
misconduct" -- phrases that fail to give any idea of offense has been
committed or what rule as been violated. That is not adequate notice.
A federal court in Washington, D.C., has required that the notice
"state specific, clear and full reason for the proposed action,
including the specification of the alleged act upon with the
disciplinary action is to be based and the reference to the regulation
subsection under which such action is proposed." In addition, some
courts have required that, for longer suspensions, that student be
provided with a short summary of the evidence to be used against him
or her.{67}
A Wisconsin federal court held that a letter given to student's
parents stating "your son ... continues to conduct himself in an
irresponsible and disruptive manner" and "has been deliberately
defiant of reasonable requests by teachers ... on three occasions
within the past few weeks" did not satisfy due process requirements of
adequate notice of the charges.{66} The court found that the lack of
specificity of the charges adversely affected the student's ability to
prepare his defense and thus the meaningfulness of his opportunity to
be heard.
In addition, courts have held that students have a right to know the
charges sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit them "to
examine the charges, prepare a defense and gather evidence and
witnesses."{69} The Supreme Court in _Goss_ held that the notice given
to a student in a case involving the possibility of a short suspension
could be either oral or in writing. For longer suspensions, however,
other courts have held that notice must be in writing.{70}
[...]
A student suspension cannot be based on charges other than those
specified to the student in advance of hearing.{73} In other words,
schools cannot change students with one offense and then find them
guilty of another, because to do so would "render meaningless" the
"opportunity to present their side of the case," in the words of one
judge.{74}
[References]
{67} _Mills v Board of Education of the District of Columbia_, 348 F.
Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972); _Vail v. Board of Education of Portsmouth
Schools Dist._, 354 F. Supp. 592 (D.N.H. 1973); _Quintanilla v.
Carey_, Civil Action No. 75-C-829 (N.D. Ill., 3/31/75).
{68} _Keller v. Fochs_, 385 F. Supp. 262 (E.D. Wis. 1974).
{69} _Sullivan v. Houston Independent School District_, 307 F. Supp.
1328 (S.D. Tex. 1969); _Fielder v. Board of Education of School
District of Winnebago (Nebraska)_, 346 F. Supp. 835 (N.D. Tex. 1972);
_Esteban v. Central Missouri State College_, 277 F. Supp. 649 (W.D.
Mo. 1967), _aff'd_, 415 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1969), _cirt. denied_,
398 U.S. 965 (1970).
{70} _Pervis v. LaMarque Independent School District_, 466 F.2d 1054
(5th Cir. 1972).
[...]
{73} _Strickland v. Inlow_ 519 F.2d 744, 747 (8th Cir. 1975).
{74} _John A. v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist._, 654 P. 2d
242 (Calif. 1982)
--
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111090242.AA25801@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 9 Nov 91 02:42:39 GMT
In article <1991Nov07.231559.20273@eng.umd.edu> you write:
> In article <1991Nov7.220612.20820@rice.edu> jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>
> >Wrong. What we know is that Steven Brack did not pursue an appeal, and
> >we suspect, given the posted record of events, that the University
> >adminstrators did not advise him of the available appeal routes at the
> >time that they disciplined him. They may have, but nothing is recorded
> >either way. These facts in no way mean that there was no appeal route
> >open to him. I will lay odds that if you were to check the Ohio State
> >University Student Handbook or its equivalent, you will find at least
> >one, if not more, appeal procedures that cover the various types of
> >University discplinary actions.
>
> Out of curiosity, is there any provision for disciplinary action by
> non-academic support entities (such as ACS at OSU) defined in the Student
> Handbook at YOUR university? I know there isn't at mine-- furthermore, there
> is, therefore, no appeal process available. The action simply isn't
> provided for, and thus itself violates the rules of the University.
OSU defines, quite rigidly, whaich entities at the University may
impose sanctions, & what sanctions each may impose. ACS is not
listed anywhere in that section of the handbook.
>
> >OSU also probably has an office akin
> >to a Dean for Student Affairs that will act as a neutral advisor for
> >students involved in disciplinary actions. Steven Brack either did not
> >know about the appeal methods and advisory resources because he failed
> >to carefully read the handbook, or he knew about them and chose not to
> >use them. A response from someone at OSU to confirm the information
> >present in the student handbook would be helpful.
>
> What ACS did would not be considered a disciplinary action-- THAT can usually
> only be carried out by certain parts of the university specifically authorized
> to carry out such actions. What ACS did was an administrative action which
> amounted to a disciplinary action, and there is almost certainly no appeal
> method for that.
ACS disciplined me without going through any disciplinary procedure,
hence they avoided all that messy due process stuff.
Just my luck, the one time OSU cuts through the red tape, it has to
be to work against me. 8)
-- Steve
> Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
--------------------
From kadie Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 01, No. 38
[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]
In this issue:
Carl M. Kadie 80 >Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Smiley 35 >
Carl M. Kadie 28 >
Carl M. Kadie 144 Iowa State speech restric<>as Re: Watch What You Post!!!)
Carl M. Kadie 47 >Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Brack 108 >
Joseph Watters 129 [comp.admin.policy] Re: R<> University Computing Policies
Carl M. Kadie 21 A Commercial BBS drops screening/censoring
Carl M. Kadie 16 Due process at Alabana A&M
Brack 187 >[comp.admin.policy] Re: R<>ack Expulsion. What Happened?
Sanjay Kapur 33 User/admin communication.
Vincent Fox 70 [comp.org.eff.talk] "Acce<>s. Why does everyone want one?
Les Earnest 9 >[comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Circulation: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Publication: Helen C. O'Boyle (helen@eff.org)
To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory
is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom README
Disclaimer: This CAF-news 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.
The addresses for the list are:
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
Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 19:10:01 GMT
In <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
trimble@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble) writes:
[...]
>(All Quotes taken from the Daily Illini - Tues. Nov. 12, 1991 - p. 3)
[...]
>UofI sysadmin BOB FOERTSCH repsponds (which is paraphrased by the Daily Illini
> - not a DIRECT quote except for 'reasonable person')
>: "if someone is caught using language that would be vulgar or rude to
> a 'reasonable person,' the University steps in.".
[...]
I was very surprised to read this. I was under the impression the the
University of Illinois was free of speech restrictions (except for
restrictions on harassment). Speech restrictions were struck down at
the University of Michigan and more recently at the University of
Wisconsin.)
It was my impression that the policy of the University of Illinois, as
expressed in the _Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to
All Students_, was that students and faculty members have freedom of
expression and that they speak for themselves, not University.
Has the University's _Statement on Individual Rights_ been appended so
that it no longer applies to speech and publication via computer
media?
Here are excepts from the University Code (1985 edition):
"STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
I. Preamble
A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus
is a member of the University community of which all members have at
least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from
institutional censorship;"
...
"III. Campus Expression
A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the
University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order.
[...]
B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite
and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable
requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities.
C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors
and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student,
faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial
policy or content."
...
"VI. Student Affairs
[...]
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. [...]
2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their
own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should
not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers
does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed
either by the sponsoring group or the institution."
- Carl
p.s. The text of the U. of Michigan and U. of Wisconsin decisions
are available via anonymous ftp as
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
Also of possible interest:
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/README
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/README
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jal41820@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Smiley)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.054421.24194@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.214812.2699@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 05:44:21 GMT
lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes:
:)kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:)>In <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
:)>trimble@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble) writes:
:)>[...]
:)>>(All Quotes taken from the Daily Illini - Tues. Nov. 12, 1991 - p. 3)
:)>[...]
:)>>UofI sysadmin BOB FOERTSCH repsponds (which is paraphrased by the Daily Illini
:)>> - not a DIRECT quote except for 'reasonable person')
:)>>: "if someone is caught using language that would be vulgar or rude to
:)>> a 'reasonable person,' the University steps in.".
:)>[...]
:)>I was very surprised to read this. I was under the impression the the
:)>University of Illinois was free of speech restrictions (except for
:)>restrictions on harassment).
:)Bob indicated to me the other day that he had been misquoted in the
:)DI several times. You should wait to hear his side on this.
What? The DI misquoted someone? :)
Actually, for curiosity sake, I would be very interested in hearing Bob's
position on this.
-Josh Laff :)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Josh Laff: e-mail to: |
Help! The sky is falling! | smiley@uiuc.edu | # #
|_________________________| _ _
Oh... wait... no... I'm tipping over | (217) 356-0149 | |#\_____/#|
backwards. |________________| \#######/
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID:
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov12.182158.913@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:56:27 GMT
In <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
[...]
>Here, we have had one incident where a student's postings were considered
>inappropriate (for lack of a better word). He was quite critical of the
>head of a computer company, which was fine until he said (paraphrasing here)
>"he should be dead". This caused us to receive a large amount of mail (some
>of which I would consider worse than the original posting in question!).
>We turned his account off (we have found this the only way to get people
>to come see us), asked him to be more prudent in the future and suggested
>that he post an apology (which he did), turned his account back on, and
>as far as I know, have heard nary a complaint.
[...]
You should not have punished him. Rudeness is not a crime.
(I'm paraphrasing from an ACLU handbook on teacher's legal rights)
Generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First
Amendment [or Academic Freedom -cmk], does not lose that protection
because its tone is sharp. Discussions will not always be models of
decorum. A court observed that "often those with the power to appoint
will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it convenient to
use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to squelch them.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Iowa State speech restrictions (was Re: Watch What You Post!!!)
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.203127.16256@eff.org>
References: <1991Nov14.124028.8711@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov14.162822.8549@eff.org> <1991Nov14.175122.7291@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 20:31:27 GMT
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
[...]
>I don't consider myself an offical/agent of anything, I just work here,
>I don't make any policy.
This may apply. It is from A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting
College Teachers:
"Teacher As Agent of Institution
When a teacher is acting within the scope of his or her employment, a
teacher generally is viewed as the agent of the institution. A
teacher's acts, then, are considered to be the acts of the
institution. Thus, a teacher's acts can form the basis for liability
of the institution."
>Here is a section of the University policy on
>ethical use of computers:
> # Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
> or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden. Also disallowed
> are random mailings and any message of commercial or political
> nature.
>Interesting how the very word you used, "rude", is in there. Is it an
>arbitrary rule? Perhaps; seems somewhat vague to me. Had I written it,
>it would have been different, but maybe that's why they didn't ask my
>opinion on it...
[...]
How was this policy created? What is its official status? By what
authority does a state university prohibit rude speech? Does the
university generally prohibit rude speech or is rude speech only
prohibited on campus computer media? Does it apply to both
faculty and students?
Here is a reading list of on-line material about freedom-of-expression
law a public universities. Everything is available via anonymous ftp
from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law OR by email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-law
- Carl
=================
constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
hustler-magazine-v-falwell
=================
Summary from _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam, p. 157.
The publisher of a cartoon parody, already found not to be libelous,
could not be punished for the emotional distress the cartoon may have
caused. The Court wrote: "in public debate our own citizens must
tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide
adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First
Amendment."
=================
perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
=================
rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine.
=================
stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression."
=================
student-publications.control
=================
Comments from _School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ by Martha
M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. It says, in part, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper".
=================
student-publications.libel
=================
McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe on what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
student-publications.sharp
=================
A paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It says
that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the
First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
=================
uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.142722.13085@eff.org>
References: <199111100652.AA01567@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 14:27:22 GMT
On Fri, 8 Nov 1991 16:44:57 GMT Carl M. Kadie said:
>
>There is no procedure for appealing his computer expulsion. There are
>of course extra procedural methods (ombudsman, University president,
>the Governor of Ohio). I think he has made some efforts in this
>direction, but without result.
ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester) writes:
[...]
>How can you call the items in parens above "extra-procedural"??
[...]
I don't know if "extra-procedural" is the best word or not. In any
case, let me try to explain what I mean.
The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
"The jurisdictions of faculty or student judicial bodies,
the disciplinary responsibilities of institutional officials and the
regular disciplinary procedures, including the student's right to
appeal a decision, should be clearly formulated and communicated in
advance."
As far as I can determine, students and faculty who are expelled from
ACS computers are not told of their right to appeal or the procedure
for such an appeal. The wording of ACS policy makes me wonder if they
consider their decisions open to appeal.
The failure to establish a procedure is as bad as a failure to notify
students of their rights. Without a procedure, students and faculty
cannot be sure their their appeal will be taken seriously. They may
fear or discover a Catch-22:
There are procedures set up to appeal all disciplinary decisions.
There are no procedures set up to appeal ACS computer expulsions,
therefore, computer expulsions cannot be disciplinay, therefore, there
are no procedures set up to appeal computer expulsions.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.214531.2899@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:45:31 GMT
In article <1991Nov09.122028.4781@cavebbs.gen.nz> Charlie Lear writes:
> In article <1991Nov7.160237.29438@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> { diatribe against OSU deleted for brevity }
> >against Mr. Brack and that the charges are then dropped and that his
> >computer expulsion is ended. In the future, I hope that ACS will
> >handle problems less hysterically and more professionally by:
>
> From what I have read in the last few months, Brack was a royal pain in the
> ass for all concerned and I would be extremely surprised to find that OSU
> did not examine the situation with extreme thoroughness before taking
> extreme measures.
As far as I know, you can't be dismissed for being a pain in the ass.
What OSU did was to overreact to three or four minor incidents.
The only action I ever performed that had any impact on the system was
the fixman command, a command that: 1) should not have been open to
any user, and 2) caused no real damage, only the removal of underlining
from man pages which were easily restored from backup.
Everything else was just thrown in so that the body of evidence against
me would seem more damning than it actually is.
> How many others have OSU suspended for similar offences? Hundreds? Dozens?
> A few? None?
I know of one other who left OSU because of "similar offenses."
But, remember: I was only there for ~8 mos. There could have
been others before or after me, of which I am unaware.
> How many thousands of students are there at OSU? Doesn't it seem odd that
> you are publicly championing someone who, by espousing terms of injured
> innocence, is trying to convince The World that it's not his fault that
> OSU happen to be picking on him?
To clarify, once more: I am the cause of the action. The action,
however is of far greater scope than anything I did. I admit that
had I been a "nice person," this wouldn't have happened. But, I
hold that even though I wasn't a nice person, my actions did not justify
dismissal.
>
> >1) working with the user community to create and implement a good
> >written policy
>
> Define "good". What you consider good and what other people consider
> workable may turn out to be completely different things.
How about a policy that informs the user what is expected of him,
and of what he can expect to do for him.
> >2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
>
> You're assuming an egalitarian relationship where none exists. Brack was
> instructed to do some things and specifically not to do others. You're
> telling the world (in deleted text above) that the administrators concerned
> should have accepted deliberate disobedience and let Brack do as he liked.
> Wonderful precedent you're trying to set.
I was not told of the "wrongness" of my actions until after I had
committed them. If I had been told prior to that, then I would not
have committed them. A person cannot be held to a rule which was
never made public, and which may not have even existed at the time
he allegedly violated it.
>
> >3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
>
> Up to the point where that freedom of expression infringes on the freedoms
> of others, in this case the freedom to read messages about fish without
> having them interspersed with inanities.
I'm glad we have you posting to this group. It's nice to see
that there's at least one person on the Net who has never made a
mistake, or been deceived. I wish I had been like you.
> >4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when
> >necessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing.
>
> Are you saying that the entire Brack affair was some sort of esoteric
> play-by-mail one-sided farce? On review of the facts, it would appear
> that he had ample opportunity to put forward his "case" to the appropriate
> people. He simply failed to avail himself of the chances given to him to
> clean up his act. Why should we even be discussing this case when in
> essence, Brack failed to communicate effectively with administrative staff?
> His lack of communication, and apparent unwillingness to behave in
> accordance with accepted norms, caused the suspension. What has that got
> to do with Usenet and computers and networks?
If you're going to make sweeping conclusions based on "the facts,"
do me the courtesy of stating the facts to which you refer.
>
> >Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
> >I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>
> Thank God for that. You had me worried there.
The tone of your post seems very flippant considering the degree
of condemnation you display toward me.
>
> --
> Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies
Message-ID: <9111122320.AA07027@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 21:49:45 GMT
In article <1234>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
> ....
>
> >Inappropriate use includes, but is not limited to:
>
> ....
>
> >o accessing files or sending mail to/from off-campus sites without
> >the permission of the Vice President of Information Systems
>
> Why is this? What is the problem with sending or receiving mail from
> off-campus sites and why would the Vice President of Information Systems
> need to approve this usage?
>
You are misinterpreting the language of the condition. Receiving
things from off-campus is not restricted. Sending things only requires
that you obtain permission to do so. There is no actual barrier to
sending things. Your friend could do it without obtaining permission.
Why obtain permission? Because as I said in a previous post, the
University wants some reasonable acknowledgement that a user who is
accessing off-campus facilities, or sending messages off-campus, has a
least read the Appropriate Use of Computer Facilities policy and
understands the responsibilities they have as a user of the networks.
In addition, the University would like the students' use of the NSFnet
to be reasonably connected to education. A faculty member signs the
permission form agreeing that the stated purpose for off-campus access
is reasonably connected to education.
Why would the University want this? and why the VPIS? A couple of
years ago, Rice was threatened with two lawsuits over some e-mail that
a student sent out. The student forged the e-mail in the name of
another person not at Rice. The e-mail said some really nasty things.
The other person figured out who it was, and threatened to sue Rice.
Rice, in the course of dealing with this, revoked access by the
student who sent the forged message. That student then threatened to
sue Rice for revoking his access.
Needless to say, the University took some steps to protect itself and
to provide some brake on the ability to have this happen again.
Thus, the Appropriate Use policy with the permission for off-campus
access requirement. The VP IS is involved because that position is
the only office at Rice that could cover all students at Rice in terms
of granting permission.
>
> >Again, inappropriate use is not limited to the above situations. You
> >should send mail to consult@owlnet asking about anything that
> >might be questionable before you do it. You risk having your
> >account locked otherwise.
>
> This sounds rather draconian; additionally, you have a provision above
> (sending or receiving mail from off-site) that a user potentially has no
> control over!
Draconian? We are going out of our way to give the students a means
to *avoid* doing something that they don't realize could get them in
trouble. We are not interested in trouncing naive students who
accidentally get themselves into trouble. We want our students to
think before they act. We want them to not bumble into trouble, both
for their own sakes and because we have better, more constructive
things to do than chase down students who are screwing up the system
because they don't know any better and there was no one for them to
ask about it.
>
> Thus, a user could end up with his or her account locked without taking
> ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER.
>
Wrong. As I said above, receiving things from off-campus is not
against policy. Sending without obtaining permission is.
> This is beginning to sound more and more like a "typical" tyrannical
> IS department at a University....
>
> > Electronic Mail and Privacy
> >
> >Owlnet management will not regulate in any way the content of private,
> >consensual electronic mail communication between users.
>
> Unless one end of the connection is off-site, in which case you'll lock
> the on-site user's account (from above).
>
Nope. See above.
> >Many users routinely disable incoming talk messages, presumably to cut
> >down on distracting conversations with other users. We would advise
> >that you not disable incoming talk messages as a matter of course.
> >This will reduce the possibility that a system administrator who may be
> >trying to talk to you will misinterpret your actions. Message
> >receiving is enabled by default, so if you do not taken action to
> >disable it, you have nothing to worry about.
>
> So now as a student I have to be subject to pages from any user on the
> system in order to avoid having my account locked for "not responding to an
> administrator's message"? Sheesh...
>
In practice, we've found few students actually get spurious pages
from other students. And in addition, this only covers incidents when there
appears to be unusual or suspicious activity going on. Further, as
the first part of the policy states, the lockout is only used if the
user *logs off immediately* in response to a sysadmin talk request.
As the language says, we only *advise* that they not routinely disable
talk. It is not required. We are informing the students that if
they choose to disable talk messages, they are increasing the
possibility that their actions could be misinterpreted by a sysadmin.
In other words, rather than being the "tell them nothing and then pound
them when they break an unwritten rule" type of system, we are taking
steps to make students aware of the *possible* consequences of their
actions.
> > George Rupp
> > August 10, 1990
>
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl)
> Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
> Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: A Commercial BBS drops screening/censoring
Message-ID: <1991Nov13.144642.13768@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 14:46:42 GMT
According to a Newsbytes story posted in clair.nb.telecom on Nov. 7th,
Odyssey, a BBS in Monrovia, California, has dropped
screening/censoring.
Odyssey's owner is worried about complaints (lawsuits?) like those
that Prodigy received from the ADL for not screening/censoring well.
"Prodigy practically has more lawyers than users and can fight this
stuff all day long. But a suit like that would shut down Odyssey," he
told Newsbytes.
Newsbytes says: 'When asked what censorship existed before the policy
announcement, Allen said censorship did exist, but alluded that the
concept of censorship had to do more with staying on the subject of
the forum, rather than placing any value judgement on anything that
was said.'
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Due process at Alabana A&M
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.212358.28314@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 21:23:58 GMT
I've been send an article on the last page of the sports section of
the _Birmignham News_, Nov. 14, 1991 about public university due
process.
It says: "The judge [U.S. District Judge E.B. Haltom] told attorneys
for Alabama A&M University that students brought before the school's
Judiciary Board for disciplinary actions -- like the 10 student
athletes ordered suspended for one year over a fighting incident --
must be informed of specific charges against them and given the names
of those who are to testify against them."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <9111152223.AA19536@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
Date: 15 Nov 91 22:23:05 GMT
In article <1991Nov15.134338.24003@ms.uky.edu> Wes Morgan writes:
> Steven S. Brack (brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu) writes:
>
> To be honest about it, I remember the users with whom I speak most often,
> regardless of the reason. In total, I could probably name about 5% of the
> users of my system, even though I've spoken with more than 75% of them.
> Most of those have been people who come in for help; as I've said before,
> I have *very* few "discipline problems". I had a problem last week,
> but I'll discuss that later.
From your description, you seem to run a fairly loose system.
That sort of give & take approach allows users & admins to work
out solutions to problems, rather than firing ultimatums at one
another. Here at Toledo, student Computer Services NAS9080
accounts cannot be used for just about anything. This was due
to an extremely unpleasant experience/argument with an undergrad
user about 5-6 years ago. From those I've talked to, I get the
impression that the whole problem could have been resolved by a
simple admin to user chat, but was exacerbated by a lack of
cooperation on both sides.
>
> > Depending on the type of printer, could it be automatically reset
> > or reset by the employee at the site, even by cycling power on & off?
>
> It certainly could, but the lab runs at 20-30 users all day long. By the
> time our lab assistant notices that the printer settings are hosed, four
> of five users may already have received trashed printouts. I don't ex-
Perhaps I misunderstood; are the printer sin question set out for
general use, or are they special access/pay for laser printing
machines?
> pect our assistants to hop up and check the printer settings every time
> a job is output. Yes, it could be done, but it is a *major* inconvenience.
> There is a point at which the users must take some responsibility; I felt
> that this situation had reached that point.
If the users software interferes with the running of the lab, he/she
is warned about it, & continues to do it, then your solution seems
the only one available.
>
> Well, I thought that the original sign, which read "Do not change the
> settings on this printer", would be sufficient. With the exception of
> that one individual, it seems to suffice.
In your original post, I don't believe you referenced the sign.
I apologize if I missed it. Some users don't seem to be happy
with less than full control of system resources. These people
probably don't belong on a timesharing system. 8)
> Agreed. I always try to give a complete explanation of the problem. I
> know that a simple "you're screwing up" is never sufficient.
That is the kind of attitude more sysadmins need to adopt.
Usrs & admins need not be enemies, as they are on some systems, &
not just at Ohio State.
> > Also, what sort of letters & phone calls did you make? Was it possible
> > that he misinterpreted your interest?
>
> Well, the written messages simply said "When you print documents, are you
> changing the printer settings? We are having some problems with the printer,
> and I'd like your help. Please come by my office or send me electronic mail
> as soon as possible. This is an urgent matter." The phone messages (which
> I assume were taken by his roommate) merely said "Please get in touch with me
> as soon as possible; we need to talk about some printer problems in the PC
> Lab". I try to be as polite as possible when sending messages to users; I
> don't want them to get the impression that I'm some kind of ogre.
Mutual respect seem to be integral to having a smooth-running
system.
> > I know several people who won't
> > go to ACS's "meetings" because of the reputation the admins have for
> > reaming users.
>
> I have heard of this problem. As far as I know, it hasn't happened here.
> We tend to run a fairly open shop, and users often come in to ask questions
> about the system. It makes for some interesting discussions; ever try to
> explain "machine epsilon" to someone who doesn't even know what a byte is? 8)
Pity ACS isn't more like your department. 8)
Ever try to explain the difference between 3.5" floppies & hard
disks to users? ("I saved this on my hard disk, & it's not there.") 8)
> Nah; I usually work from the assumption that, on those occasions when
> problems arise, the users are just experimenting. Heck, I *want* them
> to explore; there are very few "sacred cows" in our shop. In fact, I
> have several small Unix boxes (3B2/310s, if anyone's interested), which
> I offer to people who want to get into the nuts and bolts of Unix. One
> or two users have taken advantage of that in the past; I'll give them the
> root password to the machine, and the only condition is that the 3B2/310
> is cut off from the outside world (no telnet/ftp out, no email). That
> seems to solve the problem; the user gets to dive deep into Unix, and I
> don't have to worry about them trashing the 2000-user main system.
Side question: how does your department get the funding to maintain
Un*x systems for experimnentation/fun? It seems ACS never has enough
money, unless it's for new workstations for faculty members &
upper-echelon ACS admins.
> Well, the majority of users, when confronted with a user who is gulping
> resources at a high rate, will clamor for that user's jobs to be killed.
> Of course, I refuse to do that until I've spoken with the "offending"
> user (who usually doesn't realize the impact of his usage). Usually, a
> good explanation (and a bit of peer pressure from other users) results
> in a satisfactory solution.
At OSU, most resource-hogging jobs are done on private workstations,
or are "nice"d down to an acceptable level.
>
> > I believe that the majority of users must become more aware of how their
> > actions affect others. At OSU, the system I used had, at one time
> > 3-4 MUD type games running. This appreciably slowed the (already slow)
> > system down, tied up ports & ttys, and used disk space excessively.
> > Since one of the offenders was an admin, nothing was done. There has
> > always been a 'no games' policy at ACS, although it was
> > not publicised until recently.
The MUDs in question were allowed to operate because a sysadmin was
one of the offenders. It would not have looked right for an admin
to be punished for running a MUD.
>
> I recently had a MUD experience that relates to this discussion. We had
> been having some serious networking problems, and I found 3 users logged
> in 7 times, all playing MUDs at mit.edu and cdc.com. One of the machines on
> which they were running the MUD was sending misaligned and fragmentary
> packets, which were "melting down" our local network. Since they were
> logged in several times, I also suspected that they were sharing their
> passwords (this is also a violation of policy). I sent them an interactive
> message, telling them that we did not allow game playing and
> asking them to stop MUDding. They ignored those messages, so I logged in
> to the MUD and sent them a message from within the game. They ignored
> that as well, so (after 10 minutes for a safety margin) I disconnected
> them and disabled their accounts. I then sent electronic mail to their
> accounts on the general student computer, explaining my action and telling
> them that their account would be reenabled as soon as they stopped by to
> talk with me. When they came in, I gave them a 5-minute explanation of
> how TCP/IP works and how their MUDding placed a significant load on both
> the system and the network. They were not aware of the significance of
> their actions, nor were they aware of the "no games" policy (even though
> it is clearly stated in the online announcements they all read). They used
> our system for MUDding because the general student computer (which allows
> game playing) was unavailable. I reenabled their accounts, and there have
> been no further problems.
I admire the way you handled that. In my experience, admins are more
likely to take network problems caused by users as a personal effront
to them.
> There are those who may find my actions in this matter chilling, but the
> users involved didn't have any complaints. We had an open discussion, and
> everyone aired their views. I assured them that no permanent record was
> being kept on them; noone had knowledge of our action except me and my boss.
> I told them that any complaints about my action could be directed to either
> my boss or the Dean of the college; no complaints were registered. I've
> spoken with them socially several times, and one of them now wants to learn
> more about networking. In all, I'd say that it worked out well.
I'd have to agree. Establishing a positive rapport with users
seems a good way to prevent problems. But, what would you do for
an organization that supported a user base that was simply too large
for it to easily give the kind of attention you gave.
>
> This incident also illustrates the "man on the scene" authority that
> admins need. If I had been required to seek permission from my boss
> (who was unavailable at the time) before terminating their gaming, the
> bad packets sent from those off-campus MUD machines could have caused
> a "meltdown" of our entire network. The possibility of compromised
> passwords was also an immediate concern. I had to act, and I did. After
> the fact, I explained my actions to everyone involved. The users are
> unhappy about the "no gaming" restrictions, but they now understand the
> reasons behind them. Dialogue and user education save the day!
Admins probably should be able to take almost any action under a
sort of "emergency authority" with provision for appeal/review
after the emergency was over.
>
> --
> morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
--
Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com
+1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: User/admin communication.
Message-ID: <9A03910890421012@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 16 Nov 91 17:39:00 GMT
Date sent: 16-NOV-1991 12:20:57
This is in response to the recent dialogue betwwen Wes Morgan and Steven
Brack.
I would like to add that all problems between users and system
administrators can be avoided if there is better communications between users
and system administrators.
I would like to propose that to improve this communication the following be
done:
1) Like the student-teacher ratio, the user-admin ratio needs to be reduced at
large sites.
2) Like class size in a school, the total number of users on a system
should be kept at a manageable level.
3) As many layers of bureaucracy as possible should be removed between the
users and the system administrators. Users should always have direct and open
access to the system administrators. Systems administrators should also have
direct access to the users. There should not be any go-between that either is
required to go through.
The first two proposals require that more money be spent although I have
a feeling that proposal three would result in enough saving to pay for the
first two and a lot more.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] "Acceptable Use" Policies. Why does everyone want one?
Message-ID: <9111162029.AA27328@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 91 00:40:25 GMT
I am really surprised at all the "Acceptable Use" policies being handed
down by universities these days. Not that the policies are too harsh or
anything (don't want to start that argument again), but that everyone seems
to take the wrong tack. Shouldn't we have a list of "Unacceptable Uses"
instead? I'm perfectly willing to live by a small number of things that
the university agrees I should *not* do, but the idea that for anything
not on the list of "Acceptable Uses" I must go and beg permission appalls me.
I rather favor in network terms something like what this countries founders
envisioned for our government. The administration should regulate *only*
to the extent that it absolutely must. Any government that only allows it's
people to do what the government allows and nothing else is doomed. Witness
the USSR. Laugh if you wish, but I don't think the comparison is completely
inapt. Stifling of computing freedom via over-regulation could easily leave
the US in the software dumper as surely as government control has killed
so many other vibrant industries.
Almost all of the problems boil down to resource consumption, be it disk,
printing, or network bandwidth. Instead of trying to legislate the problem
away, why not try and identify problem users and deal with them?
For example, I keep printer accounting records (although we don't charge),
when I see a really big spike on the graph, I go talk to that person.
Usually it's as simple as they did something wrong by accident or ignorance,
or that they simply don't realize how much toner cartridges cost. I have
not met anyone yet who when confronted, didn't change their ways.
The same with network games like mud's. I know where the muds are running
with a little lookaround with netstat on the workstations. The owners are
usually more than happy to put some disclaimer on their intro screen like:
The system administrator highly discourages off-campus mud access.
Think about the cost of those gateways before doing it.
This sort of thing is usually more than sufficient to take care of the
"problem".
IMHO, if you haven't got the time to intelligently *manage* a system,
go find a job somewhere else. Legislating problems away, and using
policies to cover your ass won't solve anything. Uneducated, unaware,
un-managed users are a problem. But you don't manage users by making them
sign a permission slip they will not read anyway. You try and educate your
users as much as possible on the most efficient ways to do things, and
deal with the trouble-makers directly. This may mean teaching an intro
seminar, and maybe some time spent monitoring the health of your systems,
No sensible manager would say no to a request that these services be
offered for the users' benefit. It is also a very small investment for
the school, with a greatly increased productivity payback.
For instance, here at Tech, we have a large domain with one fat Sequent,
and lots of Suns. The suns are all in the same NIS, and can acces the same
filespace. But many people have never had it explained to them that
they can access their files anywhere other than the Sequent. So the Sequent
is always way overloaded with people simply editing files and things
that could easily have been done on another CPU.
Here's my suggestion toward solving the problem:
Requiring that prospective users attend a seminar on efficient use of
campus resources before their account is activated would seem like a
reasonable policy to me. Really and truly folks, most of them are just
ignorant and more than willing to help out IF they know what your problems
are as system administrators. Once again, I see my mission as a sys admin
as making my user community as aware and free as possible.
Perhaps I should have tossed in a smiley there somewhere. I'm sure I will
have offended someone somewhere.
--
Vincent Fox (That's Mr. Bucko to you)| A society that will trade a little
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA | liberty for a little order will lose
SR-71: gt1111a@prism.gatech.edu | both, and deserve neither.
Pony Express:...!gatech!prism!gt1111a| -John Stuart Mill
------------------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.221601.2527@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References: <9111151537.AA21671@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:16:01 GMT
A missing feature in finger is anonymity for those who wish it.
Unfortunately, I didn't think of that when I invented finger in
1972 as a local utility program for the Stanford A.I. Lab nor when we
later added network access to it.
--
Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
From kadie Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 01, No. 39
[Week ending November 24, 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 academic freedom incidents.
1. (A student:) Mohawk Valley Community College suspended my computer
access (without any hearing) for 1) setting the (correct) time on the
PCs in the lab where I worked and 2) sharing simple utility programs
with other users. Administrative appeals were futile. I failed my
English class when the sys admin refused to give me copies of my
files. I eventually transferred to another school.
<1991Nov15.152856.25079@pool.info.sunyit.edu>
2. According to the LA times, '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.' The painting was moved to the student
center. When we can't leave, "[w]e should "be free *not* to be
subjected to things we find offensive ...".
<91319.162616JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Notes 3-7 are about Steven Brack and Ohio State University.
3. (Steven Brack:) "The only action I ever performed that had any
impact on the system was the fixman command". I ran it the because its
manual page led me to think that it would improve the display time of
my manual pages. My action was noticed because fixman acts globally,
not locally, and because it kept running (for hours) after I thought
that I had killed it.
<9111190335.AA14297@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
4. "This brings up an interesting point. Should administrators
remove/disable the man pages for administrative commands? "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."
<1991Nov19.215003.27317@ms.uky.edu>
5. (Steven Brack:) "I did everything I could to get the charges &
specifications, but OSU wouldn't give them to me." Also, "[a]lthough I
disagree that my actions needed defending, I did defend them [at the
formal hearing]. 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 permissible & what wasn't."
<9111190356.AA14385@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
6. (Steven Brack:) "I am retaining counsel, and will fight OSU from a
legal standpoint, rather than being trapped playing their game, by
their rules, on their field."
<9111190340.AA14311@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
7. A student should be given the findings of fact upon which the
formal hearing board bases its decision. In the Brack case, no
findings of fact were given. This is unfair and likely illegal. (Legal
references are enclosed.)
<1991Nov19.192831.1996@eff.org>
Notes 8-9 are about universities and the law.
8. According to a monograph (with legal references) by the General
Counsel of Southern Illinois University: State universities are
constrained by the 14th amendment. The _Goss v. Lopez_ due process
decision applies to public universities as well as to secondary
schools. Students subject to expulsion or long-term suspension must be
given adequate notice (i.e. written, explicit, specific) of charges.
<1991Nov23.190239.14673@eff.org>
9. According to a law book: "'In _Papish v. Board of Curators of
University of Missouri ... the high Court ruled that the use of
["motherfucker"] in a paper distributed on a college campus was not
disruptive of the school environment."' Student control of media
decreases the chance university liability. "[T]he _Hazelwood_ decision
that allows censorship of sponsored high school newspapers does not,
according to a footnote in the decision, apply to universities."
<1991Nov19.202845.3261@eff.org>
Notes 10-12 are on miscellaneous topics.
10. (A sys admin:) The goal of limiting the user-admin ratio is
worthy, but difficult. The goal of communicating and educating users
is practical and productive.
<1991Nov18.150215.11121@ms.uky.edu>
11. Enclosed is the privacy policy for the University of Pennsylvania
Campus Wide Information System (CWIS). It ways that
personally-identifiable use records will not be kept.
<199111221525.AA11205@eff.org>
12. Rules that outlaw offensive computer expression also outlaw
on-line searches of library catalogs because many catalogs contain
offensive titles.
<1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
- Carl]
In this issue:
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Circulation: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Publication: Helen C. O'Boyle (helen@eff.org)
To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory
is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom README
Disclaimer: This CAF-news 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.
The addresses for the list are:
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
Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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.
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
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 kadie Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 01, No. 40
[Week ending Dec 1, 1991
[The guest editor this week is Benjamin Gross. For information
on being a guest editor, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line: send acad-freedom call-for-guest-editors
- Carl Kadie]
========================== KEY ==================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE/SUMMARY of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
=================================================================
Note 1 Discusses system administratiors that ban or restrict IRC.
1. (a sysadmin) "Certainly, denying IRC access unilaterally hurts the
concientious, fair minded IRC users who don't unfairly monopolise these
resources, but how on earth do you cheaply implement a fairer policy?
(Suggestions greatfully appreciated!)' and "IRC has a >0 cost and a >0 benefit,
and presently the benefits outweigh the cost so I provide IRC services. If the
balance changes adversely, I'll limit the service or remove it completely."
Notes 2-5 are discussing the benefits and problems of system accounting.
2. (Carl M. Kadie) "Use of 'ps -aux' should not be severely restricted because
it allows users and sys admin to see the amount of computer resources being
used as they are being used. This allows high-CPU runaway jobs to be identified
and stopped before they waste more resources (e.g. fixman). This allows users
to make intelligent decisions about when and where to run new jobs. This allows
peer pressure to be applied to users who use an unfair amount of resources for
the given situation."
<1991Nov25.162134.6865@eff.org>
3. (Carl M. Kadie) Defends his position that users should have access to ps
against (Steven Brack) who says it is not one users place to decide what
process other users can execute. Carl says "if I see that you have what looks
like a run away process, I can send you and/or the sys admin email. Why should
I be the one doing this? Because, I'm the one who wants the cycles. The sys
admin isn't logged into the computer, or isn't paying close attention. You may
have logged off or started work on another task, not realizing that your job is
still running."
<1991Nov25.213447.14114@eff.org>
4. (Wes Morgan) States that he does not believe ps and other accounting
measures are an invasion of privacy, because the computer is a publicly
avaliable resource. Since the computer account is provided by the university
and "your use of a given computer system affects all other users of that
system," "then the need for this information becomes apparent." He states that
the users real information, at least a minimun of the real name, must be
avaliable so that they can be contacted, otherwise the user loses the benefits
of effective electronic communication."
<1991Nov26.232012.2924@ms.uky.edu>
5. (Jim Thompson) "I rejected, and continued to reject, the notion that ps is
"privacy-invasive"; if anything, I tried to put the burden where it belongs: on
those who wish to protect every bit and byte of information regarding
themselves." Although, "users have a right to know, up front, what information
about them might be disclosed, and how -- even if they have no choice about
some of it, for example their real name being associated with their uid via
finger."
<9111271314.AA02555@se33.wg2.waii.com>
Note 6 is a staff member from ACS at OSU.
6. (ACS employee) States that he will not condone or condem the ACS policy,
but, "that Ugly rumours about censorship at ACS are ridiculous." "Opinion -
can't prove it - but my experience is ACS is filled with people who strongly
believe in electronic freedom, open computing, call it what you will." and "We
brought usenet & e-mail to the masses here. We fought for it, we are fighting
for it." Also, "some people regarded as villains here are trying hard to make
computing more open and useful on campus. The major limitation is money - or
put another way people at the very top of osu & state gov't have to see
computing as basic part of education. We do."
<1991Nov25.165500.11219@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Note 7 is on the Alt.sex flap at U of Iowa.
7. (Doug Jones) reports "Today's Daily Iowan, Monday Nov. 25, 1991,
has joined the fray. On the top of page 3A, on the left, is the headline 'UI
Computer Files Contain Pornography', followed by the same kind of incisive
reporting of the alt.sex newsgroups that we have become used to from the print
media. The article does mention that the "pornography" is carried by USENET,
but no mention is made of other material on USENET. The article indicates that
the U of I computers contain "over 70,000 pages" of pornography, which is
nonsense -- this is roughly the total number of postings that have been
delivered to Iowa's machines over USENET, but nobody at the DI seems to have
noticed that things get deleted on a regular basis."
<9300@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about restricting personal use of the universities computers.
8. (A student) Says that he believe that there should be a distinction
of the diffrent kinds of recreational computer use, "those that have have an
arguable nexus to the communication of ideas and those that do not (by which I
refer principally to computer games)." This especialy applies to general use
computers and sites.
<199111252159.AA14818@eff.org>
9. (Carl M. Kadie) says "The policy could be improved by applying the "game
policy" to all noncommercial personal use." "In other words, instead of banning
nongame, noncommercial personal use, SEASnet should at least allow nongame,
noncommercial personal use on the same basis that it allows game playing." and
"I was not suggesting *adding* a restriction; I was suggesting *removing* a
restriction."
<1991Nov25.223548.15641@eff.org>
Note 10 is a site manager has problems with gamers and would like suggestions.
10.(Site manager) "I manage 8 student computing sites with about 500 machines
(PC, MAC, NeXT) and I'm having more and more trouble with gamers, especially
IRCers and MUDers." and "Our policy states that the sites are primarily for
academic work. If all the machines are full when a person comes in to do a
paper, all the gamers are booted for a period of time. This is getting to be a
major headache for my staff. How do you all handle it?"
<1991Nov27.215410.18938@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
11. (Carl M. Kadie) Enclosed is a first draft of a bibilography on Computers
and Academic Freedom.
!---------------------> Guest editor: Benjamin Gross <------------------------!
! Mail to: b-gross@uiuc.edu /!\ NeXT mail: bgross@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu !
! No matter where you go, there you are. --Buckaroo Bonzai-- !
!-------------> Reality is only for those who lack imagination. <-------------!
!--> Disclaimer: I speak only on my own behalf, all opinions are my own. <--!
]
In this issue:
Sean Batt 42 >Sysadmins banning IRC...
Carl M. Kadie 39 >System Accounting: Fascist Tool?
Carl M. Kadie 59 >
Wes Morgan 193 >
Jim Thompson 63 >
Terry N Reeves 59 I am from ACS at OSU
Douglas W Jones 32 Alt.sex flap at U of Iowa
U15289@UICVM 100 On "Personal Use" restrictions
Carl M. Kadie 25 >
Declan Fleming 12 Gaming
Carl M. Kadie 161 CAF bibliography
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Circulation: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Publication: Helen C. O'Boyle (helen@eff.org)
To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory
is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom README
Disclaimer: This CAF-news was compiled by a guest editor or by me,
Carl M. Kadie. It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and
editorial decisions I make are my own.
The addresses for the list are:
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
Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: sean@coombs.anu.edu.au (Sean Batt)
Subject: Re: Sysadmins banning IRC...
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Nov 91 07:25:22 GMT
G'Day all,
Scott's got it right, you know: IRC doesn't have very much academic
respectability and hence has a low priority when it comes to resource
allocation. In an environment where computing resources are finite,
system administrators really must be able to restrict or deny access
to apparently unproductive programs like IRC, or talk, or news or even
mail. Sysadmins, remember, often have a clearer picture of overall
resource usage than do their users.
Around assignment deadline time in the undergraduate terminal rooms
here, for example, I've seen people queue for terminals some of which
were being used to run IRC. Certainly, denying IRC access unilaterally
hurts the concientious, fair minded IRC users who don't unfairly
monopolise these resources, but how on earth do you cheaply implement
a fairer policy? (Suggestions greatfully appreciated!)
I have some sympathy for the view of the sysadmins who see IRC as a
security risk. Unfortunately it would seem that IRC has been
indirectly responsible for two counts of electronic trespassing (read
cracking) at my site. I've provided a guest account for people to use
IRC, and tried quite hard to stop malicious use of that service, but
I've still been able to track a copy of my passwd file on uunet to a
guest user. (Doesn't that just rot your socks? Sheesh! Try and be nice
and someone still takes advantage of you.)
Balancing that however, I've found IRC to be a very valuable service,
both professionally and personally; I've "met" some really nice people
and recieved advice on how to clean up after a crack (1/2 :-), for
example.
So IRC has a >0 cost and a >0 benefit, and presently the benefits
outweigh the cost so I provide IRC services. If the balance changes
adversely, I'll limit the service or remove it completely.
Sean (a.k.a. MupBear)
--
------------- Sean Sebastian Batt - sean@coombs.anu.edu.au -------- .______.
-------- Coombs Computing Section - Telephone: +61 6 249 3296 ----- | Damn |\
-- Australian National University - GPO Box 4 Canberra City 2601 -- | Fine |/
------------------------------------------------------------------- `------'
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool?
Message-ID: <1991Nov25.162134.6865@eff.org>
References: <9111251523.AA05399@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 16:21:34 GMT
How about this as a statement for debate:
Resolved: Use of the Unix "ps" command should be severely restricted
for the sake of user privacy.
Believe it or not, I'm going to take the negative position and defend
"ps".
-------
Use of "ps -aux" should not be severely restricted because it allows
users and sys admin to see the amount of computer resources being used
as they are being used. This allows high-CPU runaway jobs to be
identified and stopped before they waste more resources (e.g. fixman).
This allows users to make intelligent decisions about when and where
to run new jobs. This allows peer pressure to be applied to users who
use an unfair amount of resources for the given situation.
As an example of all the points. Suppose, a class of 10 students must
run their program on 5 big test cases. If one student program has a
bug that puts it into an endless loop, "ps -aux" will give the sys
admin and other users a chance to notice the run away program. With
"ps -aux" a student may notice that no one else is running big
programs on the computer and decide that it would be OK to run all
five of his or her programs at once. If he or she was wrong about
being the only one needs to run big programs, other students, using
"ps", will be able to identify who is hogging the CPU. They can then
send email to the effect, "hey, there are others of us here, too. How
about running just one program at a time?"
With "ps", the computer is a shared resource. Without "ps" the
computer is a PC with an unpredictable CPU rate.
- Carl
p.s. I like "top" even better than "ps".
--
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 f1 Wed Dec 11 16:34:59 1991
>From e1 Wed Dec 11 16:28:37 1991
>From dec__1_1991 Wed Dec 11 16:02:40 1991
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool?
Message-ID: <1991Nov25.213447.14114@eff.org>
References: <9111252053.AA09129@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 21:34:47 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>: Use of "ps -aux" should not be severely restricted because it allows
>: users and sys admin to see the amount of computer resources being used
>: as they are being used. This allows high-CPU runaway jobs to be
>: identified and stopped before they waste more resources (e.g. fixman).
>: This allows users to make intelligent decisions about when and where
>: to run new jobs. This allows peer pressure to be applied to users who
>: use an unfair amount of resources for the given situation.
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
> It is not the users place to decide what processes are allowed
> to be executed by other users. That is a function of the
> sysadmin (remember the concierge theory?). I don't want
> anyone who does a ps -a to know what I'm doing. If I want\
> people to know, I'll tell them, but I don't want information
> private to me to be given to anyone who asks without my permission.
[...]
> What good would it do the other users to see his/her runaway
> process? The only ones who can stop it are the student &
> the admin, in any case.
[...]
Well, if I see that you have what looks like a run away process, I can
send you and/or the sys admin email. Why should I be the one doing
this? Because, I'm the one who wants the cycles. The sys admin isn't
logged into the computer, or isn't paying close attention. You may
have logged off or started work on another task, not realizing that
your job is still running.
> Basic system load information would tell users what they need to
> know, without revealing private information.
[...]
At the very least, I want to know how much load each user is putting
on the system. If five users are each running five cpu-bound jobs,
causing my cpu-bound job to run slowly, I won't say anything. If,
however, one user is running five cpu-bounds jobs, causing my one
cpu-bound jobs to run slowly, I may send that user email asking that
he or she, say, lower the priorty of his or her jobs.
Why should he or she cooperate with me? Because, tomorrow he or she
may want to send me a similar note.
Without per-user load information, cooperation is very unlikely.
Knowing the program being run (g++, Lisp, etc) is also helpful, but
not as important.
- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool?
Message-ID: <1991Nov26.232012.2924@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 91 23:20:12 GMT
References: <9111261414.AA19022@se33.wg2.waii.com> <1991Nov26.161123.7594@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com (Jim Thompson) writes:
>>I would also add that, in the interest of protecting those who aren't
>>unix-savvy, the sysadmin powers-that-be have an *obligation* to their users to
>>inform them of ps, its dangers, and how
>>to protect against them. (And probably
>>also about lpq or lpstat.)
"dangers"? "dangers"??!!
The length of the list of "privacy-invading" programs/utilities continues
to amaze me. In this thread, various posters have condemned:
-- who
-- finger
-- ps
-- lpq/lpstat
-- acctcom
How far is this going to go? Are you folks going to speak against the
inclusion of date/time stamps in electronic mail? After all, those lines
tell people which machine you used for email and when you used it; horrors!
Let's refute these 5 sample cases on an individual basis:
Note: These rebuttals are based on the academic model; corporate or
private systems are completely outside of this model. Users of
academic systems are using University resources, which makes their
usage a public matter, in my opinion.
-- who
Con: It's nobody's business whether or not I'm logged in!
Pro: Many users check who before starting large jobs. If
they see, say, 6 people from their class logged in,
they may not want to run their huge fortran program
at that time.
Many users have discovered that their passwords were
compromised by checking who.
-- finger
Con: It's nobody's business when I last read my mail!
It's nobody's business if I use a pseudonym!
Pro: When people receive unrequested email or messages,
finger is the first step in identifying the source.
When admins (or professors, or bureaucrats) need information
about a user, finger is often the first stop. In official
matters, pseudonyms are unacceptable.
When users are trying to contact each other, finger is often
a first step ("Did he have a chance to read the mail I sent?")
-- acctcom
Con: It's nobody's business what I use the computer for!
Pro: Many systems are intended solely for academic use.
acctcom can be an indicator of possible abuses of the
system.
While the "academic use" condition is usually very broad,
many sites have a strict "not for profit/private business"
policy. acctcom can be an indicator of possible abuses.
On systems with fees/charges, many department heads/managers
use accounting tools to enforce system policies
-- ps (and w and top, as well)
Con: It's nobody's business what my processes are doing!
Pro: Many users schedule their work based on the system load.
If their jobs are not completed within the norms, users
usually use ps to get a general picture of the system.
Sysadmins use ps for gross system optimization.
Many classes (especially in CS/EE) use system monitoring
tools such as ps to demonstrate "how real systems are used".
-- lpq/lpstat
Con: It's nobody's business what I print!
Pro: User schedule their printing based on the system load.
Some systems charge for printing; lpq/lpstat become valuable
tools for department heads/managers, who do not normally have
sysadmin privileges.
>Maybe we have an outline of a confidentially policy for the Statement
>on Computers and Academic Freedom.
>Information about users should not be disclosed to outsiders except
>under the conditions specified under Federal law.
If the system contains such information, it should certainly be protected.
Examples of this would be SSNs, home addresses, and the like. Of course,
my systems only say "User jbfoo01 is John B Foo, and he's a Mechanical
Engineering student"; that's hardly private information.
>2. Email and news reading
>
>Library confidentially policy applies to use of email, Netnews,
>anonymous archives, and similar media. This limits the collection,
>retention, and dissemination of personally-identified use records.
Yes and no; I've often been asked for my name and position when using
public library facilities, such as PC labs, microfiche machines, and
other semi-controlled facilities. I'm sure that those records still
exist. I would point out that those records merely state that I was
using a microfiche machine; they don't say anything about the individual
fiches I was perusing. That's an important distinction, which I'll talk
about later in this posting.
>3. User control
>
>Unless there is a good reason, information about a user
>should either be confidential or under each users control.
Nope. I don't buy this one. There is nothing wrong with disseminating
how my systems are used. I don't see anything wrong with seeing that
jbfoo01 was running "vi junk.f". If he's protected his files from other
users, what "private information" is being revealed here? "junk.f" might
(or might not) be a Fortran program, which he might (or might not) be
building for a class. It might actually be a love letter to his girlfriend
Flo. Assuming that information belonging to users (i.e., files) are protected
by privacy policy, I don't see anything wrong with making the typical "ps"
information available.
>e.g. "The 'ps' command is allowed because (we think) it
>enables better cpu and memory sharing on computers."
>(Not "Because if you don't like you can use a PC.")
OK, you asked for it:
"We do not find the normal Unix command set invasive of user privacy.
Therefore, we have chosen to make the default installation of Unix
available to you. You can find more information in the online help
files or in the printed manuals in room XXX."
>b) Users should be informed of what kind of information might
>disclosed (i.e. if you signed on, when you last read mail, how much
>CPU you are using, what command you have run in the last 2 days) and
>to what kind of person (i.e. sys admins, other users, anyone on the
>Net, etc)
Carl, you just added 5-10 pages to my policy statement with this
statement. Is it really necessary? In 15 years of working with
computers (the last 5 as a full sysadmin, with assistance experience
prior to that), I have never heard a single complaint about these
facilities.
By the way, would you like to try explaining all of these commands
to incoming freshmen with zero large-system experience? They don't
even know what a "process" is, much less what the status would be!
(for you non-Unix types, "ps" stands for "process status")
Rather than
arbitrarily promoting privacy screens, let's nail down the reasons
by which these standards should be imposed. So far, all I've seen
is "It's nobody's business!".
Remember, this thread started with a user who didn't want to have
his real name attached to a user account on a University system,
which was given to him at the expense of said University. Can
you imagine trying to manage a system where all the
usernames were tied to pseudonyms? Suppose that "finger al3w" resulted
in "Name: The Zorkmeister"; wasn't that helpful? Sheesh. Suppose that
someone's faculty advisor is trying to get in touch with you; I guess
he just loses, eh? No, you lose, because you are making it impossible
for people to use the system effectively to contact you.
Please, let's nail down the need before we start finding
solutions.
>What are all the ways that information is disclosed, say,
> on a Unix system? (finger, ps, top, ...) Hasn't
> someone somewhere already documented theses?
Yup, it's freely available to any user in almost any Unix text I've
ever seen. The online man pages and printed manual for your particular
system are the best place to start.
In conclusion, the computer is a tool; it's applications are much like
those of an audio/visual lab. The a/v lab needs to know if you are
using the microfilm machine. They don't need to know what you're using
it *for*, but they need to know that you're using it. The computer lab
users need know if you are using ANSYS; they don't need to know what you're
using it FOR, but they need to know that you're using it.
If you approach a computer system as a collection of tools (just like
the a/v lab is a collection of tools), then the need for this information
becomes apparent. Your use of a given computer system affects all other
users of that system, just like your use of the microfilm machine affects
all the other users of the a/v lab. What's the difference?
--
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com (Jim Thompson)
Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool?
Message-ID: <9111271314.AA02555@se33.wg2.waii.com>
Sender: thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com
References: <1991Nov26.232012.2924@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 27 Nov 91 13:14:08 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com (Jim Thompson) writes:
> >>I would also add that, in the interest of protecting those who aren't
> >>unix-savvy, the sysadmin powers-that-be have an *obligation* to their users to
> >>inform them of ps, its dangers, and how
> >>to protect against them. (And probably
> >>also about lpq or lpstat.)
>
> "dangers"? "dangers"??!!
To privacy. I guess "dangers" is a bit extreme, though; perhaps "risks" would
have been a better choice. But the point is the same: a careless or ignorant
user can, under certain circumstances, reveal things about himself.
>
> The length of the list of "privacy-invading" programs/utilities continues
> to amaze me. In this thread, various posters have condemned:
>
> -- who
> -- finger
> -- ps
> -- lpq/lpstat
> -- acctcom
You implicitly lump in with these "various posters". Please. I did not
condemn ps, I merely presented a few facts and (admittedly contrived)
examples. I rejected, and continued to reject, the notion that ps is
"privacy-invasive"; if anything, I tried to put the burden where it belongs:
on those who wish to protect every bit and byte of information regarding
themselves.
> >b) Users should be informed of what kind of information might
> >disclosed (i.e. if you signed on, when you last read mail, how much
> >CPU you are using, what command you have run in the last 2 days) and
> >to what kind of person (i.e. sys admins, other users, anyone on the
> >Net, etc)
>
> Carl, you just added 5-10 pages to my policy statement with this
> statement. Is it really necessary? In 15 years of working with
> computers (the last 5 as a full sysadmin, with assistance experience
> prior to that), I have never heard a single complaint about these
> facilities.
It shouldn't be necessary to add 5-10 pages to your policy statement. That
is, you needn't give new users a lesson in ps, lpq, ad nauseam -- just point
out the specific commands, what sort of information they reveal, refer the
users to the man pages, and let them RTFM.
I can appreciate that you've never had problems with these commands at UK, but
remember that Carl is formulating a general statement to be used as a guide
for making policy at any given academic computing site (correct me if I've got
this wrong, please, Carl). As such, I think that the statement should include
a recommendation that users be informed of the privacy issues. Users have a
right to know, up front, what information about them might be disclosed, and
how -- even if they have no choice about some of it, for example their real
name being associated with their uid via finger.
--
Jim Thompson - thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com | Conjunction Junction,
Western Geophysical Exploration Products | what's your function?
Houston, Texas |
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: treeves@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves)
Subject: I am from ACS at OSU
Message-ID: <1991Nov25.165500.11219@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 16:55:00 GMT
Well, I bet that subject got some attention! I can hear the boos and hisses
from here!
DISCLAIMER This is not ACS, just me. All of this is purely personal opionion.
No one "made" me say that or even asked me to. I just think its a good idea,
as I think I am in somewhat hostlile territory. Please don't bother
defending yourself - if you feel the need you are too sensitive :-)
First here is proof that we are READING this discussion and that we CAN post.
Ugly rumours about censorship at ACS are ridiculous.
Of course we can't talk about (well, you know, what can't talk about... )
[recurses infinately] that's the law.
Now with regards to policy. A question. I would like to read an actual
approved, in force for a fairly long time, policy of a university that this
group, especially Karl, approves of, or mostly approves of.
Note it must be in actual use. Theoretical policies are untested and somewhat
well, theoretical. Anyone got one by ftp or post here or e-mail to me?
This is a sincere question folks not some sort of cynical remark.
I have been reading here since may/june and I think such things have been
mentioned and I want to find one.
I am not going to defend ACS policy. Those at the top have choosen not to
(if they are reading this, and I think they are). There has been no
announcement to this effect folks, they just have not done it. I could answer
some attacks, I might agree with others, but frankly I don't really think it's
my place. I am not the policy maker. That's who your argument is with.
Naturally, as an ACS staffer it is part of my job to point out ways we can
improve, and work for better service to the campus. I do have some
suggestions of my own about policy. But rather than post them here I will
make them internally. It would be rather odd, I think, for me to give them
a first airing here, or even post them at all when the people I need
to persuade are all in the building with me.
Opinion - can't prove it - but my experience is ACS is filled with people
who strongly believe in electronic freedom, open computing, call it what you
will.
We brought usenet & e-mail to the masses here. We fought for it, we are
fighting for it.
Some people regarded as villains here are trying hard to make computing
more open and useful on campus. The major limitation is money - or put
another way people at the very top of osu & state gov't have to see computing
as basic part of education. We do.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
| That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
| Public Sites micro software support | treeves@magnus.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU |
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: Alt.sex flap at U of Iowa
Message-ID: <9300@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 91 18:27:40 GMT
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Today's Daily Iowan, Monday Nov. 25, 1991, has joined the fray.
On the top of page 3A, on the left, is the headline "UI Computer Files
Contain Pornography", followed by the same kind of incisive reporting
of the alt.sex newsgroups that we have become used to from the print
media. The article does mention that the "pornography" is carried by
USENET, but no mention is made of other material on USENET. The article
indicates that the U of I computers contain "over 70,000 pages" of
pornography, which is nonsense -- this is roughly the total number of
postings that have been delivered to Iowa's machines over USENET, but
nobody at the DI seems to have noticed that things get deleted on a
regular basis.
Appearing as it does on top of the recent flap about movie Taxi Zum Klo,
this will certainly put more pressure on the University of Iowa to censor
things on campus. In the case of the movie, the local county attourny
has decided that it is "non pornographic but one scene contains depiction
of sexual exploitation of a minor, and that scene must be edited out in
any showing of the movie."
One consequence of the Taxi Zum Klo flap is that the state legislature
will probably review the current exemptions from the "sexual exploitation
of a minor" laws that applies to educational institutions and public
libraries. As currently written, the Iowa law allows for educational
use of such material in such institutions, and the law may be rewritten
to forbid this. (So, if I wanted to teach a course on the impact of
pornography on the sexual development of children in modern western society,
I wouldn't be able to use these materials under the proposed changes to the
law.)
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu
Subject: On "Personal Use" restrictions
Message-ID: <199111252159.AA14818@eff.org>
Sender: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu
Date: 25 Nov 91 20:06:41 GMT
In an October 26 posting to comp-academic-freedom-talk, Carl Kadie
commented on the policies of the SEASnet system at UCLA:
>1. The policy says:
>
>>* Use of SEASnet's Computing Facilities
>> Use of SEASnet's computing facilities, including
>> hardware, software, and networks is restricted to the
>> purposes for which SEASnet accounts are assigned. These
>> uses are limited to research and educational purposes.
>> Any personal or commercial use of SEASnet equipment is
>> prohibited.
>
>But then:
>
>> * Game Playing
>> Various games are available on the system.
>> however, you must not play games when other
>> users need a terminal for any other activity. If
>> you are playing games, you must log out whenever
>> users are waiting, and offer them your terminal.
>> it is not ethical or polite to stay logged in
>> until the person waiting asks you to log out, or
>> to expect a waiting user to wait for you to
>> finish playing.
>
>Isn't game playing an example of personal use? Isn't much email use
>personal? If the members of a student organization (say, the sailing
>club) keep the the club roster on-line, isn't that a personal use?
>How about if someone accesses the library computer to find a book on
>bicycle repair?
>
>The policy could be improved by applying the "game policy" to all
>noncommercial personal use.
I strongly disagree that limitations on the use of games, _qua_ games,
should be extended to other "noncommercial personal use" (hereinafter referred
to as "NPU"); I find the prospect of blanket restrictions on NPU _per se_
even more disquieting.
Admittedly, more of an argument can be made for such a policy on the
in-house system of an individual academic unit (which it is my impression that
SEASnet is, on the assumption of it being an acronym for "School of Engineer-
ing and Applied Science" or something to that effect) than on a system run
for general use by an all-campus computer center. It is also possible to
enforce such a policy more efficaciously in the former case than in the
latter. (But, as I shall discuss below, all-campus installations are not
immune to having blanket NPU restrictions at least nominally in effect.)
It gives me pause, as I think it should to all readers of this mailing
list, that posting, or reading the postings of others, to comp-academic-freedom
-talk itself would apparently be a technical violation of such policies,
inasmuch as it presumably is not being done in the service of specific course-
work or research. The same goes for reading, or posting to, the lion's share
of newsgroups on USENET/NETNEWS, as well as--of course--much if not most email
correspondence, and the other examples which Carl cites at the end of his own
comment on the SEASnet policy.
As mentioned above, broad prohibitions on NPU do occur at all-campus
computer centers. For instance:
>The following uses of computers supported by Academic Computing Services,
>including public microcomputers, are specifically approved:
> [...]
>D. Personal computing for the improvement of computing literacy and not asso-
> ciated with a scheduled class. Such "improvement of computing literacy"
> must be consistent with Loyola's mission of education, research, and
> health care. _This category of use must not be used to justify activities
> such as personal correspondence of personal business._ [Emphasis added.]
>
> This means that once a computer skill associated with a resource is
> learned, that resource may only be used for instruction or research.
(Source: Loyola University of Chicago, "Information Systems Computing Policy,
Policy No. 1: Authorized Uses of Public Academic Computing Facilities," 1984)
At my own institution, a recent document states that account suspension is
possible for "frequent frivolous use of computing resources," which is enumer-
ated separately from "playing computer games," also given as a cause of action.
(Source: University of Illinois at Chicago Computer Center, "Penalties for
Misuse of UIC Computing Resources," 1991) This presents serious questions of
vagueness and overbreadth, over and above any specific chilling effects it
may have--at least in theory--on benign noncurricular uses of an all-campus
system.
To be sure, the policy Carl seemed to be speaking favorably of simply
posited a moral responsibility for those using a system for noncurricular
applications at a given moment to yield to those desiring to use it for
curricular ones, in the event of a shortage of available workstations, rather
than declaring noncurricular uses actionable _per se_. Even so, I think it
is crucial to draw a distinction between those activities that have an argu-
able nexus to the communication of ideas and those that do not (by which I
refer principally to computer games). I remain uncomfortable with any formal
policy statement which draws invidious distinctions between activities in the
former group which do not happen to have a clear curricular connection, and
those that do, at least in the case of systems intended for general campus
use.
Mitch Pravatiner
Internet: U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: On "Personal Use" restrictions
Message-ID: <1991Nov25.223548.15641@eff.org>
References: <199111252159.AA14818@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 22:35:48 GMT
One small clarification of my suggestion to UCLA.
The UCLA SEASnet policy says:
"Any personal ... use of SEASnet equipment is prohibited."
And,
"Various games are available on the system.
however, you must not play games when other
users need a terminal for any other activity."
I said:
"The policy could be improved by applying the "game policy" to all
noncommercial personal use."
In other words, instead of banning nongame, noncommercial personal
use, SEASnet should at least allow nongame, noncommercial personal use
on the same basis that it allows game playing.
In other, other words, I was not suggesting *adding* a restriction; I
was suggesting *removing* a restriction.
- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: declan@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Declan J. Fleming)
Subject: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Nov27.215410.18938@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 21:54:10 GMT
Hi. I manage 8 student computing sites with about 500 machines (PC, MAC, NeXT)
and I'm having more and more trouble with gamers, especially IRCers and MUDers.
Our policy states that the sites are primarily for academic work. If all the
machines are full when a person comes in to do a paper, all the gamers are
booted for a period of time. This is getting to be a major headache for my
staff. How do you all handle it?
Declan J. Fleming
U of Ill
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: CAF bibliography
Message-ID: <1991Nov24.005758.19865@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 00:57:58 GMT
=================
bibliography
=================
This is an unorganized list of books related to Computers and Academic
Freedom.
In the future, this list should be organized by
* putting listings in standard form
* referencing CAF notes that reference these books
* annotating the listing with brief comments
---------------------
ACLU's Handbook on the _Rights of Authors and Artists_ (1984).
ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_, revised edition, by David
Rubin, 1984
_A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by
Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring.
(College Administration Publication, 1985).
_School Discipline and Student Rights: an advocate's manual_ by Paul
Weckstein, revised edition, 1982, Center for Law and Education.
_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.
_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
_Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer, et al.
Published in 1991 by Longman.
_In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.), Franklin E. Zimring
and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors).
_The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam
ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition
by Janet. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary.
_Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct of
Administrative Proceedings_ by Edgar H. Bittle (1986)
_Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
_Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center (1985,1988)
_50 Ways to Fight Censorship & Important Facts to Know about Censors_
by Dave Marsh. Published by Thunder's Mouth Press in 1991>
_American Library Laws_ (5th edition)
_Cuckoos Egg_
_Prelude to Foundation_
_American Psycho_
_The Joy of Lesbian Sex_
_SpyCatcher_
_Libraries, Erotica, and Pornography_
_Censorship, Libraries, and the Law_
_A Book of French Quotations_, Norbert
Dorothy L. Sayers, _Busman's Honeymoon_
_Constitutional Law_ by William Lockhart
_The Dictionary of Computer Terms_ (2nd Ed.), by Barron's
_Anarchist Handbook_
_The Freedom to Publish_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian. Published by
Neal-Schuman Publishers 1989
_The Freedom to Read Books, Films, and Plays_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian
_Freedom of Religion_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian
_Freedom of Expression edited by Haig A. Bosmajian
_Academic Freedom_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian
ALA Policy Manual
_Intellectual Freedom Manual_ Third Edition, published by the American
Library Association.
343.730998P782T POOL, ITHIEL DE SOLA, 1917-
TECHNOLOGIES OF FREEDOM$ CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 82-24498
Academic Freedom and Catholic Higher Education by Annarelli.
Policy Documents and Reports by the AAUP
KF4225.A59B45 BICKEL, ROBERT D.
THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COURTS$ ASHEVILLE, N.C. 79-107650
379.14C686 THE COLLEGE STUDENT AND THE COURTS $ASHEVILLE, N.C 76-648745
1929528 1 ADDED: 790609 SER
379.1402H71L HOLLANDER, PATRICIA.
LEGAL HANDBOOK FOR EDUCATORS $BOULDER, COLO 77-26092
PN4748.D44S871989 SUSSMAN, LEONARD R.
POWER, THE PRESS AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF FREEDOM$ NEW YORK, N.Y. 89-16806
KF2750.G67X GORA, JOEL M. THE RIGHTS OF REPORTERS$ NEW YORK 74-21647
3504663 1974 1 ADDED: 890304
025.21878R272C REICHMAN, HENRY, 1947-
CENSORSHIP AND SELECTION$ CHICAGO, ILL. 88-16815
025.213B393 MICHIGAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION. INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM COMMITTEE.
BEFORE AND AFTER THE CENSOR$ MICHIGAN
QA76.9M65F671990 FORESTER, TOM. COMPUTER ETHICS$ OXFORD, UK 89-28265
581358 1990 1 ADDED: 901227
016.37914T43S TICE, TERRENCE N
STUDENT RIGHTS, DECISIONMAKING, AND THE LAW $WASHINGTON 77-985494
KF4175.Z9F55 FISCHER, LOUIS,1924- TEACHERS AND THE LAW$ NEW YORK 80-23394
515737 1981 2 ADDED: 810815
KF4243.H41986 HENDRICKSON, ROBERT M.
THE COLLEGE, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE CONSUMER STUDENT$ WASHINGTON, D.C.
KF4243S881983 STUDENT AFFAIRS AND THE LAW $SAN FRANCISCO 82-84204
376685 1983 1 ADDED: 840209
174P238EA PARKER, DONN B.
ETHICAL CONFLICTS IN INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND BUSINESS
$ WELLESLEY, MASS. 89-38890 318040 1990 1 ADDED: 910627
025.21878AM35W
:AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION. OFFICE FOR INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM.:
WORKBOOK FOR SELECTION POLICY WRITING$ CHICAGO
Z658.U5F571984 MCCOY, RALPH E. (RALPH EDWARD), 1915-
THE FIRST FREEDOM TODAY$ CHICAGO 84-461
Z658.U5F571984 MCCOY, RALPH E. (RALPH EDWARD), 1915-
THE FIRST FREEDOM TODAY$ CHICAGO 84-461
*Charter 19 book
*interlibrary loan book
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
