From warnold Mon Dec 2 04:47:46 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA26928
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 09:47:50 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 09:47:46 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199112021447.AA26923@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 2 09:47:03 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
thoth@uiuc.edu (Be : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship, et al.) Censorship in Oxford was Re: SEX
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.men, et al.) Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Cen
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.men, et al.) Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.men, et al.) Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.irc) Re: Why IRC is going nowhere, slowly.
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) U. Washington stops feed of alt.sex.pi
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.bbs.allsysop) Legal Papers available
kadie@eff.org (Car : Bradley University (Peoria, Illinois)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.women) NPR report on Goya's nude(was re: feminist pru
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (misc.legal.computing) Re: Sysop liability: a real case
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (news.future) Re: Usenet access for high schools, public l
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Nov30.222312.6431@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
References: <1991Nov18.025221.9676@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <9wm7BB1w164w@kaplaah.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 22:23:12 GMT
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
> This isn't surprising at all, considering the Daily Illini's past
> record... remember the "colorless fluid" found in the boneyard last
> year? the DI called it "condensed water." and assured the public that
> it wasn't dangerous...
mike@kaplaah.UUCP (Mike Batchelor) writes:
> So what did it turn out to be? And what is 'the boneyard?'
The "boneyard" is a creek in Urbana, IL. It is notoriously polluted.
The "colorless fluid" was, in fact, "condensed water" -- that is,
water in liquid form. Imagine finding any of that in the Boneyard
Creek!
You see, it was a joke that Matt failed to understand.
BTW, I like your nodename. (That is, if I am guessing its
pronunciation and origin correctly.)
--
Ben Cox
thoth@uiuc.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Censorship in Oxford was Re: SEX pic newsgroups CENSORED in Cincinnati
Message-ID: <9112011838.AA21337@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Dec 91 06:38:05 GMT
From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Subject: Censorship in Oxford was Re: SEX pic newsgroups CENSORED in Cincinnati
Message-ID: <1991Nov27.110018.3066@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Nov 1991 11:00:18 GMT
In article <1991Nov15.233915.306@ucbeh.san.uc.edu>, temple@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
> I logged onto my Vax account today and went to, as I am bound to do,
> the newsgroup reader on our Vax (VMS). Sometimes, old or bogus
> newsgroups are deleted when I first run the program. This is normal
> and everybody has seen this before. However, tonight when I opened the
> reader, I saw this:
>
> Old newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, deleted from NEWSRC
> Old newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.blondes, deleted from NEWSR
> Old newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d, deleted from NEWSRC
> Old newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female, deleted from NEWSRC
> Old newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless, deleted from NEWSRC
> Old newsgroup: alt.sex.pictures, deleted from NEWSRC
> Old newsgroup: alt.sex.pictures.d, deleted from NEWSRC
> Old newsgroup: alt.sex.pictures.female, deleted from NEWSRC
>
You think you've got problems?
Here in Oxford, and I think the UK generally, we have never even seen these
groupd once! And alt.pictures.bin got deleted here a few weeks ago. We also do
not get, among others...
ALL of the alt.sex hierarchy
alt.drugs
alt.backrubs (or has this died???)
While the pictures groups do take a lot of space, the general discussion lines
don't take too much. If space was a problem I would expect us not to establish
new groups, and we certainly do take new groups.
I think this is a general UK problem, but it is very annoying...
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax | Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc @ uk.ac.ox.astro | Saint Germain...
================================================================================
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men, et al.] Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
Message-ID: <9112011838.AA18331@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Dec 91 06:38:32 GMT
From: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross)
Subject: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
Message-ID: <29369024.3c9@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 29 Nov 91 19:08:20 GMT
SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWS BECOME TOOLS OF CENSORS
by Dave Gross
Some people call it "political correctness," others call it the "new
McCarthyism." Whatever you call it, you can't help but notice that some
very liberal people are taking some very illiberal stands on freedom of
speech lately.
Whoever is banning expression, whether liberal or conservative, none calls
it "censorship" -- there's always a linguistic twist which redefines
"speech" as something else and thereby justifies its elimination.
So while the right wing has its anti-abortion "gag rule," or bans opposing
views on the drug war from the university, or tries to get Robert
Mapplethorpe photos defined as pornography; the left wing circumscribes a
set of epithets and outlaws them as "hate speech," or bans opposing views on
affirmative action from the university, or tries to make pornography a crime
against women. But nobody, on left or right, will stand up and speak out in
favor of "censorship."
No, they call it "sensitivity," or "decency," and they are only trying to
stop "hate speech," or "degradation of women," or "filth." Whatever it is,
it's Bad for you -- so bad that they don't want you to hear it or read it or
see it. But, trust them: You wouldn't want to, anyway.
The latest tool in the hands of the censors is called "sexual harassment."
By using this tool, speech which could not be censored by any politician or
police officer can be banned for offending the sensitivities of any employee
with a prude's eye and a hungry lawyer.
It wasn't too long ago that this trend started, and at first I confess I
wasn't too alarmed. A woman working at a shipyard was upset at, among other
things, explicit pin-ups that some of the employees kept on-site. She
called it sexual harassment and won her case; the court decided that those
pin-ups contributed to a "hostile environment" that constituted sexual
harassment.
Businesses got the message that Playboy centerfolds at work could mean big
judgments in court. The memos went out to employees: Take down the pin-
ups, this is an order. Jesse Helms could not have banned Playboy from the
workplace by Congressional decree -- Congress wouldn't enact the law, and if
they did, the Supreme Court would overturn it -- but the censors have used
the trojan horse of sexual harassment to enforce an anti-sex book-burner's
wet dream.
"Bad idea," I thought, but I didn't get too upset. I don't read Playboy at
work. Besides, I only read it for the articles. Really! You don't believe
me?
But the slippery slope got a new lube job several weeks back. A professor
at Penn State demanded that a print of Goya's "Nude Maja" be removed from a
classroom wall because she felt sexually harassed by the idea of male
students looking at this artist's interpretation of the female body while
she was lecturing. A committee on women's concerns at Penn State backed the
professor and "Nude Maja" was taken down.
They wanted to ban Playboy -- well, so do lots of people. But Goya? What's
going on here? I think what it comes down to is that the debate about
sexual harassment is a lot more about sexuality and a lot less about
harassment than might first meet the eye.
Traditionally, censors of nudity and erotica have had a fear of sexuality.
Right-wing censors express their fear as a fear of disrupting the family.
Sexuality not confined to marriage, be it premarital, extramarital,
homosexual or pictoral, is a threat. To feminist censors, the problem is
male sexuality or a female sexuality which threatens their view of
appropriate femininity. Women posing for Playboy, or for Goya for that
matter, aren't Womanly Correct. If you let students see "Nude Maja," pretty
soon they might get ideas that some women LIKE taking their clothes off!
The term "sexual harassment" has been translated by some to mean "if it's
sexual, it's harassment." This is tragic. Sexual harassment is real and
its effects are terrible. By confusing sexual expression, erotica and even
art with sexual harassment in order to serve the agenda of narrow-minded
prudes hiding behind the feminist banner, resources that could be spent to
help victims will be spent to pursue censorship. Censorship. That's what
it is, no matter what they decide to call it this time.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I think the true situation [of the women who make up 47% of Playboy managers]
becomes more clear if you imagine Jews working for a magazine in which Jews
are nude and Christians are clothed." -- Gloria Steinem
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men, et al.] Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
Message-ID: <9112011842.AA15594@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Dec 91 06:42:24 GMT
From: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
Message-ID: <1991Nov30.180733.23414@mdd.comm.mot.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 18:07:33 GMT
In article <1991Nov30.050021.9413@Csli.Stanford.EDU> scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
>
>If you want to censor something, at least admit to it.
Yes. Please.
>It is ok to want to censor,
I grit my teeth as I agree. OK to want to. Otherwise we have thought police.
Perhaps even OK to try to implement it by upfront methods, though I personally
think not - not even in the area of "community standards of decency". I'm
not a raving social activist, but censorship by imposition of community
standards seems to me just a special case of a powerful majority ruthlessly
supressing expression of a minority viewpoint.
>but you'll be made a fool of in the long run if you can't
>admit up front that that is your desire.
Actually, you probably stand a better chance by trying some underhanded,
indirect tactic to accomplish the censorship than you do trying to
rally support behind an up-front bookburning.
>There are things I would
>censor, but I hope I would have the integrity to admit that was what I
>was doing.
Me too, but integrity often gets in the way of getting the job done. It's
very (_VERY_) easy to fall into a mindset where your objective has such
seeming importance that the end justifies the means.
>--
>James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150
--
mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men, et al.] Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
Message-ID: <9112011842.AA06810@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Dec 91 06:42:57 GMT
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
Message-ID: <1991Nov30.192047.17825@anasaz>
Date: 30 Nov 91 19:20:47 GMT
Keywords:
In article <29369024.3c9@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes:
]
] So while the right wing has its anti-abortion "gag rule," or bans opposing
] views on the drug war from the university, or tries to get Robert
] Mapplethorpe photos defined as pornography; the left wing circumscribes a
] set of epithets and outlaws them as "hate speech," or bans opposing views on
[flame suit on]
I agree that both extremes are involved in censorship. However, I must take
issue with two of the above examples (I am not familiar with the drug
war issue). The anti-abortion gag rule is censorship of government compensated
speech - ie, of speech directly related to an activity that the government
is paying for. As such, I don't think that it falls into the same realm
of censorship as some of the other cases. Likewise, the Mapplethorpe photos
were again government subsidized. I think the government, if it insists on
subsidizing things (which it does WAY too much), has both the right and
responsibility to exercise some control over it. IE, I am not interested
in paying taxes to subsidize offensive things (the PISS Christ case is
a better example, since it blatantly offends a large number of religious
people).
I think in a University setting, any but the most careful and minute censorship
is out of line. Furthermore, it is self defeating - suppressing hate speech
just increases hate on the part of those crude enough to have engaged in
it. Showing extreme sensitivity to everyone (well, everyone except WASPS)
is pretty silly too, and enforcing that sensitivity with law is outrageous.
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- - Self Righteousness is the Opiate of the Politically Correct - -
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.irc] Re: Why IRC is going nowhere, slowly.
Message-ID: <9112012028.AA26932@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Dec 91 08:28:55 GMT
From: notarus@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Notarus)
Subject: Re: Why IRC is going nowhere, slowly.
Message-ID: <1991Nov29.234645.29635@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1991 23:46:45 GMT
>IRC is so unreliable that it can't be used for anything other than
>frivolity.
Gee. Talk to the people on +amiga, +unixhelp, +GBLF, or any of a
hundred other semi- and very- permanent chanels on IRC that help
an immense nuber of users learn to use the machines they are on, ort how
to deal with the people around them.
>IRC's user interface and documentation is so bad that people without
>a hell of a lot of time on their hands aren't going to try it.
Try /help. You'd be amazed how far the documentation has come since the preX
releases.
>As far as I can ascertain, it *****still***** cannot be invoked
>like talk, the program which it puportedly "replaces".
Comparing IRCII to talk is like comparing the berkley mail shell to SMTP.
They both do the same thing, but the implementation is so different, the
possibilites are so much more complex, that the comparison is meaningless.
Sure, you can send mail to everyone you ever do by going into the SMTP
program directly; it sucks, thou. Try talking to three of your friends with
multiple windows and talk(1) commands...that sucks two.
>IRC permits authoritarian creeps to control the flow of information
>at the stroke of a key, without any of the safeguards that exist for
>other Internet-based means of communication.
No, you are wrong. There are no safeguards for imformation travelling
on the internet; It is quite easy to cancel an article in usenet without
being the author. There are no safegaurds preventing someone from
hooking a machine up to the internet and "reading" packet transmissions, eithe
except that it is prohibitively difficult. There is no need for a safeguard
in IRC of they type you seem to be looking for; IRC is almost as secure
as any other form of packet transmission.
>IRC needs much, much more administrative intervention than is
>required by other Internet-based means of communication.
Bull. Why do you think every internet site on the net has a "postmaster"
address? It isnt there just becuase the name is cool-sounding. Why is it
that every usenet feed-ed machine on the net has someone who's job, part
time or full, is to make sure that usenet access runs smoothly?? Not for the
fun of it.
>IRC is unstable and extremely unprofessional. The low returns are
>absolutely not worth the high time/resource investment of most sites
>on the Internet.
IRC doe not absorb a high amount of time, either administrationwise
or cpu-wise. Instead of creating blank, groundless flames on something
that is working fine to the couple-thousand people who use it, try using
the time to learn the concepts involved in debating. If you have something
constructive to say, wither it be positive or negative, mail me or post.
I'll be happy to listen. Should you wish to again post a bunch of meaningless
random criticisms, with no basis in either reality or evidence, please go
home and play with your teething ring, not your keyboard.
Razorbone
--
Farfignoogan Snoozignoogan
Boozignoogan Becuase it IS a volkswagon World. :>
Razorbone-oogan.. Emailignoogan razorbone@uiuc.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] U. Washington stops feed of alt.sex.pix
Message-ID: <9112012108.AA03933@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Dec 91 09:08:05 GMT
From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Subject: U. Washington stops feed of alt.sex.pix
Message-ID: <393@news.duke.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 91 21:51:01 GMT
According to an item in the Duke _Chronicle_, which paraphrased a
College Press Service release, the University of Washington
"recently terminated a computer channel containing pornographic
materials". I assume this is a reference to alt.sex.pictures.
These pictures "could be accessed freely by students and faculty"
and they could be "easily copied" to other computers.
And the reason why the University stopped it? Were minors looking
at the pictures? Were they obscene? Did the University previously
ban pornographic magazines from dorm rooms?
No, the Seattle _Post-Intelligencer_ was about to write an article
about the "channel's" existence at the University. University
officials cut the feed hours before the article was to appear.
I haven't heard anything else on this -- are there other details
or results of this action? Perhaps someone more familiar with
this can fill us in...
This story made it sound like it was a UW-only "channel". There
were no references in it that any other university (or Duke for
that matter) had access to it as well!
--
________________________________________________________________________
| John jfw@neuro.duke.edu Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead jfw@well.sf.ca.us Department of Neurobiology |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs.allsysop] Legal Papers available
Message-ID: <199112012156.AA05704@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 1 Dec 91 11:56:43 GMT
From: neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Subject: Legal Papers available
Message-ID: <1991Dec1.121032.2094@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Date: 1 Dec 91 12:10:32 +0900
Howdy,
Just thought some of you might like get a copy of some of the files
I have just uploaded to the Sydney Univ. Law School archives.
They are in the /uploads directory at sulaw.law.su.oz.au
(They may be moved to their own directory soon, so you might have to look
around).
_____
The following files were uploaded on 1 Dec., 1991:
Law.Privacy - _Computer Privacy v. First & Fourth Amendment_
by Michael S. Borella
Law.Secutiry - _An Introduction to Computer Security for Lawyers_
by Simson L. Garfinkel
Law.Media - _Media Performance and International Law_
by Howard H. Frederick, Ph.D
Email-Privacy-Law.txt
- _The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986_
(United States)
Email.Privacy - Misc. quotes from US cases involving privacy
Copyright.Law - _Copyright Law_
by Jordan J. Breslow
Tempest.Law - _Eavesdropping on the Electromagnetic Emanations of
Digital Equiptment: The Laws of Canada, England and
the United States_
by Christopher Seline
Liability.review
- Review of _Liability: The Legal Revolution and its
Consequences_, by Peter Huber
bbs.defamation - _Defamation Liability of Computerized Bulletin
Board Operators and Problems of Proof_
by John R. Kahn
bbs.and.the.law - _The Electronic Pamphlet: Computer Bulletin Boards
and the Law_
by Michael H. Riddle
ecpa.layman - _The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986:
A Layman's View_
by Michael H. Riddle
ecpa.amendment.bill - A Bill to Amend the ECPA 1986 (transcript)
--
Mark Neely InterNet: neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Research Student
Northern Territory Uni. Law School
Darwin, NT Australia
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Bradley University (Peoria, Illinois)
Message-ID: <1991Dec1.220901.5892@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 22:09:01 GMT
Quotes from a column by Phil Luciano in the November 22nd Peoria
Journal Star:
---- begin quote---------
....
"We chose not to invoke censorhip," says Joel Hartman, associate
provost for informaton technolgies and resources. "... If anyone
wishes not read it, you don't have to."
...
"This is like a shelf for books," he says. "One might be the Bible,
one might be a history book and one might be a book that might offend
the reader."
...
"We're not going to sit and read everthing and decide, 'This is too
off that wall' or 'This one is to risque,'" Hartman says.
...
And Hartman added that just because the computer system features a sex
group, "that doesn't mean the university assoications itself with or
condones any items in a group."
--- end quote--------
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.women] NPR report on Goya's nude(was re: feminist prudes and Goya's nudes)
Message-ID: <9112012233.AA25472@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Dec 91 10:33:15 GMT
From: farrell@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Subject: NPR report on Goya's nude(was re: feminist prudes and Goya's nudes)
Message-ID: <11102.29371e3b@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 91 10:14:34 GMT
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
>Seems to me that the school over-reacted by removing the Goya and
>the other paintings too. They should have simply moved it to another
>place.
According to a story on NPR, the school _did_ "simply move it to another
place". They moved the Goya print to a reading room in a library building.
Perhaps I misunderstand and you meant they should have moved it to a differ-
ent location in the same room?
I don't see why the school would have a large art reproduction behind the
podium of a lecture hall in the first place. Great art seizes one's attention;
it would always be a distraction to the students as they are looking in
the direction of the lecturer. The art and the lecture would always be in
competition for their attention. Whether the art was a nude, landscape, or
abstract, it would make it hard to concentrate on the lecture because of
the constant temptation to focus on and enjoy the details of the painting.
(Of course, this assumes that students know anything about art; see below)
I don't think the school overreacted. According to the NPR story,
it wasn't just one woman who was offended; apparently male students in the
classroom would frequently make obscene remarks about the painting which
offended female students. (Perhaps they even made comments _about_ their
female classmates and/or professors, with reference to the painting.
Some of the statements by the woman who started the protest seemed to imply
this, but I can't remember the exact words).
My impression of this mess is that some students were just too immature to
handle being in the presence of a painting of a nude. The painting was just a
trigger for the offensive remarks. Rather than trying to get the students
who were making the comments to stop it and/or change their attitudes, the
school took the least painful route of removing the painting. An example of
"overkill" would be if the school had tried to have these students kicked out
of the course.
Another interesting point in the report was that the students making sexual
comments didn't even know the reproduction was of a famous artwork. To them
it just some random view of a naked woman. (They probably never even heard of
Goya before all this controvery).
>>speculation alert, for all you automatic gainsayers<<
I don't know how the woman lecturer (professor ??) who started the protest
(and was interviewed on NPR) knew this. Perhaps some of the female under-
graduates who complained to her deduced it from the comments made by their
immature classmates?
> -ed falk, sun microsystems
> sun!falk, falk@sun.com
> card-carrying ACLU member.
Margie Farrell
Ohio State Physics Dept.
farrell@ohstpy, farrell@mps.ohio-state.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal.computing] Re: Sysop liability: a real case
Message-ID: <9112012249.AA00348@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Dec 91 10:49:13 GMT
From: tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Subject: Re: Sysop liability: a real case
Message-ID: <95lq02Iw04pn01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 20 Nov 91 05:13:52 GMT
In article <1991Nov19.182526.5320@Veritas.COM> joshua@veritas.com writes:
>The following is quoted from COMPUTERWORLD, Nov. 11, 1991, page 26:
>(I've added the typos.)
>
> Service providers often fear legal liability for not censoring messages,
> but in fact, by assuming more control to avoid legal probles, they
> might atually bring more legal responsibility on themselves. This
> past week, U.S. District Judge Peter K. Leisure of the U.S. District
> Court for the Southern District of New York appeared to support that
> view with a ruling in a case involving the Compuserve Information
> Service.
>
> The essential facts are these: A consultant named Don Fitzpatrick
> publishes an electronic gossip column about broadcast journalism
> under the title "Rumorville." In one issue, he referred to a new
> comppeting publication titled "Scuttlebutt" as a ``start-up scam,''
> and the publishers filed ssuit against both Fitzpatrick and Compuserve.
> After learning that Compuserve asserted no editorial control over
> "Rumorville" at all, Judge Leisure dismissed Cmopuserve from the
> case, basically noting that simply providing the publication on-line
> brought them no more responsibility for the content than a convenience
> store has for the contents of the _Time_ magazine compies it sells.
>
>This sounds like good news for sysops and USENET system administrators.
>Does any one know if the Judges ruling has been appealed, or how binding
>it is in other parts of the U.S.?
>
First disclaimer: I haven't read the case. That being said, 1) I'm _sure_
it's been appealed. Since it's a judicial opinion on a motion to dismiss,
it's a matter of law, not fact, and subject to appeal. Any lawyer who'd
let a deep pocket like CompuServe get away without a fight won't be in
practice very long. But I hope he loses. 2) It's not _binding_
precedent anywhere, even before other judges in the same district.
However, if the opinion is well reasoned and well written, it may serve as
important _persuasive_ precedent. Judges in other districts often pay
heed to opinions written in other jurisdictions. I suspect that, all
things being equal, they prefer for the law to be consistent throughout
the land, and only vary from deciding similar questions in the same way
when either a) they feel pretty strongly that it had been wrongly decided
in another court, or b) they feel the factual content of their case is
sufficiently distinguishable that it needs to be decided on its own merits.
--
The above is my thoughts, not my employer's; Terry Carroll 408/992-2152
The above is not legal advice; tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
All models over 18 years of age. tjc50@amail.amdahl.com
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.future] Re: Usenet access for high schools, public libraries
Message-ID: <9112012257.AA25938@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Dec 91 10:57:46 GMT
From: sac@Apple.COM (Steve Cisler)
Subject: Re: Usenet access for high schools, public libraries
Message-ID: <60295@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 27 Nov 91 13:04:34 GMT
I use a public library in Santa Clara County, California (Silicon Valley)
where there was recently a case involving a parent who wanted to see the
circulation records for his/her kid who liked to check out videos. Because
this library (and many others as well)has a strong privacy policy, the
parent could not gain access. Because of the controversy, each library
has posted very clear notices at the checkout counter informing the
public about the privacy policy.
I think this would be the way to go once libraries begin offering access
to the networks.
Some files relating to privacy can be had by anonymous ftp from
ftp.apple.com in the alug/rights directory.
Steve Cisler
Apple Library
sac@apple.com
From warnold Mon Dec 2 04:48:45 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA27134
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 09:49:02 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 09:48:45 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199112021448.AA27092@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 2 09:48:16 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship, et al.) Mark Law is an unmitigated asshol
at464@cleveland.Fr : Re: (soc.men, et al.) Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool fo
amorgan@Neon.Stanf : Re: (soc.women) NPR report on Goya's nude(was re: feminis
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Mark Law ...
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (soc.men, et al.) Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship, et al.) Re: Censorship in Oxford was Re:
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Canada: Police Seize BBS, Software Piracy Charges Expe
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Mark Law is an unmitigated asshole
Message-ID: <9112020135.AA20464@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 1 Dec 91 13:35:34 GMT
From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Mark Law is an unmitigated asshole
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Nov 91 11:07:10 GMT
Taken from rec.humor. Kadie may find this particularly interesting.
mitra@ece.wisc.edu (Hirak Mitra) writes:
I am to apologize (says my advisor) regarding "Racism, Rednecks and Such",
to a man named Mark Law. Furthermore, I am to post a copy of this apology
on rec.humor. This is what I am doing.
- hirak :-D
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Law
mal@terminator.cc.umich.edu
Dear Mr. Law:
I have received from my advisor, Dr. Parmesh Ramanathan, a message stating
that you were offended by my post regarding "Racism, Rednecks & Such". As
such, I am to apologize to you, send him a copy of the apology, and post
this apology on the net. This is what I am doing.
Mr. Law, I am sorry that you read my post and decided to make trouble
for me here. You see, you could simply have noted the subject line and
decided not to read the post - because you knew that this material would
offend you. This is the standard policy.
Having read my post, you could have simply denounced it on the net, like
everyone else. But you didn't.
You could have sent me a copy of your grievance. But you didn't - I can't
imagine why.
Instead, you chose to bother my advisor about my posting.
Mr. Law, I am curious - you find my posting offensive. But there have been
hundreds of such postings on the net - as "bad" as mine or worse. Why did you
not take issue with any of those others?
Let me make one thing absolutely clear, Mr. Law. I am not in the least sorry
I posted what I did. I am just sorry that you took exception to it, and then
attempted to get back at me.
Just to remind you as to what you took offence to, Mr. Law, I am attaching
a copy of your letter to this. And, according to my advisor's desires, I am
posting a copy of this apology on rec.humor.
Now everyone knows who you are. Have a nice day, Mr. Law.
Hirak Mitra
mitra@descarte.ece.wisc.edu
(608) - 255 - 4289
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mal@terminator.cc.umich.edu
Message-Id: <9111231722.AA00411@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Subject: mitra@ece.wisc.edu
In-Reply-To: <1991Nov21.143035.29551@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
Cc:
The following was posted to a newgroupon the Internet. Is this
the type of person you really want representing the University of Wisconsin?
In article <1991Nov21.143035.29551@doug.cae.wisc.edu> you write:
:Regards all. I ran into Simos yesterday. He said he no longer reads this
:group - all the jokes are old. I guess the ketchup thread was the last
:straw ... I think I should have told him about the raging battle between
:the Racist Fuckheads and the PC Censorship Communards. Really, this is the
:most fun I've seen in this group in a *long* time!
:
:
:To put the Tyson joke in perspective:
:
:What would you say if you saw Gerry Cooney (a world-class boxing heavyweight)
:chained to a post? You would ask him if his ape strength was due to his
:Irish heritage! (Then you would run like hell, just in case the post was
:flimsier than expected.)
:
:Oh my! A racist joke! Heavens, what's the world coming to!!!!
:
:Anyway, this is all hilarious to me, and many others! As long as freedom
:of speech doesn't go out the window, I for one am happy. I am happy when
:people post racist jokes, and I am happy when PC people flame them for it,
:and I am happy when the PC people are in turn flamed by freedom of speech
:types (like me)! Basically, this means that everyone says whatever they
:like, no matter whom it offends. In other words, freedom of speech wins,
:PC loses!! Heh heh .. I love it! Keep it up guys!
:
:Note one thing: no blacks actually said anything during any of this. Why?
:Because they are watching all the fun and laughing as hard as I am!!
:
:
:Racist Joke: One of my friends had a Korean friend whom he rode bicycles
:with. The Korean was a black belt in tae kwon do. Anyway, one day he was
:at an intersection, and some black guy tried to turn right but couldn't
:because the Korean was to his right and going straight. He rolled his window
:down and said, "Move your ass, you Chinese pussy!" And the Korean just
:laughed quietly .. "Hah hah hah ... NIGGER!!!!!" and rode away.
:
:Flame this if you like .. it just drives another nail into PC's coffin!
:
: hirak :-D
- --
Mark A. Law Mark.Law@umich.edu (313) 936-4910
Information & Networking Services University of Michigan Hospitals
>------- End of Forwarded Message
[ end of Hirak's message ]
Now, I don't find Hirak's stuff too funny, but that's just my opinion.
I can't believe that U Wisc would come down on someone for one post on
rec.humor that isn't even the most offensive post on there that day.
Especially just from one complaint from a bozo like Law. He could
have simply sent mail to Mr. Mitra, but instead chose to inflict
maximum PC damage by complaining to the head PC types.
On the theory that this can only result in negative publicity for UW,
and that my title will draw maximum readership, I've posted it to
appropriate groups.
--
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
-------------------
From: at464@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Fred A. Dickey, III)
Subject: Re: [soc.men, et al.] Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.014322.5410@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 91 01:43:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1991Dec2.014322.5410
References: <9112011838.AA18331@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns9.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) says:
>
>From: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross)
>Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.sex,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
>Subject: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
>Message-ID: <29369024.3c9@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
>Date: 29 Nov 91 19:08:20 GMT
>
>
>
> SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWS BECOME TOOLS OF CENSORS
> by Dave Gross
> No, they call it "sensitivity," or "decency," and they are only trying to
> stop "hate speech," or "degradation of women," or "filth." Whatever it is,
> it's Bad for you -- so bad that they don't want you to hear it or read it or
> see it. But, trust them: You wouldn't want to, anyway.
>
I think that if a person feels threatend by simple words or
pictures..that somehow this will demoralize them or people around them,
then they must not have a very strong belief system to begin with. I
fail to see why their insecurities should alter everyone else's rights
to do what they wish.
> But the slippery slope got a new lube job several weeks back. A professor
> at Penn State demanded that a print of Goya's "Nude Maja" be removed from a
> classroom wall because she felt sexually harassed by the idea of male
> students looking at this artist's interpretation of the female body while
> she was lecturing. A committee on women's concerns at Penn State backed the
> professor and "Nude Maja" was taken down.
I don't agree with a number of attempts to censor various forms of
expression. I think people have a right to watch/read/listen to what
ever they wish. But I do think that a nude picture of a woman or a man
shouldn't be hung on a class room wall. People have just as much of a
right to not view things as they do to view them. Hanging a picture in
a public lobby is fine, but in a classroom where the students must sit
in the room X amount of time a day is could infringe on certain people's
rights. The debate shouldn't be over whether or not something if filth.
That's a qualitative opinion. The question that we should ask ourselves
is whether or not this is going to be infringing on the rights of
others. Not to mention...that's downright distracting 8-)
>
> They wanted to ban Playboy -- well, so do lots of people. But Goya? What's
> going on here? I think what it comes down to is that the debate about
> sexual harassment is a lot more about sexuality and a lot less about
> harassment than might first meet the eye.
>
> Traditionally, censors of nudity and erotica have had a fear of sexuality.
> Right-wing censors express their fear as a fear of disrupting the family.
> Sexuality not confined to marriage, be it premarital, extramarital,
> homosexual or pictoral, is a threat. To feminist censors, the problem is
> male sexuality or a female sexuality which threatens their view of
> appropriate femininity. Women posing for Playboy, or for Goya for that
> matter, aren't Womanly Correct. If you let students see "Nude Maja," pretty
> soon they might get ideas that some women LIKE taking their clothes off!
>
People are kind of silly...they're so scared of something that is a
simple process of life. I think if more of us took a better look at
ourselves and were more honest with ourselves about things, then
sexuality wouldn't be so scary. We've been on this planet for several
millions of years...you'd think we wouldn't be so scared of something
that's been a part of us for just as long. If it wasn't for sexuality,
there wouldn't be a family to be disrupted. Sexuality is very much a
part of a family: it's certainly part of parent hood, and children go
through a little thing called puberty....sexuality is in the family
whether you like it or not..so might as well accept it and go on. If we
weren't so afraid of sexuality, then more people would know to practice
safe sex and words like condom, spermicidal jelly, etc wouldn't be so
scary and words like abortion, adoption, welfare, etc wouldn't be so
common.
--
,Mr. Spock (aka Fred Dickey)
-------------------
From: amorgan@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: [soc.women] NPR report on Goya's nude(was re: feminist prudes and Goya's nudes)
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.020704.12597@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
References: <9112012233.AA25472@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:07:04 GMT
In article <9112012233.AA25472@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>From: farrell@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
>Newsgroups: soc.women
>Subject: NPR report on Goya's nude(was re: feminist prudes and Goya's nudes)
>Message-ID: <11102.29371e3b@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
>Date: 30 Nov 91 10:14:34 GMT
>
>From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
>>Seems to me that the school over-reacted by removing the Goya and
>>the other paintings too. They should have simply moved it to another
>>place.
>
>According to a story on NPR, the school _did_ "simply move it to another
>place". They moved the Goya print to a reading room in a library building.
>Perhaps I misunderstand and you meant they should have moved it to a differ-
>ent location in the same room?
>
>I don't see why the school would have a large art reproduction behind the
>podium of a lecture hall in the first place. Great art seizes one's attention;
>it would always be a distraction to the students as they are looking in
>the direction of the lecturer. The art and the lecture would always be in
>competition for their attention. Whether the art was a nude, landscape, or
>abstract, it would make it hard to concentrate on the lecture because of
>the constant temptation to focus on and enjoy the details of the painting.
And this is a reason to remove it???? Hell, if I am in a boring lecture
(or even a not so boring one) a fly buzzing around the room can be a
distraction.
>(Of course, this assumes that students know anything about art; see below)
>I don't think the school overreacted. According to the NPR story,
>it wasn't just one woman who was offended; apparently male students in the
>classroom would frequently make obscene remarks about the painting which
>offended female students. (Perhaps they even made comments _about_ their
>female classmates and/or professors, with reference to the painting.
>Some of the statements by the woman who started the protest seemed to imply
>this, but I can't remember the exact words).
So boot the students. If there were no painting in the classroom and some
male students were making off-color remarks the school would discipline
them in some way.
>My impression of this mess is that some students were just too immature to
>handle being in the presence of a painting of a nude. The painting was just a
>trigger for the offensive remarks. Rather than trying to get the students
>who were making the comments to stop it and/or change their attitudes, the
>school took the least painful route of removing the painting. An example of
>"overkill" would be if the school had tried to have these students kicked out
>of the course.
Really? Suppose there is a class with a black student. Some of the other
students are too immature to handle being in the presence of a person of
a different race and start making insensitive jokes. Rather than trying
to change the attitude of these students the black student is asked to
leave the room.
If the school in question has a rule on sexual harrassment then it might
*not* be overkill to kick them out of the class and possibly the
university. I don't think such a rule is constitutionally sound but
if such a rule existed then the university would be within their rights.
>Another interesting point in the report was that the students making sexual
>comments didn't even know the reproduction was of a famous artwork. To them
>it just some random view of a naked woman. (They probably never even heard of
>Goya before all this controvery).
So what?
>>>speculation alert, for all you automatic gainsayers<<
>I don't know how the woman lecturer (professor ??) who started the protest
>(and was interviewed on NPR) knew this. Perhaps some of the female under-
>graduates who complained to her deduced it from the comments made by their
>immature classmates?
>
>Margie Farrell
>Ohio State Physics Dept.
>farrell@ohstpy, farrell@mps.ohio-state.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Mark Law ...
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.025652.9833@eff.org>
References: <9112020135.AA20464@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:56:52 GMT
>mitra@ece.wisc.edu (Hirak Mitra) writes:
>I am to apologize (says my advisor) regarding "Racism, Rednecks and Such",
>to a man named Mark Law. Furthermore, I am to post a copy of this apology
>on rec.humor. This is what I am doing.
[...]
>Mark Law
>mal@terminator.cc.umich.edu
>Dear Mr. Law:
[...]
Speech restrictions at Mr. Mitra's school and Mr. Law's school have
been struck down by federal courts. The basis of these decisions is
that public universities are free market places of ideas. "Bad" ideas
should, therefore, be out competed, not outlawed. I'm enclosing
information on how to get the full text of these decisions.
Carl Kadie, Computers and Academic Freedom Archivist
---------
=================
README
=================
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send 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.'
=================
constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
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.
=================
due-process.buchanan
=================
Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
from:
_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
=================
due-process.french
=================
Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
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.
=================
due-process.weckstein
=================
Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
from:
_School Discipline and Student Rights: an advocate's manual_ by
Paul Weckstein, revised edition, 1982, Center for Law and
Education.
=================
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-v-lopez.fischer
=================
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.
=================
goss-v-lopez.mnookin
=================
Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.),
Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). 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.
Also,
=================
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."
=================
keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
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.
=================
mills-v-bd-of-ed
=================
Summary from the ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition
by Janet. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61. It says
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.
=================
mt-healthy-v-doyle
=================
_Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct of
Administrative Proceedings_ by Edgar H. Bittle (1986) says that a
formal hearing should make a detailed "findings of fact" list.
=================
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.)
Also, 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.
Also, from 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.]
=================
privacy.electronic.bill
=================
The text of Simon's electronic privacy bill, S. 516. "To prevent
potential abuses of electronic monitoring in the workplace."
=================
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." Also, "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". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
student-publications.misc
=================
The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center
(1985,1988), says that four-letter words are protected speech, that
public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that
they for which they do not control the contents, and that the
_Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
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
Tue Nov 26 21:04:46 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: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men, et al.] Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
Message-ID: <9112021400.AA04100@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 2 Dec 91 02:00:49 GMT
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
Message-ID: <00-f1#m@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 91 07:39:12 GMT
In article <1991Nov30.192047.17825@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>In article <29369024.3c9@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes:
>] So while the right wing has its anti-abortion "gag rule," or bans opposing
>] views on the drug war from the university, or tries to get Robert
>] Mapplethorpe photos defined as pornography; the left wing circumscribes a
>] set of epithets and outlaws them as "hate speech," or bans opposing views on
>[flame suit on]
>I agree that both extremes are involved in censorship. However, I must take
>issue with two of the above examples (I am not familiar with the drug
>war issue). The anti-abortion gag rule is censorship of government compensated
>speech - ie, of speech directly related to an activity that the government
>is paying for. As such, I don't think that it falls into the same realm
>of censorship as some of the other cases.
Oh, but it *does.*
The government is saying that because it doesn't like something that
is a Constitutional right, a doctor is not allowed to mention it. A
doctor is supposed to *violate* his oath by *not* mentioning viable,
legal, medical procedures because certain members of the government
don't like those procedures.
The government is supposedly bound by the Constitution. If it is
trying to circumvent it, then it most *definitely* fits in with other
types of Constitutional circumventions.
> Likewise, the Mapplethorpe photos
>were again government subsidized. I think the government, if it insists on
>subsidizing things (which it does WAY too much), has both the right and
>responsibility to exercise some control over it. IE, I am not interested
>in paying taxes to subsidize offensive things (the PISS Christ case is
>a better example, since it blatantly offends a large number of religious
>people).
Interesting you bring up Serrano's "Piss Christ."
It offends a large number of religious people because they don't
understand it. All they see is a crucifix in urine and assume that
the artist was making a derogatory statement about religion.
That is the farthest thing from the truth. Serrano was making a
statement about what religion has become in this day and age...it has
become tainted and defiled...pretty much exactly what his picture
showed: People have pissed on Jesus.
And that is exactly why there shouldn't be government censorship of
things that the government sponsors. It eventually becomes the
government prohibiting the recipients from doing what it is they were
funded to do. A doctor is not longer allowed to practice medicine
because he can't counsel his patients to seek viable, legal, medical
treatments. An artist is not allowed to be an artist because his work
is misunderstood and labeled "offensive."
--
Brian Evans |If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would
bevans@hydra.unm.edu |be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's Scientific Method!
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Censorship in Oxford was Re: SEX pic newsgroups CENSORED in Cincinnati
Message-ID: <9112021402.AA04261@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 2 Dec 91 02:02:03 GMT
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Censorship in Oxford was Re: SEX pic newsgroups CENSORED in Cincinnati
Message-ID: <2774@tuegate.tue.nl>
Date: 1 Dec 91 17:46:20 GMT
In article <7343@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
: From time to time there occurs a gif posting that is empty, that is,
:a header loudly proclaiming that it is a gif and a body consisting of begin
:and end. If you don't get these short postings or a kb or so, I'd suspect that
:alt.*.erotica.* is censored according to content when it passes into the UK.
: If you on the other hand get those small empty gifs, it is postings over a
:certain size that is screened out.
What is happening is that ukc screen out certain groups - notably
those they fear would cause bad press if the tabloid heard of them;
for instance, alt.psychoactives, even though it isn't anything like
alt.drugs.
The reason you see some posts is that news software lets postings through if
they are also crossposted to other, non-censored, groups.
Graham
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Canada: Police Seize BBS, Software Piracy Charges Expected 11/25/91
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.135153.27249@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 91 13:51:53 GMT
References: <9111281655.AA25409@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:
>:
>: The RCMP seized 10 personal computers, seven modems, and
>: software, worth about C$25,000 altogether. A statement released
>: through the Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft (CAAST), a
>: group of major software vendors, said a four-month investigation
>: had found that the BBS was charging its subscribers C$49 per year
>: for access to an assortment of software that included copies of
>: commercial programs and beta-test versions of unreleased
>: packages.
>:
> My question/comment about this concerns the legality of confiscating
> the computer along with the software.
>
> Namely, if the charge is distributing copyrighted materials, then why
> was the entire system taken? The computer itself, once unplugged, is
> not terribly capable of providing evidence.
It is, however, capable of continuing the crime, is it not?
Wouldn't the alleged perpetrator's friends/accomplices wipe that thing clean
at the first opportunity? If that happened, the court case would wind up with
a police officer saying "these disks were copied from his computer, and they
have pirate software on them." I can see the fun a defense lawyer would have
with that one........
> An idea occured to me that the perpetrator of this act, the sysop, could
> more easily communicate his plight to others if he had a computer, and,
"Communicate his plight to others" sounds rather similar to "warn his buddies".
I don't know about Candian law; do prisoners in cases such as this have access
to a telephone?
> by taking it away, the RCMP has made it more difficult for him to clear
> himself of the charges against him.
I know very little about Canadian law, but I really don't see the logic in this
statement. Why does he need *his* computer system to clear himself? Details,
please.
> ALthough I don't agree with many of the antipornography laws, I do feel
> that the general principle of taking the incriminating material, rather
> than taking _everything_ is the more legal way to proceed.
Don't you see that the computer system *IS* incriminating material? Testimony
that says "I called this number and downloaded this copyrighted software" is
certainly incriminating, but presenting the computer itself, loaded with the
pirated software, is an extremely important piece of evidence.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Mon Dec 2 12:19:21 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA08305
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 17:19:25 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 17:19:21 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199112022219.AA08300@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 2 17:18:48 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.bbs, et al.) More on Legal Papers
elg@usl.edu (Eric : Re: System Accounting: Fascist
U15289@UICVM.uic.e : On privacy
fsars@acad3.alaska : Re: (soc.men, et al.) Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a too
kadie@eff.org (Car : Early announement: Frequently Asked Questions Archive
kadie@eff.org (Car : FAQ: archive
kadie@eff.org (Car : FAQ: email.privacy
kadie@eff.org (Car : FAQ: media.control
kadie@eff.org (Car : FAQ: netnews
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs, et al.] More on Legal Papers
Message-ID: <199112021440.AA26500@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 2 Dec 91 04:40:40 GMT
From: neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Subject: More on Legal Papers
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.103116.2107@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Date: 2 Dec 91 01:31:16 GMT
Just an addendum to my previous posting.
The files have been moved from the /pub/upload directory into the
/pub/law directory!
Thanks,
Mark Neely
NB - Stay tuned, more on their way
--
Mark Neely InterNet: neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Research Student
Northern Territory Uni. Law School
Darwin, NT Australia
-------------------
From: elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool?
Message-ID: <1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu>
Date: 27 Nov 91 03:16:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: usl.1991Nov27.031621.4433
References: <9111252053.AA09129@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Sender: anon@usl.edu (Anonymous NNTP Posting)
In article <9111252053.AA09129@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:
>In article <1991Nov25.162134.6865@eff.org> you write:
>: 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".
>:
>: -------
> 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
Well: I agree, that there should be a per-process option which
restricts what information is available to "ps". HOWEVER: here's
something that actually happened:
A person ran MIT C-Scheme. This is a huge memory hog that has a 4 megabyte
memory image. He typed (quit) to exit the Scheme environment. He wasn't
Unix-adept, so he didn't know what "job stopped xyzzzy" meant... he assumed
that it meant that Scheme had died and gone away.
He then edited his Scheme file (sure, he should have control-Z'ed, but
Unix neophyte, remember?) and then ran Scheme again.
Note: Now we have TWO schemes running, taking up 8 megabytes of swap space.
Repeat several times.
Get message, "Out of swap space" when try to spawn a process.
I typed ps -augxw at my terminal, trying to figure out what the heck
was going on, and noticed all these Schemes. I noted the tty that this
was being run from, and wandered over there and let him know what he was
doing wrong.
Now, who did I harm? Seems to me that yes, I could have reported it to an
administrator... but I'd still be waiting for someone to kill all those
old processes off :-).
> 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.
I'm of the old hacker school. I don't believe in either privacy or
administrators :-). The way I figure it, if you don't have anything to
hide, you have no reason for privacy. Now, I'll agree that in a corporate
environment privacy is a necessity. But this is the academic environment,
built around free flow of information. Restrict that free flow of information,
and you get less productivity, less cross-pollination of ideas between
people, less of what universities are set up to do.
>
> 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, knowing what the runaway process is allows me to go over to that
person's terminal and say "hey, did you know that you were using 90% of
the CPU?". It also allows me to go straight to the operator and tell him
exactly what is going on... note that this guy in the machine room isn't
a professional, probably just a graduate assistant, and expecting him
to know his way around the system is like expecting a blind man to see :-).
(In other words, expecting him to be able to figure out how to solve the
problem all by himself just isn't realistic).
--
--
Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70506 (318) 989-8950
Internet: elg@elgamy.raidernet.com UUCP: uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg
"It's never too late for a happy childhood" -- The Doctor
-------------------
From: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu
Subject: On privacy
Message-ID: <199112022109.AA05709@eff.org>
Sender: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu
Date: 2 Dec 91 20:10:21 GMT
In article <1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu>, elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green) says:
>The way I figure it, if you don't have anything to hide,
>you have no reason for privacy. Now, I'll agree that in a corporate
>environment privacy is a necessity. But this is the academic environment,
>built around free flow of information. Restrict that free flow of information,
>and you get less productivity, less cross-pollination of ideas between
>people, less of what universities are set up to do.
To me, at least, this sounds uncomfortably like the great words of Edwin
Meese, to the effect that a person not formally charged with a crime is not a
suspect, and by implication need not enjoy the full protection of the Bill of
Rights. It seems to me that contemporary American society is making a disquiet
ing evolutionary shift toward what Jeane Kirkpatrick, of all people, has called
the "institutionalization of distrust;" or away from a "presumption of liberty"
to a "presumption of regulation." Both within and outside the context of com-
puting, the nominal _raison d'etre_ of this mailing list, the fear of predation
(hacking and cracking at the micro level, and rape, burglary _et al._ at the
macro) has been leading to an uncritical acceptance of social controls on the
part of many, and a disvaluing of personal freedoms. A detailed discussion of
all this is beyond the scope of this particular forum, but sentiments such as
Green's need to be responded to on general principle.
Green's remarks raise a couple of other issues worth discussing: "Whose
privacy?," and "free flow of what information?" When he states that privacy
is essential in the business environment, but not necessarily in the academic
one, he seems to gloss over the distinction between the real or imagined phen-
omenon of institutional privacy (a term apparently coined in a 1985 opinion by
then-appellate judge Antonin Scalia), and the very real (if severely beleagur-
ed) phenomenon of individual privacy. The fear of industrial espionage (how-
ever proportionate or disproportionate to reality that fear may be) has led
many corporations to be less than optimally respectful of the privacy of
individuals, in a variety of ways. With respect to the other issue, the flow
of what information, he seems to be confusing the free flow of _ideas_--some-
thing all of us presumably would endorse--with the free (overly so, in the
judgment of some)--flow of more mundane personal data, without regard to whose
legitimate concern it may be. While certain information may not be inherently
sensitive, whether it be related to a terminal session (_e.g._, what newsgroup
one is reading at the moment), or anything else, this does not mean that its
revelation to anyone seeking it (or even not seeking it, if it comes in a
package deal with other information) is justified _prima facie_. Not all
information of this sort is anybody's business, let alone everybody's. The
difference between what information is whose business--and more importantly,
the distinction between such information, on the one hand, and ideas and
opinions, on the other--must always be kept in mind.
Mitch Pravatiner
BITNET U15289@UICVM
Internet U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
-------------------
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: [soc.men, et al.] Re: Sexual Harassment Laws as a tool for Censors
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.114151.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Sender: news@raven.alaska.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
References: <9112021400.AA04100@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 15:41:51 GMT
Dave Gross brought this thread up because a female professor objected
to teaching in front of a nude painting, Goya's "Nude Maja". She said
that having to do so constituted sexual harassment.
I agree that the painting should be taken down. I object, however, at
calling it sexual harassment. For one thing, by definition,
harassment implies intent. I don't think that that painting was
placed on that wall with the intention to harass anyone.
The reason the painting should be taken down is common decency, not
sexual harassment. Taking that painting down from a classroom does
not constitute censorship, though if that painting had been in a
museum or an art gallery, because someone objected to it, then it
would be censorship. I can see how a women might be uncomfortable in
teaching in front of a nude painting. Us males should respect her
right to a comfortable WORK environment. Just because this isn't a
factory floor doesn't mean she's not working.
=== Al Sparks
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Early announement: Frequently Asked Questions Archive
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.213546.6379@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 21:35:46 GMT
=================
README
=================
Warning: Still Under Development
A directory of frequently asked questions. To see a list of questions,
see file ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/README. Soon you will also be
able to send email to archiver-server@eff.org, including the line:
send caf-faq README
Disclaimer: The answers are generally not written by lawyers and are
not authoritative. Each answer is the opinion of its author.
=================
archive
=================
q: What files are available from the Computers and Academic Freedom
archive?
=================
email.privacy
=================
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
=================
media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
=================
netnews
=================
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
=================
Last update
Mon Dec 2 16:11:48 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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FAQ: archive
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.213719.6458@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 21:37:19 GMT
q: What files are available from the Computers and Academic Freedom
archive?
a: The Computers and Academic Freedom archive includes several
subarchives. Each archive is described by a file named README.
- Carl
Annotated References
All these documents are available on-line. To get them by email, send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom README
send caf-batch README
send civics README
send caf-law README
send library-policies README
send caf-news README
send other-comp-policies README
send widener-collected-comp-policies README
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/README
pub/academic/batch/README
pub/academic/civics/README
pub/academic/law/README
pub/academic/library/README
pub/academic/news/README
pub/academic/policies/README
pub/academic/widener/README
Here is a description of the files:
=================
README
=================
Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
This is an electronic library of information about computers and
academic freedom.
It is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3) in
directory "pub/academic". It is also available via email. For
information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In
the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index".
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
batch/README
=================
This is a directory of notes that have been sent over the
comp-academic-freedom mailing list. Each file is a list
of one week's notes (in batch form). Also, see "news".
=================
civics/README
=================
Directory of general documents related to government. It includes the
U.S. Constitution and mailing addresses for U.S. Senators and
Representatives.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/civics".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
civics
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
=================
law/README
=================
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send 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).
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy 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 library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
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, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
news/README
=================
This is a directory of all issues of the Computers and Academic
Freedom News. A full list of abstracts is available in file
"abstracts". The special best-of-the-month issues are named with their
month, for example, "June".
=================
policies/README
=================
Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send other-comp-policies
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, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
This directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*.
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FAQ: email.privacy
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.213832.6542@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 21:38:32 GMT
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
a: Ethically (and perhaps legally) email communications should have
the same privacy protection as telephone calls. It would be unwise for
any university employee to tap email communications without
authorization from the university president, university legal counsel,
and the academic freedom committee.
- Carl M. Kadie
Annotated References
All these documents are available on-line. To get them by email, send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom caf-statement
send acad-freeedom student.freedoms
send caf-law gillard-v-schmidt
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send caf-law ecpa.1986
send caf-law privacy.email
send caf-law privacy.workplace
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/law/gillard-v-schmidt
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986
pub/academic/law/privacy.email
pub/academic/law/privacy.workplace
Here is a description of the files:
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/ecpa.1986
=================
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
law/privacy.email
=================
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex
=================
law/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.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FAQ: media.control
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.213925.6646@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 21:39:25 GMT
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
a: Like any organziation, the Government must work within its charter
(the Constitution). The Supreme Court has said that this limited the
Government's authority to control the media that owns and controls.
The rational is that it would be dangerous for a Government that is
elected by the people to have too much control on what the people
can say and read.
Annotated References
All these documents are available on-line. To get them by email, send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s):
send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send caf-law stanley-v-magrath
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send caf-law rust-v-sullivan
send caf-law keyishian-v-board-of-regents
send caf-law perry-v-perry
send caf-law constitution.us
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
pub/academic/law/constitution.us
Here is a description of the files:
=================
law/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.
=================
law/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." Also, "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". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center
(1985,1988), says that four-letter words are protected speech, that
public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that
they for which they do not control the contents, and that the
_Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
law/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.)
Also, 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.
Also, from 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.]
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FAQ: netnews
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.214100.6751@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 21:41:00 GMT
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
a: In 1989, Stanford University banned rec.humor.funny. The ban was
lifted after a university committee recommended that newsgroups be
selected according to library policy. In other words, removing a
newsgroup is equivalent to banning a magazine from an academic
library.
The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries can (and
should, in my opinion) be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
With the permission of the American Library Assocation, these
documents and others are avaiable on-line. Many of these documents
deal with controversial material and material selection policy. For
example, article 2 of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval". The ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing tells how
to create a formal policy.
- Carl M. Kadie
Annotated References
All these documents are available on-line. To get them by email, send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom stanford.statements
send acad-freeedom caf-statement
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
send library-policies README
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/stanford.statements
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/README
Here is a description of the files:
=================
stanford.statements
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/selection-workbook.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy 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 library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
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, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Tue Dec 3 04:50:31 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA04534
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Tue, 3 Dec 1991 09:50:44 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 09:50:31 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199112031450.AA04514@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Dec 3 09:49:45 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : FAQ: policy
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
kadie@eff.org (Car : (alt.bbs, et al.) Privacy Bibliography
tlt38517@uxa.cso.u : Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
elg@usl.edu (Eric : Re: On privacy
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.circplus) Re: confidentiality of reserve
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.circplus) Re: confidentiality of reserve
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.circplus) Re: confidentiality of reserve
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.circplus) Re: confidentiality of reserve
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FAQ: policy
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.214206.6863@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 21:42:06 GMT
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
a: The first thing to do is to get a copy of your university's Student
Code. It often protects student and staff freedom of expression,
privacy, and due process rights. It is not just a piece of paper; it
is part of the legal contract between student and university. Any new
policy must be consistent with this policy.
You may also find the unofficial, draft Statement on Computers and
Academic Freedom (CAF) useful. Also the CAF Archive contains the
policies of many schools, some with critiques.
- Carl Kadie
Annotated References
All these documents are available on-line. To get them by email, send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom caf-statement
send other-comp-policies README
send widener-collected-comp-policies README
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/policies/README
pub/academic/widener/README
Here is a description of the files:
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
policies/README
=================
Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send other-comp-policies
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, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
This directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*.
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
--
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: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.215509.14485@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <1991Nov18.025221.9676@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <9wm7BB1w164w@kaplaah.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 21:55:09 GMT
In article <9wm7BB1w164w@kaplaah.UUCP> mike@kaplaah.UUCP (Mike Batchelor) writes:
>>
>> This isn't surprising at all, considering the Daily Illini's past record...
>> remember the "colorless fluid" found in the boneyard last year? the DI called
>> it "condensed water." and assured the public that it wasn't dangerous...
>
>So what did it turn out to be? And what is 'the boneyard?'
>
It's a local creek... extremely polluted. I don't know what it really was.
I included the reference only as an example of the average intelligence of
DI reporters.
--
Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
C++ forever, P*scal never!
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs, et al.] Privacy Bibliography
Message-ID: <199112022242.AA09008@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 2 Dec 91 12:42:11 GMT
From: neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Subject: Privacy Bibliography
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.161917.2116@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Date: 2 Dec 91 07:19:17 GMT
Howdy,
I have been having an e-mail conversation with Stacy Veeder for several
days on the topic of e-mail privacy. She mailed me this bibliography
which she has compiled for two papers which she is currently writing.
I post it here with permission.
PS - She is interested in talking with anyone who has some views on the
topic/information to share.
Mark N.
_______
From: SMTP%"@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET"
From: Stacy Veeder
***********************BIBLIOGRAPHY BEGINS HERE*************************
Bairstow, Jeffrey, "Who Reads Your Electronic Mail?" Electronic
Business (June 11, 1990), 16(11):92.
Barlow, John Perry [barlow@well.sf.ca.us], "Crime and Puzzlement:
Desperados of the Datasphere" (1990), Whole Earth Review (in
press as of 6/91), distributed through Usenet newsgroup sci.virtual-
worlds [15948.9007180105@hydra.unm.edu].
Brown, Bob, "EMA Urges Users To Adopt Policy on E-Mail Privacy,"
Network World (October 29, 1990), 7(44):2 (two pages).
Burke, Steven, "Electronic-Mail Privacy To Be Tested in Court in
Suit Against Epson," PC Week (August 20, 1990), 7(33):124.
Casatelli, Christine, "Setting Ground Rules for Privacy," Comput-
erworld (March 18, 1991), 25:47 (two pages).
Caldwell, Bruce, "Big Brother Is Watching," Information Week
(June 18, 1990), (275):34 (three pages).
Caldwell, Bruce, "E-Mail Privacy: A Raw Nerve For Readers," In-
formation Week (July"30, 1990), (280):52 (two pages).
Caldwell, Bruce, "E-Mail Privacy Issues Raised," Information Week
(August 13, 1990), (282):14 (two pages)
Caldwell, Bruce, "Whose Mail Is It Anyway? Companies are Con-
fronting the E-Mail Privacy Issue Head-On," Information Week
(August 20, 1990), (283):53.
Computer Underground Digest (November 13, 1990), 2(2.11), avail-
able as sjg.warrant.CuD through anonymous ftp at eff.org and
distributed through Usenet newsgroup alt.society.cu-digest.
Conca, Mike [conca@handel.cs.colostate.edu], "E-Mail Privacy"
(May 23, 1991), distributed as Article 45 through Usenet news"
group comp.admin.policy [15110@ccncsu.colostate.edu]; also
distributed through Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin.
Davis, Fred, "Beware: 'Little Brother' May Be Reading Your Mail,"
PC Week (October 29, 1990), 7(43):198.
Denning, Peter J., "The Internet Worm," in Denning, Peter J.
(ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses
(New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 193-
200.
Doty, Phil, Doctoral Student, Syracuse University School of In-
formation Studies, Presentation to IST 553, June"12, 1991.
Eisenberg, Ted, et al., "The Cornell Commission: On Morris and
the Worm," Communications of the ACM (June 1989), 32(6):706-09
[reprinted in Denning (ed.)].
Electronic Privacy Act of 1986, P.L. 99-508 (100 Stat. 1848).
Eskow, Dennis, "Lawyers Warn: Don't Back Up Your E-Mail; Anything
Transmitted on E-Mail May Be Held Against You," PC Week
(September 11, 1989), 6:81 (two pages).
Freedom of Information Act of 1986, 5 USC 552.
Higgins, Steve, "E-Mail Experts On Guard Over Security Leaks," PC
Week (July 30, 1990), 7:43 (two pages).
Higgins, Steve, "Emergency cc:Mail Upgrade Combats Security
Breach," PC Week (April 9, 1990), 7:1 (two pages).
Higgins, Steve, "Message Monitor Gives Users Eagle-Eye View of E-
Mail Flow," PC Week (March 25, 1991), 8:5.
Highland, Harold Joseph, "Security: If the Password's 'Anything
Goes,' It's Your Loss," Government Computer News (October 29,
1990), 9(23):61 (two pages).
Kadie, Carl [kadie@cs.uiuc.edu], "Computers and Academic Freedom
Mailing List," available as caf through anonymous ftp at
eff.org.
LaPlante, Alice, "Epson E-Mail: Private or Company Information?"
Infoworld (October 22, 1990), 12(43):66.
"Managers 'Remain Dangerously Complacent About Computer Secu
rity,'" Computergram International (October 29, 1990), (1542).
Markoff, John, "Furor Erupts From Computers in Politics," The New
York Times (May 4, 1990), 139:A8(N), A12(L).
Miscellaneous documents, available in a single file as ncsa.email
through anonymous ftp at eff.org.
Miscellaneous files available through ftp eff.org (/academic sub
directory).
Miscellaneous messages posted to caf-talk@eff.org (through list-
serv@eff.org).
Miscellaneous postings distributed through Usenet newsgroup
comp.admin.policy.
Molloy, Maureen, "NW [Network] User Panel Takes Stand on E-Mail
Privacy," Network World (November 5, 1990), 7(45):2 (two
pages).
Montz, Lynn B., "The Worm Case: From Indictment to Verdict," in
Denning, Peter J. (ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders,
Worms, and Viruses (New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com-
pany, 1990), pp. 260-63.
Nash, Jim, "E-Mail Lawsuit Cranks Open Privacy Rights Can of
Worms," Computerworld (August 13, 1990), 24:7.
Nash, Jim and Harrington, Maura J., "Who Can Open E-Mail?" Com-
puterworld (January 14, 1991), 25:1 (two pages).
Reid, Brian, "Reflections on Some Recent Widespread Computer
Break-Ins," in Denning, Peter J. (ed.), Computers Under
Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses (New York: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 145-49.
Rochlis, Jon A. and Eichin, Mark W., "With Microscope and Tweez-
ers: The Worm from MIT's Perspective," in Denning, Peter J.
(ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses
(New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 201-22.
Savage, J.A., "E-Mail Bust Generates Privacy Rights Uproar," Com-
puterworld (January 23, 1989), 23:2.
Spafford, Eugene H., "Crisis and Aftermath," in Denning, Peter J.
(ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses
(New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 223-
43.
Stewart, John [jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu], Consultant, Syracuse
University Academic Computing Services, Presentation to IST
553, June 12, 1991.
Stoll, Clifford, The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the
Maze of Computer Espionage (New York: Doubleday, 1989).
Scott, Karyl, "IAB To Begin Trial of Proposed E-Mail Security
Standards," PC Week (March 27, 1989), 6:35 (two pages).
Turner, Judith Axler, "Messages in Questionable Taste on Computer
Networks Pose Thorny Problems for College Administrators,"
Chronicle of Higher Education (January 24, 1990), A13, A16.
Steven Jackson Games' subsequent complaint against the Secret
Service et al. is available as sjg.complaint through anonymous
ftp at eff.org.
--
Mark Neely InterNet: neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Research Student
Northern Territory Uni. Law School
Darwin, NT Australia
-------------------
From: tlt38517@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Terry Lee Thiel)
Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.232253.5729@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 91 23:22:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1991Dec2.232253.5729
References: <1991Nov18.025221.9676@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <9wm7BB1w164w@kaplaah.UUCP> <1991Dec2.215509.14485@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
>> This isn't surprising at all, considering the Daily Illini's past record...
>> remember the "colorless fluid" found in the boneyard last year? the DI
called
>> it "condensed water." and assured the public that it wasn't dangerous...
>
>So what did it turn out to be? And what is 'the boneyard?'
>>>It's a local creek... extremely polluted. I don't know what it really was.
>>>I included the reference only as an example of the average intelligence of
>>>DI reporters.
And how does that serve as an example of the "average intelligence" of a DI
reporter? The DI is like any other paper, there is some really good writing
and some thats not so good.
-------------------
From: elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: On privacy
Message-ID: <1991Dec3.004350.10326@usl.edu>
Date: 3 Dec 91 00:43:50 GMT
References: <199112022109.AA05709@eff.org>
Sender: anon@usl.edu (Anonymous NNTP Posting)
In article <199112022109.AA05709@eff.org> U15289@UICVM.uic.edu writes:
>In article <1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu>, elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green) says:
>>The way I figure it, if you don't have anything to hide,
>>you have no reason for privacy. Now, I'll agree that in a corporate
>>environment privacy is a necessity. But this is the academic environment,
>>built around free flow of information. Restrict that free flow of information,
>>and you get less productivity, less cross-pollination of ideas between
>>people, less of what universities are set up to do.
>
> To me, at least, this sounds uncomfortably like the great words of Edwin
>Meese, to the effect that a person not formally charged with a crime is not a
>suspect, and by implication need not enjoy the full protection of the Bill of
>Rights.
You are confusing "free speech" with "privacy". Note that I mentioned
"free flow of information", which implies freedom of speech. Freedom of
speech is explicitly written into the Bill of Rights. Privacy outside of
the confines of your home is NOT explictly written into the Bill of Rights,
though the Supreme Court has ruled from time to time that certain privacy
rights are "implied" by various phraces in the Bill of Rights.
I suppose that I agree with Richard Stallman when it comes to system
security and "what is appropriate in an academic research environment".
He holds that all information in the system should be accessible to all.
The "system" being an academic research system, that is, and not, say,
academic records, which are protected by law (note, by law, NOT by the
Constitution). Knowing who is logged in and doing what is one of those
useful pieces of information to someone interested in the free flow of
ideas, because it allows me to know who has similar interests to me
and who is working in the same areas as I am. Keeping that information
secret would impede the cross-pollination that often results in
innovation, by reducing the flow of useful information. Similarly,
removing "finger" would mean that I couldn't get the full name, office
number, and office phone number of those people doing things on the
computer that I am interested in. "Privacy", in these two instances
at least, would definitely impede the free flow of information that
helps keep the academic environment innovative.
It seems to me that contemporary American society is making a disquiet
>ing evolutionary shift toward what Jeane Kirkpatrick, of all people, has called
>the "institutionalization of distrust;" or away from a "presumption of liberty"
>to a "presumption of regulation." Both within and outside the context of com-
I agree. The fact that some people on this group object to the "finger"
command and the "what" command under Unix is a perfect example of that.
Removing the ability of someone to find out who other users are and what
they are doing implies that you distrust this person and don't trust him
to deal wisely with the information (e.g., maybe use the information to
crank-call someone rather than to get in touch with someone doing your
kind of work). Similarly, many people seem to distrust what Americans would
do with perfect liberty, and impose regulation in order that these nasty
Americans don't do "nasty things" with that liberty.
>one, he seems to gloss over the distinction between the real or imagined phen-
>omenon of institutional privacy (a term apparently coined in a 1985 opinion by
>then-appellate judge Antonin Scalia), and the very real (if severely beleagur-
>ed) phenomenon of individual privacy.
I submit that individual privacy is much more threatened by credit-reporting
agencies and "child abuser databases" than by anything that corporations do
with equipment that they own. I can choose to leave an employer who does not
respect my privacy. On the other hand, information in databases such as the
above is available to thousands of institutional subscribers, sharing my
personal buying habits with thousands of people who I don't want to know
about my life, and if the information so shared is wrong, it is very
difficult to get that information changed or deleted. There are other things
that corporations do that violate your right to do what you will during
your off-hour times -- e.g., see the oilfield case where they ordered some
men to lose weight and fired those men who didn't -- but this is totally
different from what happens on office equipment during office time.
>individuals, in a variety of ways. With respect to the other issue, the flow
>of what information, he seems to be confusing the free flow of _ideas_--some-
>thing all of us presumably would endorse--with the free (overly so, in the
>judgment of some)--flow of more mundane personal data, without regard to whose
It seems to me that there's an important issue here: what constitutes
"protected" information?
You hold that protected information consists of all information for which
a legitimate use has not been found.
I hold that protected information consists of all information which is not
inherently sensitive. With a slight digression for EMAIL, where there is
an "expectation of privacy" (else it would be posted to a public newsgroup).
We're at a deadlock here. I hold that facilitating a free flow of information
in an academic environment requires making as much information as possible
freely available (with the exception of EMAIL and "sensitive" info). You
hold that we should not make information available until we find a valid use
for it. In other words, if I want to find out whether Dennis is a user on
this system or not, you'd make me want to go through the step of detirmining
whether this is a valid use of the information in the "passwd" file before
considering that yes, maybe this isn't a violation of Dennis's privacy.
Meanwhile, I'd have to try to track down Dennis (he's never in his office)
instead of simply sending him some EMAIL...
--
--
Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70506 (318) 989-8950
Internet: elg@elgamy.raidernet.com UUCP: uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg
"It's never too late for a happy childhood" -- The Doctor
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.circplus] Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112030126.AA13513@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 2 Dec 91 15:26:45 GMT
From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester)
Subject: Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112022352.AA11500@eff.org>
Date: 2 Dec 91 23:45:38 GMT
On Mon, 2 Dec 1991 08:09:23 CST Neosha A. Mackey said:
>Question to the list. Professor puts items on reserve--both personal
>copies and library materials. Reserve done online now so no long blue
>card showing who's had what out. One item long overdue--extraordinatry
As it should be. Assume Missouri is one of the majority of states that
has library records confidentiality law, Neosha?
>procedures followed by library staff to get item back. Class complains to
>professor, who is ready to kill! He wants to know who has it? What do
>you do? Word must have gotten back to this particular student because within
^^^^ Unless you have been served a court order, you don't tell him.
In fact, this, to my way of thinking, is one of the types of situation
that the law was written to cover. It is NOT the professor's business
who has it. You have sanctions/fines/etc. over the student. Not appropriate
for the prof to punish him/her too.
>an hour it was back and BIG fine paid. Thoughts appreciated.
Sure, the word got back. It was discussed in class by the students, and
undoubtedly by the prof who threatened the students, and thus accomplished
what you didn't. The student was probably ready to keep the book forever
until the prof said "If I find out who has it before it gets back, that
person will get an F for sure."
I did work at a small college a f ew years ago where the Academic VP,
my boss, ruled that "Reserve Records were academic records" and therefore
not subject to the confidentiality laws. No, he wasn't a lawyer, just a
know-it-all. (Neosha will remember a similar jerk at a place where we
used to work together). I DID make sure to get a written memo from him
to cover my backside in case we ever ended up in court about profs
checking on students reserve usage. Fortunately that never happened.
dan
*****************************************************************************
* Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu *
* Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu *
* Boise State University *
* Boise, Idaho 83725 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak *
* 208-385-1234 for them and they don't speak for me. *
*****************************************************************************
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.circplus] Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112030408.AA17103@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 2 Dec 91 18:08:34 GMT
From: TOMFLEM@MCMASTER.BITNET
Subject: Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112030205.AA14736@eff.org>
Date: 2 Dec 91 16:59:00 GMT
back and the fine paid, everything is fine. What's the
problem? The student was probably in the class when the
professor blew and returned the book right away. The
thing you *shouldn't* do is jeopardize the confidentiality
of your circulation system. Sure, it was easier to police
when everyone knew who had the material because if the
ethics of the situation weren't enough to make everyone
share the material appropriately, the fact that the name
of the holdout was easy to obtain could be used to make
recalcitrant borrowers toe the line. Library administrators
have to be careful not to allow their sympathies to convince
them to make the system work differently in one case than it
does in another. If the system permits confidential borrowing,
*all* borrowing ought to be conducted on the same basis, whether
it is the professor who has a book that students want, or whether
it is a student who is hanging onto something that many of his
or her classmates want. It is up to us as library profesionals
to design methods of getting those desirable materials back
from whomever has them when they are wanted, and threatening to
divulge names is not palying the game fairly.
Tom Flemming
Head of Public Services
Health Sciences Library
McMaster University
1200 Main St. W.
Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5
(416) 525-9140 x2321
tomflem@mcmaster
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.circplus] Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112030409.AA17183@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 2 Dec 91 18:09:27 GMT
From: Pamela.I.Ploeger@DARTMOUTH.EDU
Subject: Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112030201.AA14450@eff.org>
Date: 2 Dec 91 17:48:14 GMT
We will not tell the prof. who had the book. However, serious abuse of
library privileges is considered a violation of the college Code of Conduct
and "may subject a student or organization to disciplinary action." We refer
this type of problem to the Dean of Students Office (as appears to have been
the case at Southwest Missouri also). On occasion they have asked us if the
student to do volunteer work in the library but, in spite of some very
positive experiences, we are always cautious about accepting this type of
assistance. The Code of Conduct addresses situations ranging from use of
drugs and alcohol, sexual misconduct or violation of local, state, or federal
law to unauthorized presence in reserved areas at athletic events and climbing
on college buildings and structures. (However, "arrangements to climb at
predesignated locations must be coordinated through the Dartmouth
Mountaineering Club...") I think the Dean's Office does occasionally fine the
students for any type of misbehavior, but contacting the parents is often
quite effective. Of course, our undergraduates tend to be fairly young. I
imagine the "parent" strategy loses its effectiveness with older people who
are paying their own bills.
We have found that beyond a certain point, a huge library fine is not a
deterrent and the student must be made aware that the issue is fairly serious
abuse of other students' rights. Actually, when we refer these students to
the Deans office, we very often discover that they have problems in a lot of
areas. I think that's one of the most persuasive reasons for letting the Dean
of Students rather than the professor handle the case.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.circplus] Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112030409.AA17258@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 2 Dec 91 18:09:56 GMT
From: BHULSE@AUVM.BITNET (Bruce Hulse, WRLC)
Subject: Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112030208.AA14831@eff.org>
Date: 2 Dec 91 18:02:08 GMT
Neosha,
In my various positions running circulation and reserve operations I have
always come down very strongly on the side of protecting patron confidentiality
but in the case you've outlined, I would have no qualms about giving the name
of the student involved to the professor. This is different from the usual case
in several ways. First, one of the foremost reasons for keeping the borrowing
records of patrons confidential is to protect academic freedom...no one has a
right to know what someone else is reading or researching (as someone who has
had to tell the FBI to get lost more than once, I take this seriously...). But
here there is no question of someone wanting to find out what a patron is
reading. That is known.
The second reason for protecting confidentiality is to prevent patrons from
taking matters into their own hands and confronting other patrons when they
want to use materials that have been borrowed. Whether the book is overdue
or not, it is the library's repsonsibility to get it back. Allowing patrons
to do so themselves both creates a potentially nasty confrontation (for which
the library might be held liable) and also makes the library's responsibility
for keeping track of its inventory impossible to effect. But in the case you
describe, there are two factors that make it different...it is not a patron
who wants to use the material who wants the name, but a member of the faculty
who shares some responsibility with the library for upholding the policies of
the university. To involve the faculty member in enforcing these policies with
his own students does not seem inappropriate. And one presumes that the faculty
member wants the book returned to the library, and not to themself. So there is
no circumvention of the library's responsibility to maintain control of its
inventory.
In matters dealing with reserves I tend to think that the needs of the class
must come before the needs of any one individual. I say the needs because in
this case I don't see that the offending individual has any right...
Bruce Hulse, Systems Librarian
Washington Research Library Consortium
bhulse@auvm.american.edu or hulse@wrlcvm
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Wed Dec 4 04:54:40 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA29350
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Wed, 4 Dec 1991 09:54:45 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 09:54:40 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199112041454.AA29345@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Dec 4 09:53:42 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.circplus) Re: confidentiality of reserve
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) BS!
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: BS!
kadie@eff.org (Car : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: BS!
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship, et al.) Re: Censorship in Oxford was Re:
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.circplus) Re: confidentiality of reserve
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.circplus) Re: confidentiality of reserve
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.irc) Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : Readership report
cluther@morticia.c : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Gaming
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.circplus] Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112030411.AA17343@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 2 Dec 91 18:11:26 GMT
From: DCARVER@OREGON.BITNET (Debra Carver)
Subject: Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112030231.AA15456@eff.org>
Date: 2 Dec 91 20:33:00 GMT
This exact situation just happened a few days ago.
Several students either refused or forgot to bring
reserve materials back that were needed by others. I must
admit, I was tempted to give the names of the students
to the professor. Instead, I called the students and
gave them until 3 pm that day to return the books, or
I would forward their names to the Dean of Students and
it would be treated as a violation of the student
conduct code. That message worked, and the books were
returned.
Oregon has two statutes...one refers to confidentiality
and the other refers to willfully keeping state
property after the library has attempted to get it
back. In these circumstances, the two statutes seem
to collide in their intent. It is clear the the
confidentiality law was not designed to protect students
who wish to hoard library materials. Although we were
successful in evoking the "Dean of Students" threat, I
am convinced that the professor is in the best position
to correct the problem. Has anyone else tested this
case or had their university attourney give an opinion?
Deb Carver
AUL, Public Services
University of Oregon
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] BS!
Message-ID: <9112030421.AA30614@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 2 Dec 91 16:21:23 GMT
From: S2.RSB@isumvs.iastate.edu (Bob Boston)
Subject: BS!
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.040913.5347@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 04:09:13 GMT
In Item: comp.org.eff.talk 5192, Carl M. Kadie quotes "relevant abstracts from
CAF-News," including the following:
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>
===========================================================================
In fact, the Iowa State guidelines say nothing about legalities except for
infringement of copyright. Instead, they refer to "ethical computer use."
The following selections quote the relevant paragraphs in Iowa State's
statement on computer ethics:
through EDUCOM, a non-profit consortium of colleges and universities committed
to the use and management of information technology in higher education.
Because electronic information is volatile and easily
reproduced, respect for the work and personal expression of
others is especially critical in computer environments.
The following guidelines govern ethical computer use at Iowa State
University:
# University computing facilities are a valuable resource for
University use and they should be conserved. Users should properly
utilize these resources to minimize any unnecessary impact of their
work on others; i.e., users should avoid excessive game playing,
etc.
# 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. BITNET users must also abide by the BITNET Usage
Guidelines.
#########################
Copyright (c) 1989 by Iowa State University
Permission to reproduce all or part of this document for noncommercial
purposes is granted, provided the author and Iowa State University are
given credit. To copy otherwise requires specific permission.
=============================================================================
Please note that the existing guidelines refer only to "University Computing
Facilities." These facilities are owned or paid for by Iowa State University
and the Iowa Board of Regents, not by the students and teachers who use the
facilities. Students and teachers who use their own computers and public
networks like GEnie and CompuServe are free to be as rude as they wish. But
if they use computers and networks supported by Iowa State they must abide by
the guidelines established by the owner of those computers and networks.
This is no infringement on your right to free speech. You may say anything
you want from the top of a soapbox, but I don't have to let you use MY
soapbox.
IMHO, saying "Rudeness is not a crime" is putting the emPHAsis on the wrong
sylLABle. Any action not defined as a crime is permissable? In other words I
can spit in your face and seduce your wife without worrying you? I can call
you a motherf****r without raising your ire?
It may be that rudeness is *the* crime in reasoned discourse, for it usually
involves an attack on the person rather than an argument against the person's
ideas. In thinking so much about legalities, you may have forgotten more basic
concepts of courtesy, cooperation and common sense.
Finally, I've read about 300 messages on comp.org.eff.talk about stifling free
speech, and I have not read anything worth suppressing. If censors were
really running around looking for stuff to squash, don't you think they'd have
stomped on you by now?
Bob Boston
Writing Labs Director
English Department
Iowa State University
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: BS!
Message-ID: <1991Dec3.045840.18238@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec2.040913.5347@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 04:58:40 GMT
(A second response)
kadie@eff.org, paraphrasing an article by kadie@eff.org,
writes:
>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>
S2.RSB@isumvs.iastate.edu (Bob Boston) writes:
> The following guidelines govern ethical computer use at Iowa State
> University:
[...]
> # Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
> or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden.
[...]
>Please note that the existing guidelines refer only to "University Computing
>Facilities." These facilities are owned or paid for by Iowa State University
>and the Iowa Board of Regents, not by the students and teachers who use the
>facilities. Students and teachers who use their own computers and public
>networks like GEnie and CompuServe are free to be as rude as they wish. But
>if they use computers and networks supported by Iowa State they must abide by
>the guidelines established by the owner of those computers and networks.
[...]
>IMHO, saying "Rudeness is not a crime" is putting the emPHAsis on the wrong
>sylLABle. Any action not defined as a crime is permissable? In other words I
>can spit in your face and seduce your wife without worrying you? I can call
>you a motherf****r without raising your ire?
>It may be that rudeness is *the* crime in reasoned discourse, for it usually
>involves an attack on the person rather than an argument against the person's
>ideas. In thinking so much about legalities, you may have forgotten more basic
>concepts of courtesy, cooperation and common sense.
>Bob Boston
>Writing Labs Director
>English Department
>Iowa State University
[...]
It is not the job or place of the government to enforce concepts of
courtesy, cooperation and common sense with respect to expression.
That should and is done with social pressure.
In _Hustler Magazine v. Falwell_, the Supreme 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."
To paraphrase the ACLU handbook on the _Rights of Teachers_:
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."
Also, of interest are two recent federal district decisions. In _UWM
POST v. U. of Wisconsin_ and _Doe v. U. of Michican, the courts struck
down campus speech codes saying that they violated the First Amendment.
(_UWM Post_ involved email.) The full text of both decisions is
available via anonymous ftp from directory ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law.
The _UWM Post_ decision concludes: "The founding fathers of this
nation produced a remarkable document in the Constitution but it was
ratified only with the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First
Amendment is central to our concept of freedom. The God-given
"unalienable rights" that the infant nation rallied to in the
Declaration of Independence can be preserved only if their application
is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: BS!
Message-ID: <199112031410.AA03307@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 3 Dec 91 04:10:42 GMT
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: BS!
Message-ID: <1991Dec3.042748.20986@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Dec 91 04:27:48 GMT
Paraphrasing myself (kadie@eff.org,kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu), I wrote:
>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>
S2.RSB@isumvs.iastate.edu (Bob Boston) writes:
[...]
>The following selections quote the relevant paragraphs in Iowa State's
>statement on computer ethics:
[...]
> # Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
> or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden.
[...]
>Please note that the existing guidelines refer only to "University Computing
>Facilities." These facilities are owned or paid for by Iowa State University
>and the Iowa Board of Regents, not by the students and teachers who use the
>facilities. Students and teachers who use their own computers and public
>networks like GEnie and CompuServe are free to be as rude as they wish. But
>if they use computers and networks supported by Iowa State they must abide by
>the guidelines established by the owner of those computers and networks.
[...]
>Bob Boston
>Writing Labs Director
>English Department
>Iowa State University
----------------------faq/media.control------------
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
a: Like any organziation, the Government must work within its charter
(the Constitution). The Supreme Court has said that this limited the
Government's authority to control the media that owns and controls.
The rational is that it would be dangerous for a Government that is
elected by the people to have too much control on what the people
can say and read.
The Supreme Court calls created forums, like a student newspaper or
campus mail systems, limited public forums. It says that the
government can limited who may access these forums and/or what topics
may be discussed. But otherwise, "it is bound by the same standards as
apply in a traditional public forum"; "content-based prohibition must
be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." For
example, viewpoint-based discrimination is forbidden.
- Carl
Annotated References
All these documents are available on-line. To get them by email, send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s):
send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send caf-law stanley-v-magrath
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send caf-law rust-v-sullivan
send caf-law keyishian-v-board-of-regents
send caf-law perry-v-perry
send caf-law constitution.us
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(191.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
pub/academic/law/constitution.us
Here is a description of the files:
=================
law/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.
=================
law/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." Also, "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". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center
(1985,1988), says that four-letter words are protected speech, that
public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that
they for which they do not control the contents, and that the
_Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/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.
=================
law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
law/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.)
Also, 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.
Also, from 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.]
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112031421.AA27255@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 3 Dec 91 02:21:06 GMT
From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec3.073229.26149@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 07:32:29 GMT
At IIT there are several barriers to MUD & IRC users devouring resources:
The ANNEX ports no longer allow direct connection to nearly all outside
machines, so users have to log into a local machine to connect...
There are several MUDs running on a local machine which can be reached from
the ANNEX, so our internet gateway isn't swamped.
All students have accounts on the VAX machines, and while they are often
swamped by people TELNETing to MUds/IRCs, the TELNET program seems to be a
very low priority process (?)
I'd suggest letting some students set up 2-3 MUDs, limit the # of users on
each, and lock out access to outside MUDs as a _last_ resort.
--
Your Ex-wife and her lawyer are both drowning. Where do you go to lunch?
technews@iitmax.iit.edu kadokev@iitvax (bitnet)
My Employer Disagrees.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112031421.AA18782@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 3 Dec 91 02:21:15 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec2.141144.2271@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 14:11:44 GMT
jasonp@cunix3.Prime.COM (Jason R. Pascucci) writes:
>And, for those out there in admin
>land who think MUD's are a waste of resources, think again.
>Many far more useful programming experience then you can
>get in college is garnered from MU*. C-like languages,
>Forth-languages, shell-like scripts, from the most
>basic concepts of programming to some of the most
>advanced (True Multi-processing, OOP, etc)
>are dealt with in this environment.
That isn't really grounded in reality. A majority of the MUDs I've seen
are nothing more than "out of the box" productions; someone got the source
code and typed "make". Yup, that's really challenging. We're really ex-
panding the frontiers of academia now, eh? Sure, some designers do exten-
sive work on the code, but most only learn enough to add new rooms.
Of course, this benefit only applies to the person/people who build/program
the MUD. What benefits do the *players* receive? None. Most of the MUDs
I've seen are nothing but IRC in armor. I think you'll agree that most of
the "no MUDding" policies are directed against players, NOT against designers.
There's a big 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: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Censorship in Oxford was Re: SEX pic newsgrou
Message-ID: <9112031429.AA31164@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 3 Dec 91 02:29:01 GMT
From: mrd@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Mark Dobie)
Subject: Re: Censorship in Oxford was Re: SEX pic newsgrou
Message-ID: <9858@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Dec 91 09:37:49 GMT
In <1991Dec2.114216.3157@vax.oxford.ac.uk> clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>No... As far as I can tell, the groups mentionned are totally absent. Indeed
>alt.drugs (no gifs there) was here for about the first month of my netnews
>access (middle of this year). The traffic on it then dropped to zero, and then
>the group vanished. This is what has happened to al.pictures.binaries too. As
>for many of the other groups mentionned, as I've said, they are absent.
I believe that all the news coming into the country goes through The
University of Kent (ukc). They are not certain of the legality of
distributing the erotic material throughout the UK, so to be on the
safe side (for them) they don't. As I understand, any other UK site is
free to get news from elsewhere, but I would guess it is expensive
(and there is the legal consideration....)
Mark.
PS I don't administrate our news, I'm just an enthusiastic user...
--
Mark Dobie M.Dobie@uk.ac.soton.ecs (JANET)
University of Southampton M.Dobie@ecs.soton.ac.uk (The World)
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.circplus] Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112031645.AA07803@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 3 Dec 91 06:45:40 GMT
From: BHULSE@AUVM.BITNET (Bruce Hulse)
Subject: Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112031617.AA07201@eff.org>
Date: 3 Dec 91 14:30:13 GMT
Jim,
As my own post indicated, I think you're right. Most replies have been
knee-jerk responses about the sacntity of patron confidentiality. But my
problem with these replies is that they don't reflect the first principles
behind the concept of patron confidentiality. Reading through the ALA Policy
statement sent to the list, one can see that the intent is to prevent the
intimidation of individuals by government agencies and others (in other words
to maintain freedom of inquiry) and to ensure equal access.
Since the material in question is known, there is no question of academic
freedom here (if the individual were another faculty member and not a student
in the class, then perhaps the issue becomes more complicated). Since everyone
knows what the class is assigned to read, the real issue becomes one of access
to the material. Which the offender is denying others. Also in this case I
would argue that the professor stands in a different relationship to the
university than the average patron and can be legitmately be considered to
be an agent of the university in the same sense the library is....
The lack of clarity of thought I'm seeing out there bothers me....
Bruce Hulse
Systems Librarian
Washington Research Library Consortium
bhulse@auvm
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.circplus] Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112031646.AA07881@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 3 Dec 91 06:46:36 GMT
From: BJONES@UNF1VM.BITNET (Bob Jones)
Subject: Re: confidentiality of reserve information?
Message-ID: <199112031608.AA06878@eff.org>
Date: 3 Dec 91 16:08:39 GMT
While this discussion has been philosophical, I feel that it is
important to distinguish the levels of implementation. If
confidentiality is enforced by law, any compromise of that law --
unless specifically in the law -- would make the library and the
people involved liable and extremely vulnerable to prosecution. The
anger of the allegedly violated person would only ripen the
opportunity for legal action. If confidentiality is a matter of
policy, procedure or guideline, then philosophical discussion may be
appropriate in determining a course of action, but the final decision
should be made by the person or level of administration that
originally directed the rule or policy.
Bob Jones (904) 646-2552 : SUNCOM 861-2552 : FAX 904-646-2719
Head, Public Services Division, and Library Systems Coordinator
University of North Florida Library P.O. Box 17605
4567 St. Johns Bluff Road, South Jacksonville, FL 32216
BITNET: BJONES@UNF1VM :: INTERNET: bjones@unf1vm.cis.unf.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.irc] Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <9112031714.AA08961@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 3 Dec 91 05:14:44 GMT
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain D. Sinclair)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Dec 91 11:25:32 GMT
rvloon@cv.ruu.nl (Ronald van Loon) writes:
>First of all, you don't reply to any of the other things I said; to nitpick on
>a minor detail - and I consider this minor - only shows that you are not
>willing to listen to my arguments in the first place.
That's because I either agree, or I've already dealt with it somewhere
else, or I can't be bothered. No big deal. How much time would I waste if I
followed up every article with my name in it?
Let the content begin --
>Second, this is the
>first time you use the word routinely; people on IRC don't get routinely
>kicked off for flooding or using obnoxious words. If you disagree, cite
>examples making sure that it doesn't boil down to an IRC-op with too big an
>ego.
/killed a chanop when he accidentally pushed the wrong
mouse button, flooding the channel with the contents of a cut-buffer.
/killed someone who sent *one* /msg past an /ignore,
without any warning whatsoever. (Who the f*ck decrees this to be
"acceptable"?) [On alt.irc, same advocates notifying the
sysadmin of people who are flooding/dumping (but who are obviously
unaware, for several reasons, that this is unacceptable).]
's victim retaliated with three arbitrary /kills without
anybody getting particularly worried.
brags about "/kill wars" on alt.irc.
/kills people/robots because he doesn't like them. Despite
protests, this activity looks set to continue.
Please find direct Usenet equivalents for all of these, bearing in
mind that this kind of activity is quite common for IRC.
>E-mail: someone (quoted on alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk) who *received* a chain
> letter and reported this to his sysadmin was cut off. On our own
> system, someone who sent a message out to a mailing-list with a
> Return-Receipt-To: header, was cut off because he received hundreds of
> replies, thus clogging up valuable resources. Fair, unfair, I don't
> know, but it happens.
In these examples, the loss of access had nothing to do with the
function or percieved purpose of the communication medium. It was
just a sysadmin fucking up. On IRC, however, sysadmins can not only
fuck up, they are *encouraged* to by the design of the system.
>Usenet: people that behave obnoxiously on Usenet *are* cut off; I don't think
> it's necessary to go look for examples, as there are several.
Yeah, people lose their accounts, but it's more important to look at
the people who DON'T. Check out alt.flame, alt.tasteless, alt.sex*...
What's the proportion of Usenet people who lose their accounts for
this stuff? Relative to IRC?
>Besides, you don't *have* to use IRC, nor talk, nor e-mail now do you ?
Well, I don't *have* to eat or wear clothes, either. But those
things, like email, happen to be convenient, proven useful,
and very necessary most of the time.
--
Iain Sinclair __ +61 2 2812552 (faq)
axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au +61 2 3301807 (fax)
-------------------
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <1991Dec2.140157.29374@cv.ruu.nl>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 17:34:57 GMT
I'm new to IRC, but I have read the man pages and looked at /HELP.
I'd like to understand the freedom of expression issues. I would be
greatful for answers to these questions:
Can a user filter out text from another user (like kill files with
newsgroups)? Can specific words be filtered out (or changed from on to
another)?
Can channels be created w/o a channel operator (much like unmoderated
newsgroups)?
Do most system operators police channels or do they leave this
up to channel operators (if any)?
Who can create a new channel?
Are the /HELP RULES generally accepted? (I ask because, in the US most
offensive speech is protected from government supression, i.e. /KILL
from an operator at a public university.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Readership report
Message-ID: <9112031925.AA28686@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 3 Dec 91 07:25:55 GMT
[An edited repost - cmk]
This is [...] from the USENET readership report for Nov 91.
Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
+-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
| +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
| | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
| | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
| | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
| | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
| | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
| | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
| | | | | | | | who read this group.
V V V V V V V V
1 210000 4443 69% 2154 5837.9 23% 0.04 12.7% alt.sex
2 180000 3742 85% 564 1149.2 18% 0.01 10.7% misc.jobs.offered
3 170000 3559 83% 53 175.1 2% 0.00 10.2% rec.humor.funny
4 140000 3094 82% 3079 4787.1 6% 0.05 8.9% rec.humor
5 140000 3030 74% 7 117.3 0% 0.00 8.7% rec.arts.erotica
[...]
336 30000 651 78% 375 920.3 3% 0.05 1.9% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
581 21000 447 74% 3 77.2 100% 0.01 1.3% comp.org.eff.news
[...]
656 18000 395 53% 537 1562.2 34% 0.09 1.1% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
[...]
861 12000 254 46% 6 410.2 0% 0.03 0.7% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
1493 47 1 1% 55 44.4 0% 0.02 0.0% ctdl.lang.c++
1494 47 1 1% 9 10.6 11% 0.01 0.0% uiuc.classifieds.computer
1495 47 1 1% 4 5.7 100% 0.00 0.0% nwu.general
1496 47 1 0% 46 73.2 2% 0.02 0.0% cu.motif-talk
=================== CAF Mailing Lists =================
57 63 1516 comp-academic-freedom-talk
51 51 1224 comp-academic-freedom-batch
233 243 5909 comp-academic-freedom-news
57 57 1345 comp-academic-freedom-abstracts
---------
379 390 9505 Total w/o duplicates
-------------------
From: cluther@morticia.cnns.unt.edu (Clay Luther)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112032047.AA01405@sonne>
Sender: cluther%morticia.cnns.unt.edu@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
References: <9112031421.AA18782@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Dec 91 20:47:02 GMT
In info.academic-freedom you write:
>Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
>From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
>Subject: Re: Gaming
>Message-ID: <1991Dec2.141144.2271@ms.uky.edu>
>Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 14:11:44 GMT
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec3.213721.6223@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec2.140157.29374@cv.ruu.nl> <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 21:37:21 GMT
Thanks to LittleOne, I now have an hour's worth of experience with
IRC. I even saw a /KILL war. In other words, I'm now an expert :-)
Here are my suggestions:
1. With Channel Operators and /IGNORE, it is no longer appropriate for
server operators to moderate content. The criteria for intervention
should be "substantial disruption".
2. /WALL and /WALLOP should be replaced with channels that folks can
monitor if they wish.
(I realize that coding is hard to do, but ...)
3. Server operators should be able to limit the amount of text per
user that is sent through the op's system. This is to control floods.
4. The /KILL command should be changed so that server operators can
only kill users of the op's system. And (maybe) stop text from a user
on another server from going through the op's system for some period
of time.
5. Anyone should be able to set up an alternative IRCnet. Ideally,
users should be able to access two or more IRCnet's at once.
- 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: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec3.205418.18294@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec2.140157.29374@cv.ruu.nl> <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 20:54:18 GMT
In article <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Can a user filter out text from another user (like kill files with
>newsgroups)? Can specific words be filtered out (or changed from on to
>another)?
You can ignore a particular user, although this is handled by the
client. IrcII, for example, can ignore either a given nickname or by
username+hostname or everyone on a given host, which is the only thing
that's hard to fake. This is inexpensive in terms of network bandwidth
starting with server version 2.7.
>Can channels be created w/o a channel operator (much like unmoderated
>newsgroups)?
Yes, but you cannot be sure the channel will stay that way, because
IRC is a fully distributed system and no one has volunteered enough
time to work on the rather hard issue of fixing this. Maybe 3.0...
>Do most system operators police channels or do they leave this
>up to channel operators (if any)?
Well, IRC operators are often not systems operators, and my opinion is
that IRC operators should leave channels alone unless there are
traffic problems, which is infrequent due to flood control implemented
in the server. Some operators have other views, but since a KILL
results in a message sent to every operator, peer pressure is somewhat
effective at keeping the number of kills restrained.
>Who can create a new channel?
Anyone.
>Are the /HELP RULES generally accepted? (I ask because, in the US most
>offensive speech is protected from government supression, i.e. /KILL
>from an operator at a public university.)
You better to get an opinion from a lawyer -- operators generally have
no official status and /KILL is not necessarily supression, because it
is quite temporary. I would argue that in most places, IRC is operated
privately and you have no right to use a particular server, either
connected to the main IRC net or any other IRC net. The only thing
that's guaranteed is that the source code is covered by the GPL, so
you can generally set up your own IRC network if you don't like the
rules in this one.
-- greg
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Thu Dec 5 09:44:10 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA11716
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 5 Dec 1991 14:44:15 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 14:44:10 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199112051944.AA11711@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Dec 5 14:43:19 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
n8810182@henson.cc : Re: (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship, et al.) Re: Censorship in Oxford was Re:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (news.admin) Re: Sex talk (was Re: Projected Traffic Volum
aland@chaos.cs.bra : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
U15289@UICVM.uic.e : Positivism, privacy, and the flow of information
zrzr0111@helpdesk. : & by german feminist newspaper detected
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: & by german feminist newspaper detected
chrisn@cs.arizona. : Re: Abstract of CAF-News 01.38
FFDMG@ALASKA.BITNE : Re: Positivism, privacy, and the flow of information
evansmp@uhura.asto : Annonyed
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Early announement: Frequently Asked Questions Archive
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Games policies
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu (LittleOne)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec4.020843.19589@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
References: <9112031421.AA27255@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 02:08:43 GMT
In article <9112031421.AA27255@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
>From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
>Subject: Re: Gaming
>Message-ID: <1991Dec3.073229.26149@iitmax.iit.edu>
>Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 07:32:29 GMT
>
>At IIT there are several barriers to MUD & IRC users devouring resources:
[irrevelent stuff deleted]
>All students have accounts on the VAX machines, and while they are often
>swamped by people TELNETing to MUds/IRCs, the TELNET program seems to be a
>very low priority process (?) ^^^^^^
Pardon me... it is IRC, not IRCs. There is only ONE IRC
program that is net connected. It is not like a MUD where
every site you telnet to is a different game. You get into
IRC, you are on the same IRC as everyone else.
>
>I'd suggest letting some students set up 2-3 MUDs, limit the # of users on
>each, and lock out access to outside MUDs as a _last_ resort.
>
Same thing can be done for IRC. Example: IF load average >
designated number, then no IRC. Talk to the person running
either the client or the server. (You may or may not be running
a server.)
>--
> Your Ex-wife and her lawyer are both drowning. Where do you go to lunch?
>
>technews@iitmax.iit.edu kadokev@iitvax (bitnet)
> My Employer Disagrees.
Of course I disagree too. Check all your options on limiting
"gaming" programs before calling folks weenies.
--
/) / /~~\ * Vickie Hoover
/ * _/__/_ / _ / ) __ _ * n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu
/ / / / / / ) ( /-// ) / ) * 8810182@nessie.cc.wwu.edu
(_____ (_/(_/(_/ /_ (_/_/ \__/ / /_(_/_/ * VickieH@nessie.cc.wwu.edu
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec4.054922.22726@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <9112031421.AA27255@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Dec4.020843.19589@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 05:49:22 GMT
In article <1991Dec4.020843.19589@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n8810182@henson.cc.wwu.edu (LittleOne) writes:
> Pardon me... it is IRC, not IRCs. There is only ONE IRC
> program that is net connected. It is not like a MUD where
> every site you telnet to is a different game. You get into
> IRC, you are on the same IRC as everyone else.
Actually, this is only somewhat true. While only one IRC network is
very popular, there are others. Since the code is freely available,
places such as Freenet are using it for their internal chat. Other
people have set up special-purpose IRC networks with a more focused
subject matter.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112041535.AA14540@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 4 Dec 91 03:35:44 GMT
From: dcw11111@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Blackmore)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec3.191515.16051@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 19:15:15 GMT
In article <1991Nov27.215410.18938@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> declan@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Declan J. Fleming) writes:
> 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?
Being here at the U of I, and also putting up with this problem in the housing
sites, here are my own comments:
Several people have mentioned limiting outside connections. This is
unreasonable. UXA is set aside as a social machine, to be used for personal
use only (ie non-class). IRC and MUDs are two of the most common uses.
U of I, and these are used much more often than muds.
As far as the computers are set up here - most of our labs (someday all) are
connected to the mainframes with NCSA telnet. These are just getting connected
recently, and the process is still continuing. This is great for those of us
who have to write programs for class, but it also escalates problems.
Now, my views of the problems and possible solutions...
The problem has gotten extremely bad this year, I think more so than before.
People have friends show them IRC, and with so many computers connected to
the mainframes, and automatic accounts given to all freshmen, the number of
people using the machines has grown.
First, just throw them off. IRC is very simple to recognize, and muds aren't
real tough either. It is possible that they are doing classwork - they may be
getting help from a friend on a program. I've done it many times. If this is
the case, then have them switch to talk, so they don't get tempted to talk to
everyone else while they're on.
Second, there is also the problem of mail and news, which you could also be
using for classwork. If a policy is made, it should be standard throughout
the different possible formats. Personally, I think someone should have to
give up their computer if they are using IRC, muds, talk, news or mail, unless
they are willing to let you see the screen, and see that they are discussing
classwork. I realize that some may argue "but many news groups or mailing
lists are much more legitimate uses of the net." This can be true, and to
many people it is true. However, the fact is that 'legitimate use' and
'classwork' are two different things. The distinction should be kept separate.
If it weren't for my classes in the past year, I'd be tempted to say just tell
people they can't use uxa if the lab is full. However, I have 3 classes that
have set up a mailing list, and uxa is the account they send my mail to - so
I do have possible legitimate uses on uxa also.
I agree that something better needs done (I wouldn't have said this 2 years ago
when I still had time to mud, but that's another story), especially in places
where newer, more powerful machines are being used for social purposes, instead
of the purposes they were put in for.
I see no final solution to this problem...unless someone's willing to put
fiberoptics to all our rooms...now THERE's an idea! Come to think of it - I
graduate in 3 weeks. Get rid of all copies of NCSA telnet, and shut down uxa.
It'll do them some good. Just wait until January to do it. :)
Dean Wagner "Several years ago I said goodbye
Bmore@uiuc.edu to my own sanity"
dcw11111@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu - 'I Don't Mind at All'
Blackmore@MUDs.MUCKs.MUSHs Bourgeois Tagg
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112041537.AA17052@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 4 Dec 91 03:37:15 GMT
From: mondays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (frederick myers)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <570@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: 4 Dec 91 04:02:08 GMT
Here at Ball State two rules are set up.
1. No game playing via internet...period on the vax/vms.
2. Game playing via internet is available on the Ultrix system
Midnight to 8:00 am during the week starting on Sunday at
5 p.m. to Friday 5 p.m.
It seems to work well..at least for a student/mudder point of view.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: Censorship in Oxford was Re: SEX pic newsgrou
Message-ID: <9112041541.AA18203@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 4 Dec 91 03:41:14 GMT
From: degnans@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Santa Claus)
Subject: Re: Censorship in Oxford was Re: SEX pic newsgrou
Message-ID: <1991Dec4.103341.21079@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 4 Dec 91 10:33:41 GMT
clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1991Nov29.141429.30678@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk>, ucjtrjf@ucl.ac.uk (Jonny Farringdon) writes:
>> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1991Nov27.110018.3066@vax.oxford.ac.uk> clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>>>I think this is a general UK problem, but it is very annoying...
>>
>>> "No sex please, We're English"?
>>>-bertil-
>>
>> UM, but do you find that small text messages do show up in the
>> groups, only NO gifs ever seem to. Are `they' screening out any
>> thing > SomeSize ? That what it appears at UCL (uk).
>>
>No... As far as I can tell, the groups mentionned are totally absent. Indeed
>alt.drugs (no gifs there) was here for about the first month of my netnews
>access (middle of this year). The traffic on it then dropped to zero, and then
>the group vanished. This is what has happened to al.pictures.binaries too. As
>for many of the other groups mentionned, as I've said, they are absent.
----------------
I've got the same problem here are Glasgow University. Within the past few
months, there has been serious removal of the more interesting news groups.
I can't speak up because News isn't 'proper use of computing facilities'
Stephen
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Sex talk (was Re: Projected Traffic Volume to year 2000)
Message-ID: <9112041626.AA21630@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 4 Dec 91 04:26:36 GMT
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Subject: Re: Sex talk (was Re: Projected Traffic Volume to year 2000)
Message-ID: <7422@chalmers.se>
Date: 4 Dec 91 10:33:12 GMT
In article <1991Dec3.182021.17530@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>rmz@uio.no (Bj|rn Remseth) writes:
>[...]
>>That's interesting. Do you have a source confirming this? We're
>>having some trouble at our site. The people in charge are cutting off
>>the alt.sex* (actually *sex*) newsgroups for this country. It would
>>be so nice to put their actions in the proper perspective ;-)
>[...]
>
>Here is a FAQ from alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk that you might find useful.
>It's a little bit USAcentric.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some years ago, the Norwegian government imposed prior restraint upon a
movie for religious reasons, so I think they can get away with nuking
newsgroups left and right.
-bertil-
PS. The movie was Monte Pythons 'Life of Brian' (yup! honestly!)
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
-------------------
From: aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Alan D.)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID:
Date: 4 Dec 91 17:20:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: chaos.aland.691867206
References: <1991Dec2.140157.29374@cv.ruu.nl> <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@news.cs.brandeis.edu (USENET News System)
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I'm new to IRC, but I have read the man pages and looked at /HELP.
>I'd like to understand the freedom of expression issues. I would be
>greatful for answers to these questions:
>Can a user filter out text from another user (like kill files with
>newsgroups)? Can specific words be filtered out (or changed from on to
>another)?
Yes -- /ignore
>Can channels be created w/o a channel operator (much like unmoderated
>newsgroups)?
Not exactly, but a user can De-chanop him/herself (/mode
-o
>Do most system operators police channels or do they leave this
>up to channel operators (if any)?
System Operators (IRC-ops) can not /kick people off the channel, and
Chan-ops can not /kill users. That's the distinction.
>Who can create a new channel?
Anyone. Just /join a channel which is not already created, and it
will be created. It also is destroyed when the last person leaves.
>Are the /HELP RULES generally accepted? (I ask because, in the US most
>offensive speech is protected from government supression, i.e. /KILL
>from an operator at a public university.)
Nope. Anyone who wants to do something, does it. Sometimes he/she
gets /killed for it, but there is no rhyme or reason to it. As far as
"offensive speech is protected from government supression, i.e. /KILL
from an operator at a public university", it doesn't apply, because
(for example, in my case as many others) while I am an IRC operator, I
am not an "employee" of the university as such. (Brandeis is not a
"public" university, but the point remains...)
-=Alan
-------------------
From: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu
Subject: Positivism, privacy, and the flow of information
Message-ID: <199112042116.AA08975@eff.org>
Sender: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu
Date: 4 Dec 91 16:35:09 GMT
>In article <1991Dec3.004350.10326@usl.edu>, elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green) says
(in response to my response to his November 27 posting):
>You are confusing "free speech" with "privacy". Note that I mentioned
>"free flow of information", which implies freedom of speech. Freedom of
>speech is explicitly written into the Bill of Rights. Privacy outside of
>the confines of your home is NOT explictly written into the Bill of Rights,
>though the Supreme Court has ruled from time to time that certain privacy
>rights are "implied" by various phraces in the Bill of Rights.
To me, this smacks of the same sort of positivist reasoning for
which recent nominees to the Supreme Court have become notorious. The
fact that certain invasions of privacy are technically not unconstitutional, or
even contrary to statute, does not make them any less a miscarriage of
justice.
As for Green's second point, "free speech" is typically _not_ incom-
patible with "privacy" (though some types of published references to a
person may, in fact, be invasive). Whether or not the "free flow of
information" is invasive depends on what kind of information is actually
flowing in a given instance.
>I suppose that I agree with Richard Stallman when it comes to system
>security and "what is appropriate in an academic research environment".
>He holds that all information in the system should be accessible to all.
If construed literally, this would include all users' files and the
contents thereof, passwords, etc. Terms must be defined more specifically
on this.
>The "system" being an academic research system, that is, and not, say,
>academic records, which are protected by law (note, by law, NOT by the
>Constitution).
This is another example of the same constitutional positivism I just
alluded to.
>Knowing who is logged in and doing what is one of those
>useful pieces of information to someone interested in the free flow of
>ideas, because it allows me to know who has similar interests to me
>and who is working in the same areas as I am. Keeping that information
>secret would impede the cross-pollination that often results in
>innovation, by reducing the flow of useful information. Similarly,
>removing "finger" would mean that I couldn't get the full name, office
>number, and office phone number of those people doing things on the
>computer that I am interested in. "Privacy", in these two instances
>at least, would definitely impede the free flow of information that
>helps keep the academic environment innovative.
Granted, information of this sort probably is not inherently sensi-
tive most of the time. The fact that one is logged on, I would not consider
sensitive, nor the use of logon ID's to point to public directory information
(over which, BTW, individals do--and should--have a measure of control,
with respect to what items of information are disseminated in this manner,
if any.)
>I can choose to leave an employer who does not respect my privacy.
This has been cited as a defense of the "employment at will" doctrine,
and has been discredited on the grounds of the unequal power of employers
and employees.
>It seems to me that there's an important issue here: what constitutes
>"protected" information?
>You hold that protected information consists of all information for which
>a legitimate use has not been found.
I said nothing of the sort; nor did I say anything in my original posting,
judging from my reexamination thereof a couple of minutes ago, from which
that inference could reasonably be made. My attitude is actually the
opposite of what Green asserts it is: that to explicitly restrict the
dissemination of any given information should require a specific rationale.
>I hold that protected information consists of all information which is not
>inherently sensitive.
This is a logical _non sequitur_. I think he's gotten his terms
confused. It still remains to be seen what he really means by "protected
information."
>With a slight digression for EMAIL, where there is
>an "expectation of privacy" (else it would be posted to a public newsgroup).
A stipulation, in effect, that information that is "not inherently
sensitive" can still carry an "expectation of privacy."
>We're at a deadlock here. I hold that facilitating a free flow of information
>in an academic environment requires making as much information as possible
>freely available (with the exception of EMAIL and "sensitive" info). You
>hold that we should not make information available until we find a valid use
>for it. In other words, if I want to find out whether Dennis is a user on
>this system or not, you'd make me want to go through the step of detirmining
>whether this is a valid use of the information in the "passwd" file before
>considering that yes, maybe this isn't a violation of Dennis's privacy.
>Meanwhile, I'd have to try to track down Dennis (he's never in his office)
>instead of simply sending him some EMAIL...
There is less of a deadlock here than Green thinks, possibly arising from
his misinterpretation of my position on what belongs in the "free flow of
information," but having partly to do with confusion between what, for want of
any better terms, I shall call the "micro" and "macro" levels of this issue.
I personally have no problem with the fact of my being logged on at a
given moment, or my user ID, being made known. What computing activities I am
engaged in may or may not be a legitimate concern, as has recently been
discussed at length in these pages. I do not, however, believe that these are
things that all persons have an inalienable, _a priori_ right to know, such
that it would be impossible for sysadmins to justify the failure to provide
them.
The more important issue, I think, goes beyond the mundane example that
seems to be the ultimate driver of this debate. The categorical statement
"if you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason for privacy"--
which is what set me off on this thread in the first place--carries some
extremely dangerous implications for individual freedoms, and not just
those of computer users. Green's other sweeping assertion, that to
"Restrict [the] free flow of information [is to] get less cross-pollination
of ideas between people," is less of a potential time bomb for personal
freedoms, even for personal privacy, as long as it is made explicit what
information is at issue. There will always be tension between privacy and the
free flow when it comes to certain kinds of information. What information
with potential privacy implications should be allowed to flow to whom, and for
what purposes, can and should be considered only in the context of specific
types of information and the possible implications of their dissemination.
The rhetoric on these issues needs to be more nuanced, and needs especially
to keep the differences between the micro (computational) and macro (societal)
levels in view.
Be all this as it may, I ruefully detect the potential for a flame war
here. As such, I would encourage caf-talk readers other than Green and myself
to contribute their own thoughts on these issues.
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
-------------------
From: zrzr0111@helpdesk.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Kurt Jaeger aka PI)
Subject: alt.sex.* & alt.binaries.* by german feminist newspaper detected
Message-ID: <1991Dec5.001147.9187@rusmv1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
Sender: news@rusmv1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (USENET News System)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 00:11:47 GMT
Hi!
It seems history repeats itself.
The alt. hierarchies were the headline in an article
in the german feminist journal "EMMA". News-Admins all around *.de
are hurrying to keyboards, editing sys-files and limiting the
hit on the net.funding.
this article Europe is only one year behind the US in networking *grin*
Enjoy, PI (news@news.uni-stuttgart.de)
--
PI at the User Help Desk Comp.Center U of Stuttgart, FRG 29 Years to go !
SMTP: pi@rus.uni-stuttgart.de Phone: +49 711 685-4828
X.400: pi@rus.uni-stuttgart.dbp.de
Bitnet: zrzr0111@ds0rus54.bitnet (aka Kurt Jaeger)
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: alt.sex.* & alt.binaries.* by german feminist newspaper detected
Message-ID: <1991Dec5.040357.17848@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec5.001147.9187@rusmv1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 04:03:57 GMT
zrzr0111@helpdesk.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Kurt Jaeger aka PI) writes:
[...]
>The alt. hierarchies were the headline in an article
>in the german feminist journal "EMMA". News-Admins all around *.de
>are hurrying to keyboards, editing sys-files and limiting the
>hit on the net.funding.
[...]
Ironically, the academic freedom tradition started in Germany.
- 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: chrisn@cs.arizona.edu (Christopher Niswander)
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 01.38
Message-ID: <9112050443.AA20823@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>
Sender: chrisn@cs.arizona.edu
References: <199111221920.AA16733@eff.org>
Date: 4 Dec 91 14:43:02 GMT
-------------------
From: FFDMG@ALASKA.BITNET (Dean Gottehrer)
Subject: Re: Positivism, privacy, and the flow of information
Message-ID: <199112050610.AA19751@eff.org>
Sender: FFDMG%ALASKA.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu
Date: 4 Dec 91 12:09:13 GMT
Thanks, Mitch, for an invitation to join the debate. I hope we can keep this
out of the flame war arena where more fire than light is created.
I read the line about "if you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason
for privacy" and thought it made about as much sense to me as automatically
assuming that anyone who asserts his or her consitutional Fifth Amendment
rights is guilty of a crime. Innocent people accused of crimes are just as
entitled to the right not to respond as guilty folks are. Similarly, people
with nothing to hide are also entitled to privacy.
Not everything about any person's life is public. Some things are
private--not because anyone of us wants to hide them, but because the Supreme
Court has determined we have a right to privacy and certain parts of our lives
are lived in private and not out in public for everyone to see.
For much of that same reason, I think the contents of an academic computer,
other than directory information and any publically posted material, are
private unless their owners or creaters choose to make them public. Research
that faculty conduct is not public until they make it so by publishing it in
some way. Just because a faculty member has files on the academic computer
does mean that everyone should have the ability to look around and read
them--unless, of course, the faculty member makes them public.
And for whatever my two cents are worth, I think the same privacy rights
pertain to students and staff. We are not yet at the point where everything
everyone owns or creates is open to anyone else to read. Does that mean a
faculty member who doesn't want his research public until he chooses to
publish it has something to hide? I don't think so. I would rather view it
as his right to shape a work in progress, refine and polish it, until he
believes it is ready to face the world.
Best,
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Annonyed
Message-ID: <29561.9112041655@uk.ac.aston.uhura>
Sender: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
Date: 4 Dec 91 16:55:20 GMT
May I tell you about my University.
University of Aston in Birmingham, England.
They have just spent 4M pounds (n.b. not dollers) on a broadband network
covering the whole campus, except for the students' union building and
students' residences.
We have no netnews at all (not even the cut-down/censored version usually
available in the UK)
Access only to a few external sites, dispite the fact that the rules imply
free access to any PUBLIC services over the network. (one of the few
avaiable services is an internet ftp relay)
Dispite constent complaints on the internal vax notes, nothing has changed,
the staff using this claim that they are not those making the decisions,
however they appear reluctent to say who is.
If anyone has any ideas/comments I would be happy to hear.
Mark Evans
Phone: +44 21 565 1979 (home)
+44 21 359 6531 x4039 (office)
email: evansmp@uk.ac.aston.uhura
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Early announement: Frequently Asked Questions Archive
Message-ID: <1991Dec5.142651.3724@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec2.213546.6379@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 14:26:51 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>=================
>README
>=================
>Warning: Still Under Development
>A directory of frequently asked questions. To see a list of questions,
>see file ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/README. Soon you will also be
>able to send email to archiver-server@eff.org, including the line:
> send caf-faq README
[...]
Correction. That should have been "archive-server@eff.org" not
"archiver-server@eff.org".
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Games policies
Message-ID: <9112051436.AA00895@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Dec 91 02:36:39 GMT
From: dave@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David A Rasmussen)
Subject: Re: Games policies
Message-ID: <1991Dec4.201959.28998@uwm.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 20:19:59 GMT
> Here is (Carnegie Mellon) Academic Computing and Media's policy on
> games:
>
>
> Not long after the system was first put together, a "games" account
> was created. The account is maintained by volunteers (some student,
> some staff). It's stated purpose is "to collect as many games as is
> possible into one location in order to save disk space by avoiding
> having multiple copies of games in various users' home directories,
> and to reduce confusion as to where the various games are."
>
This is pretty much how we handle games at our site, the academic
computer center, where I work. Actually, we have one guy on staff who
used to and still is a game addict on his own time, and he does installs
of things and what not as requested by the masses. We run all these games
under some code called a game regulator, which renices games and
warns people when the system gets busy that they'll be cut off, etc.
We had trouble with irc clients in lots of users directories, and I
convinced the management here that I should install one copy of this
for the site as well (and enforce it like games, which are not allowed
as user programs except in the case where someone might be learning to
design and code games). We run irc and icb at +1 or 2 niceness.
As for muds, well, our usage policy is to not allow off campus users in
unless they are themselves, so this carries over to not allowing muds.
However, if other sites don't mind their resources being used this way,
we don't care if users telnet to other sites for mudding.
--
Dave Rasmussen - Systems Programmer/Manager, UW-Milwaukee Computing Svcs Div.
Internet:dave@uwm.edu, Uucp:uwm!dave, Bitnet:dave%uwm.edu@INTERBIT
AT&T:414-229-5133 USmail:Box 413 EMS380,Milwaukee,WI 53201
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112051754.AA07530@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Dec 91 05:54:04 GMT
From: rjq@math.ksu.edu (Rob Quinn)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Date: 5 Dec 91 16:04:53 GMT
Message-ID:
Most "modern" muds allow the administrator to give a list of sites to
deny access to. The main idea was to keep out trouble makers, but I also
honored requests from site administrators to block their machines during
peak hours, or totally. Most mud admin'ers are _very_ interested in keeping
in good favor with their local sysops, and maintaining a low profile -
just send them mail and see how fast they jump.
The only problem is that you might only succeed in shuffling your gamers
from one mud to another, but it's worth a try.
--
Rob Quinn
rjq@math.ksu.edu
QuinnBob@KSUVM.BITNET .
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Fri Dec 6 08:39:51 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA15488
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 6 Dec 1991 13:40:00 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 13:39:51 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199112061839.AA15474@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Dec 6 13:39:13 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Gaming
hrose@eff.org (Hel : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
ULGSM@brolga.newca : U. of Newcastle policies
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Games policies
LIANGC@carleton.ed : Comp-academic-freedom: The Education Value of
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
axolotl@socs.uts.e : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
kris@tpki.toppoint : The USENET pornographic network
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112051754.AA26164@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Dec 91 05:54:52 GMT
From: pdelagar@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx (Ing. Pablo R. de la Garza)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <4755@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx>
Date: 5 Dec 91 16:17:39 GMT
We at Monterrey Institute of Technology have had the same problems with MUD players, what we do is the following:
1.- We have a set of rules of using the Internet (basicly "good mail-manners")
2.- In order to make that rules known we only give networks accounts to those
students who pass an exam based on our set of rules, if they pass, they
can get an account.
3.- The network accounts expire one month before the final exams begin. All of
our students know that.
4.- We have a terminal server that connects to our local network, but access is
restricted only to local machines, so if they want to connect to the
Internet, they must do that by logging on one of our machines.
5.- We restrict telnet operations in some of our machines during office hours
(8:00 AM to 6:00 PM), so the students can only play from 6:00 PM until
11:00 PM (the time we close our labs).We also do the same with IRC.
We had to do that because we had many complaints from teachers and students
that told us that many people were playing, but now that the users KNOW the
rules, they appear to act accordingly.
Pablo R. de la Garza
Director, Computer Services
Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Studies (ITESM)
Monterrey Campus
-------------------
From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
In-Reply-To: kadie@eff.org's message of Tue, 3 Dec 1991 21:37:21 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
References: <1991Dec2.140157.29374@cv.ruu.nl>
<1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Dec3.213721.6223@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 22:51:06 GMT
Carl> == Carl M. Kadie
Carl> Here are my suggestions:
Carl> 1. With Channel Operators and /IGNORE, it is no longer
Carl> appropriate for server operators to moderate content. The
Carl> criteria for intervention should be "substantial disruption".
Not all clients can ignore user@host. There are people who are obnoxious
enough who *will* evade ignore. Repeatedly, even. People shouldn't be
subjected to harrassment.
Carl> 2. /WALL and /WALLOP should be replaced with channels that folks
Carl> can monitor if they wish.
I believe this will be implemented in 2.7
Carl> (I realize that coding is hard to do, but ...)
Volunteering? :-)
Carl> 3. Server operators should be able to limit the amount of text
Carl> per user that is sent through the op's system. This is to control
Carl> floods.
This is already implemented... There are flood controls in the server
and client.
Carl> 4. The /KILL command should be changed so that server operators
Carl> can only kill users of the op's system. And (maybe) stop text
Carl> from a user on another server from going through the op's system
Carl> for some period of time.
Very hard to implement.
Carl> 5. Anyone should be able to set up an alternative IRCnet.
Carl> Ideally, users should be able to access two or more IRCnet's at
Carl> once.
Did anyone say this wasn't possible? Go ahead and start your own IRCnet
if you want, (you can't use 6667 on eff, tho ... :-) and tell people
about it. ircII even allows multiple connections in one session to
seperate servers.
--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose irc operators mailing list
Electronic Frontier Foundation operlist-request@cs.bu.edu
Systems and Networks Administration Flames to:
women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
--
Helen Trillian Rose irc operators mailing list
Electronic Frontier Foundation operlist-request@cs.bu.edu
Systems and Networks Administration Flames to:
women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
-------------------
From: ULGSM@brolga.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: U. of Newcastle policies
Message-ID: <43858C4B08C002AE@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Sender: ULGSM@brolga.newcastle.edu.au
Date: 6 Dec 91 22:00:00 GMT
I have been reading the Computers and Academic Freedom (news version)
for some time now, with great interest, but without being sure that it
was all that relevant to my own institution. However, on 21 November 1991,
in vol. 1 no. 39, Carl M. Kadie commented:
> 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.)
...
> 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]
This was the first time that I, as a user of the University of Newcastle's
computing services, had heard of this policy.
The University of Newcastle Computer Users Forum met on 5 December 1991 to
discuss various issues, including:
> 2. USE OF COMPUTING FACILITIES
>
> A copy of the conditions for the use of computing facilities in the
> University is enclosed. This document has been endorsed by Academic
> Senate and Council as the "plain English" regulations for the use of
> computing facilities by members of the University.
>
> 3. LIMITS ON STUDENT ACCESS TO AARNet
>
> In view of the escalating costs of operation of AARNet and, more
> particularly, the incidence of abuse of AARNet by 'hackers' wishing
> to enter off-campus computing systems, the Computing Committee has
> recommended to Academic Senate that students not have access to
> AARNet unless it is prescribed for their course of study or research
> program.
I attended this meeting, along with 40-50 others. Readers of Computers
and Academic Freedom may be interested in my (biased) report on the
meeting.
I think that these two issues (the conditions for the use of the computing
facilities, and student access to AARNet, the Australian equivalent of
INTERNET) are related. Certainly, the discussion of the issues at the
Computer Users Forum covered a lot of the same ground. However, I will
discuss them in seriatim.
Use of Computing Facilities
---------------------------
The conditions on the use of computing facilities which generated most
discussion were:
> Failure to abide by the following terms will be treated as misconduct
> and may result in disciplinary action including denial of access to
> the facilities concerned. In particular, if, in the opinion of the
> Director, University Computing Services, you have failed to abide by
> these terms, you may be denied access to computing facilities or to
> the University's communications network.
...
> You may not use the University's computing facilities to send obscene,
> offensive, bogus, harassing or illegal messages.
It was made clear in the discussion of the former that this meant that the
Director, University Computing Services, had the power to fail a student by
denying him/her access to computing facilities.
Some people at the forum expressed their concern that the conditions had
not developed a mechanism to deal with breaches: their concern was that they
might spend considerable effort in finding evidence of a "hacker", only to
find their effort wasted and the hacker allowed to escape without punishment.
I raised the issue of the ban on "obscene, offensive, bogus, harassing or
illegal messages". Australia does not have an equivalent of the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; but it does have a long tradition of
democracy, freedom of speech, and academic freedom. I was therefore
surprised that several people thought that these restrictions were reason-
able. However, the Chairperson of the Forum, Bruce Cheek, said that he
thought legal advice could be sought of this condition.
I would think that the condition should be confined to "bogus" and
"harassing" messages, and that these should be narrowly defined. In the
past, many works of literature have been banned (in Australia and else-
where) as "obscene" - works such as James Joyce's _Ulysses_ and D.H.
Lawrence's _Lady_Chatterly's_Lover_, which are now studied in universities
like the University of Newcastle.
The word "offensive" is far too broad - "offensive" to whom? Many people
find the truth offensive. At one time, the Catholic Church found the theory
that the Earth rotates around the Sun offensive; and today, some people find
the Darwinian theory of evolution offensive.
The word "illegal" is also too broad. I am sure that this is not a com-
prehensive list, but in New South Wales a message might be illegal
because it is:
* seditious
* in contempt of court
* in contempt of Parliament
* in contempt of the Industrial Relations Commission
* racist
* against the Public Sector Management Act (N.S.W.), which forbids
comments on departmental policy by public servants.
All these messages can be punished by the appropriate court or tribunal.
It should not be up the Director, University Computing Services, to give
a second punishment to (for example) a school teacher and part-time
university student who criticises a policy of the New South Wales
Department of School Education on one of the University's computers.
Limits on Student Access to AARNet
----------------------------------
The University od Newcastle has decided to limit access to AARNet (the
Australian Academic and Research Network, which is the Australian
equivalent to, and linked with, the INTERNET). It will be available to
only those students who need it for their study or research. Various
reasons have been given for this, including:
* Increasing costs of AARNet
* The danger of hackers using AARNet
* The use of AARNet requires use of University of Newcastle computing
facilities, which are scarce resources provided for University purposes.
The question of the costs of AARNet is a bit of a red herring, as for the
universities belonging to AARNet the cost is fixed regardless of the use
made of AARNet.
There was some discussion of AARNet security. The analogy was made of a
road with cars and houses on it. Everyone can use the road, and it is the
responsibility of the owners of the cars and houses to make sure that they
are locked if they don't want others to use them.
I argued that the policy showed a very limited view of university education.
The policy seems to be based on the idea that students should confine them-
selves to what is taught in their lectures and read only those textbooks
which have been prescribed for them to read. I made the analogy with the
university library. It would be easy to implement a policy that students
may only use books which have been prescribed for their courses; and indeed
such a policy might have some advantages, because it would mean that
researchers would be more likely to find the books and journals they need
in the library. However, all users of the library can have access to all
material in the library: staff may be able to borrow books longer than
students, and staff may be able (in our case) to borrow journals, while
students may only use the journals in the library; but there in nothing in
the library that cannot be used by students, regardless of whether it is
relevant to their course.
The policy is difficult to implement: it had occurred to me that it might
be possible to implement it by restricting use of commands like FTP, MAIL and
TELNET to certain users, but these can be used to link the various computers
within the university. Thus an English major or a Sociology major can FTP
or TELNET to the Engineering computer or the Mathematics computer within
the university, but cannot (according to this policy) use the computer
systems to link to systems and people in other universities which might be
related to his/her interests.
One concern I have is that this ban on student access to AARNet might be
in a selective way: it might only be implemented if a student posts a
message to an external newsgroup which criticises or embarrasses the
University of Newcastle.
Conclusion
----------
These matters have not yet been finally resolved in my opinion, as there
has been some opposition to the restrictive policies of the University of
Newcastle. One person commented towards the end of the two hour meeting
of the Computer Users Forum: "30% of us strongly support this policy, 30%
are strongly opposed to it, and 40% want to go to lunch." So far, there
has been no opinions expressed on these matters by students of the Uni-
versity of Newcastle, and there are not likely to be any for a while, as
we are just starting our long vacation now, and students will not be back
until February 1992.
Giles Martin
Deputy Technical Services Librarian (Monographs)
University of Newcastle Libraries
AARNet/INTERNET: ulgsm@cc.nu.oz.au
I wish that these opinions were the opinions of the University of
Newcastle, but they are not.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112060428.AA27513@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Dec 91 16:28:43 GMT
From: as_m455@titan.kingston.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec5.173222.1@titan.kingston.ac.uk>
Date: 5 Dec 91 17:32:22 GMT
In article <1991Dec2.141144.2271@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> jasonp@cunix3.Prime.COM (Jason R. Pascucci) writes:
>>And, for those out there in admin
>>land who think MUD's are a waste of resources, think again.
>>Many far more useful programming experience then you can
>>get in college is garnered from MU*. C-like languages,
>>Forth-languages, shell-like scripts, from the most
>>basic concepts of programming to some of the most
>>advanced (True Multi-processing, OOP, etc)
>>are dealt with in this environment.
>
> That isn't really grounded in reality. A majority of the MUDs I've seen
> are nothing more than "out of the box" productions; someone got the source
> code and typed "make". Yup, that's really challenging. We're really ex-
> panding the frontiers of academia now, eh? Sure, some designers do exten-
> sive work on the code, but most only learn enough to add new rooms.
>
> Of course, this benefit only applies to the person/people who build/program
> the MUD. What benefits do the *players* receive? None. Most of the MUDs
> I've seen are nothing but IRC in armor. I think you'll agree that most of
> the "no MUDding" policies are directed against players, NOT against designers.
>
> There's a big difference.
>
As a player of MUDs for two years, a MUF (multi-user FORTH) programmer, and now
the designer of a full-blown MUD interface to UNIX ... gaming and FULL shell
access in the same package - a sort of text based cyberspace ... I think a lot
of this discussion (and your comments) are spurious.
Here at Kingston Polytechnic (UK) there is now an anti-gaming policy and our
MUD has been removed, but there hasn't been any increase in access to terminals
or in CPU time available ... and anyone who wants to can dial up any of the
other MUDs around and play on those ... so forget all this garbage about wasted
system resources.
On the programming front, a MUD is a great way to keep hackers under control.
I've known some people who can turn VMS or UNIX inside out and upside down, but
that's been less of an attraction than rewriting and extending LPMUD. Then you
have the users who'd never dream of learning to program, but then they play
with a MUD and make Wizard status. Bam !!! Overnight you have someone who wants
to learn how LPC or MUF work ... does it matter if they start by writing a few
rooms and monsters, when they end up producing code that most 'professionals'
would blanch at ...
You try writing a program in MUF to look for a specific player, or perform a
certain action under certain circumstances with input from multiple players ...
It ain't easy !
Anyway, I've had my rant ... now I'll get back to writing my MUD and sorting
out how to implement monsters as neural net simulations (see comp.ai.neural-net
for more details) ...
Yours, a devoted MUDer ...
- Hermes, the Megaflow Junkie.
email : as_m455@titan.kingston.ac.uk
The views expressed are mine alone. They are not shared by any of my tutors,
lecturers, fellow students or system personal.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112060429.AA04943@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Dec 91 16:29:48 GMT
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 19:13:59 GMT
In <1991Dec5.173222.1@titan.kingston.ac.uk> as_m455@titan.kingston.ac.uk writes:
> ... when they end up producing code that most 'professionals'
>would blanch at ...
>You try writing a program in MUF to look for a specific player,
: findplayer
me @ "Enter player:" notify
dup read .pmatch
(if macro is installed or wiz the program and use "*" swap strcat match)
location name
" is in " swap strcat strcat
me @ swap notify
;
Took under 5 minutes to write that out. Might need some debugging, but
you should be able to write a find in at most 15 minutes.
If you have no pmatch macro and you can't get the programmed wizzed, then
it gets complicated, but I haven't seen a Muck that doesn't put in pmatch
first thing.
Any professionals out there blanching? Hmm... Didn't think so...
> ... or perform a
>certain action under certain circumstances with input from multiple players ...
A muf program can only read keyboard input from the user running the program.
(at least in TinyMUCK 2.2) I fail to see what is special about doing
certain actions under certain circumstances for anyone who knows what an
if does.
Yes, you can learn a lot from MUF, such as basic coding, a stack based
language, and if you're hot recursion, and other neat stuff. But it
sounds like what you are saying is that muf programmers are real hot
shots. Most aren't. And the examples you give aren't that advanced.
If you can write something like OliverJones program to loop over a whole
database without a stack overflow, or his self-replicating muf code,
then I'll be impressed.
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | "On and on and on we go, where
(805) 893-4113 | we're going we don't know"
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | - Lilac Time
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112060430.AA19365@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Dec 91 16:30:19 GMT
From: yduj@lucid.com (Judy Anderson)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec5.232214.12491@lucid.com>
Date: 5 Dec 91 23:22:14 GMT
In article <1991Dec5.150225.25132@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>I stand by my original comment that the majority of MUDders do NOT partici-
>pate in the programming. I know about 25 MUD enthusiasts here; only 4 of
>them are learning the programming aspects of the game, and only 1 of those
>4 is doing significant work in the design elements. Is that a repre-
>sentative sample? If so, that implies that < 20% of MUD players are
>delving into the educational aspects of the game. Is that sufficient
>justification for the machine/network load?
>
>(If someone has better stats than mine, I'd like to see them. Can
> any MUD operators out there let us know how many of their players
> are actually working in the programming/design aspects?)
I help admin the easiest-to-program mud (IMHO, of course), MOO. (Mud,
Object-Oriented). In order to become a programmer, you have to chat
with a wizard, who waves their magic want at you (and more importantly
tells you the FTP address for the manual), but basically programmer
bits are free for anyone. Approximately one quarter of the players
have asked for programmer bits. (422 out of 1793, today. Note the
1793 includes a lot of drop-ins who don't ever come back; we haven't
reaped one-timers in a while.) Of people who have logged in in the
past month, one-third have programmer bits (261 out of 683). Now,
it's true that a lot of these people don't actually do anything
interesting with their programmer bits; they just get them because a
friend said "go bug yduJ for a programmer bit", or once they have a
programmer bit they discover programming is hard and don't pursue it.
However, we have a substantial population of students who have done a
lot of programming on the MOO, sometimes with surprisingly excellent
results. We also clearly have a lot of people whose first computer
language is MOO-code.
I encourage sysadmins to allow their users to telnet to muds if they
allow games at all; at the very least they improve their typing skills :-)
And I do think that it justifies the network load (it's not like
they're transferring huge GIFs) if only 20% of the users delve into
the educational aspects of mudding. Those 20% are our future! Think
of them as the star pupils in a class...
yduJ on LambdaMOO yduJ@lucid.com 'yduJ' rhymes with 'fudge'
[ LambdaMOO is lambda.parc.xerox.com 8888 / 13.2.116.36 8888 ]
Join the League for Programming Freedom, league@prep.ai.mit.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Games policies
Message-ID: <9112060430.AA02264@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Dec 91 16:30:34 GMT
From: cmaae47@cc.ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel-Dau)
Subject: Re: Games policies
Message-ID: <1991Dec5.185835.27897@cc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 5 Dec 91 18:58:35 GMT
Re. the discussion on games:
I thought the surefire way to get students to stop using games was to make
them compulsory in the first term, complete with booked sessions, progress
reports, handwritten (!) essays, strategy discussions etc. After that it
would be a case of "Oh, we've done that", and the only problem left would
be staff playing too much.
Thomas
--
*** This is the operative statement, all previous statements are inoperative.
* email: cmaae47 @ cc.ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) (uk.ac.ic.cc on Janet)
* voice: +44 715 895 111 x4937 or 4934 (day), or +44 718 239 497 (fax)
* snail: Imperial College Center for Computing Services, Kensington SW7 2BX
-------------------
From: LIANGC@carleton.edu (Metamorpheus)
Subject: Comp-academic-freedom: The Education Value of MU*s
Message-ID:
Sender: LIANGC@carleton.edu
Date: 6 Dec 91 05:42:00 GMT
There was an explosion of MU*ing of all kinds at Carleton last year,
ranging from people who used it as a kind of deluxe IRC to those who attained
wizardship and practically re-wrote the code. For those who become serious
about it, yes, MU*s are a very good way to be introduced to an object oriented
language. People who would never think of taking a computer science course in a
million years didn't bat an eye when they saw that learning the language gave
them the ability to control "reality". If you want to create effect X, which
has never been seen on the MU* before, you have to learn how to create it. I'm
not saying that MU*s will churn out super-genius programmers (tho' I was amazed
when someone put up a working MU* only using approx. 140 lines of code -- he
was an efficency expert), but it's a good way to get people interested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't represent in any way, the institution -- I only live there.
"Take absurdity to its limit: It becomes philosophy." - _The Tao of Meow_
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.021420.5399@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Dec3.213721.6223@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 02:14:20 GMT
In article hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose) writes:
> Carl> And (maybe) stop text
> Carl> from a user on another server from going through the op's system
> Carl> for some period of time.
>
>Very hard to implement.
Actually, it's easy to implement and so fascist that we never have.
I'm surprised that Carl would recommend even thinking about this.
Fortunately, our sense of freedom of speech is sufficiently strong...
-------------------
Date: 6 Dec 91 03:00:13 GMT
Message-ID:
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain D. Sinclair)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
References: <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Are the /HELP RULES generally accepted? (I ask because, in the US most
>>offensive speech is protected from government supression, i.e. /KILL
>>from an operator at a public university.)
aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Alan D.) writes:
>Nope. Anyone who wants to do something, does it. Sometimes he/she
>gets /killed for it, but there is no rhyme or reason to it.
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>You better to get an opinion from a lawyer -- operators generally have
>no official status
However, operators include the paid administrators of public
universities.
NB. When that lawyer's opinion arrives, it will be totally irrelevant
to half of the IRC world.
>and /KILL is not necessarily supression, because it
>is quite temporary.
This doesn't give anything like the full picture. In reality, many
channels are semi-permanent meeting places which users find
convenient to visit regularly.
Carl, a /kill allows nothing less than the semi-permanent removal of a
moderator, and is an unrestricted technique for harassing ordinary users
and imposing censorship. (Pressure from other operators is almost
never applied unless you do something REALLY SERIOUS, like /killing
another operator [god FORBID!].)
In a separate article, I've provided half a dozen examples of the way /kill
is perfunctorily abused. (It seems that /kill is occasionally needed to
get rid of users when something fails in the server/client dialog --
anything else is pretty much abuse.)
But don't take my word for it; get someone to give you an op line,
and note all the /kills that occur over a week.
(You might even want to quiz the /killer over each incident, to see
exactly how unjustified they are.)
I'd be interested in the results of such a survey.
>The only thing
>that's guaranteed is that the source code is covered by the GPL, so
>you can generally set up your own IRC network if you don't like the
>rules in this one.
This is the standard, handy cop-out for the sysadmin who doesn't
give a toss about his/her users. "If you don't like the way it's
done, set up your own." What service.
--
Iain Sinclair __ +61 2 2812552 (faq)
axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au +61 2 3301807 (fax)
-------------------
From: kris@tpki.toppoint.de (Kristian Koehntopp)
Subject: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <1991Dec06.082334.28184@tpki.toppoint.de>
Date: 6 Dec 91 08:23:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Please note the followup-to. Not another USENET censorship
diskussion in alt.sex, please!
The german version of EMMA has published in its current issue
an article about the USENET, an academic network used mainly
for transmission of pornographic material.
The following article is in german language and contains the
original text from EMMA. Perhaps some kind soul with better
knowledge of english can translate it.
Of course the article has induced heavy discussion about USENET
in general and alt.sex.* specifically in germany. Some major
newsfeeds have taken preventive actions and dropped alt.sex.*
and alt.binaries.*. German language discussion about the
article and its consequences goes on in dnet.inet.
I am not receiving alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk at my site. If
anyone has already posted the article, feel free to flame
me.
Otherwise you may consider a FAX to your national EMMA team :-)
Kristian
Article in german language follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMMA enthuellt: Auch deutsche Professoren und Studenten sind beim
Porno-Network dabei.
(reprinted without permission)
Ursula Ott
Was tun Professoren und Studenten, wenn sie am Uni-Computer sitzen?
Sie arbeiten? Nicht immer. Die fuer Forschungszwecke weltweit
installierten 40.000 Computer spucken tagtaeglich nicht nur
Wissenschaftliches, sondern auch Pornografisches aus. Texte und
Bilder, Gestricheltes und Fotografisches, obszoen bis gewalttaetig. In
der ganzen Welt ist es den Herren Forschern ein Vergnuegen, Pornos
einzufuettern in den Computer und Pornos abzurufen in ihrer bezahlten
Arbeitszeit, versteht sich. Gerade flogen in den USA die ersten Uni-
Porno-Networks auf. Jetzt enthuellt EMMA: Auch unsere Professoren und
Studenten machen mit bei dem makabren Spiel. An 1.297 deutschen
UniComputern werden tagtaeglich Hard-Core-Pornos konsumiert.
Missmutig sitzt Professor Miller in seinem Institutsbuero. Eigentlich
sollte er dringend Klausuren korrigieren, aber er hat nicht die geringste
Lust dazu. Viel brennender interessiert ihn etwas anderes: "Wie kann
man am effektivsten eine Frau mit Stromstoessen traktieren und keine
Spuren hinterlassen?" Diese Frage hatte er vergangene Woche per
wissenschaftlichem ComputerNetzwerk an seine Kollegen in aller Welt
gestellt. Mal seh'n, ob schon einer geantwortet hat.
Mit wenigen Tastengriffen erlangt Professor Miller auf dem
institutseigenen Computer Zugriff auf die elektronische
Informationsboerse USENET. Und tatsaechlich, in der Datei
"alt.sex.bondage" finden sich schon einige Antworten. "Pass auf, dass
der Strom von Herz und Zentralnervensystem wegbleibt dann duerfte
sie eigentlich ueberleben. Benutze grossflaechige Elektroden mit gutem
Hautkontakt und Kontaktcreme, damit es keine Verbrennungen gibt. Wenn
du ihren Kopf nach unten haengen laesst, bleibt sie eher bei
Bewusstsein." Dies raet am 25. September 1991 um 21.19 Uhr ein
gewisser "John". "Roo",ein anderer Spezialist in Sachen Sadismus, gibt
am 30. September um 12.30 Uhr einen wertvollen Literaturhinweis in
Sachen Folter -man ist schliesslich Wissenschaftler. Am 1. Oktober
schickt ein dritter hilfreicher Kollege eine technische Zeichnung ueber
Stromspannungen hinterher und empfiehlt, auf jeden Fall Klavierdraht
zu benutzen -"der hinterlaesst keine Spuren". Professor Miller kann
zufrieden sein. Seine Recherche war erfolgreich.
Wir wissen nicht, wer "Professor Miller" ist, ob er an der Universitaet
in Stuttgart, Wisconsin oder Vancouver sitzt. Denn "Miller" ist ein
Codename, sowie "John" und "Roo": Sie sind in ihrem buergerlichen Leben
honorige C-4-Professoren, Diplomgeographen oder Physikdozenten, die
ihren oeden Uni-Alltag mit Computer-Sex und knallharter Pornographie
beleben. Grossenteils auf Staatskosten natuerlich. Denn USENET ist ein
wissenschaftliches Programm, das ueberwiegend von Universitaeten
benutzt wird: In Deutschland zum Beispiel von den Universitaeten
Stuttgart, Ulm, Berlin, der Bundeswehrhochschule in Muenchen und der
Uni in Leipzig. Dazu kommen Forschungsabteilungen in der Industrie, in
Deutschland zum Beispiel von Daimler Benz und Bosch.
Weit ueber 1.000 Anschluesse gibt es in Deutschland, weltweit sind es
40.000. Weil jeder AnschluB von mehreren Personen benutzt wird,
schaetzt USENET selbst seine Leser weltweit auf zwei Millionen. Im
Prinzip eine sinnvolle Einrichtung. Per Datenfernuebertragung, der
sogenannten "elektronischen Mailbox", koennen Wissenschaftler rund um
den Globus in Dialog treten. So kann zum Beispiel der Diplomgeologe aus
Berlin in Sekundenschnelle eine Erdbeben-Messung an seinen Kollegen in
Seattle schicken. Und der kann postwendend reagieren.
Doch wen interessieren schon Erdbeben-Messungen. Eine Statistik vom
Monat Oktober zeigt, dass weder die geologische noch die physikalische
Abteilung bei den Herren Wissenschaftlern sonderlich gefragt ist. Ganz
oben auf der Hitliste steht die Datei "alt.sex": 220.000 Leser allein im
Monat Oktober. Im Vergleich dazu: Die Datei "sci.physics.fusion", in der
Daten aus der Kernphysik uebermittelt werden, wurde nur schlappe
32.000 Mal aufgerufen.
Besonders beliebt ist die Untergruppe "alt.sex.pictures": bewegte
Pornobilder, zum Beispiel die Gruppenvergewaltigung einer gefesselten
Frau. Ein "bewegtes Bild" um den Globus zu jagen ist technisch
besonders aufwendig und damit teuer: Jeden Monat kostet das die
Steuerzahlerlnnen rund 58.000 Dollar, also knapp 100.000 Mark fuer die
vier beliebtesten Sexgruppen. Nicht gerechnet die Arbeitszeit der
hochbezahlten Akademiker, die ihr Instituts-Buero zur Peepshow
machen. Das duerfte, wenn nicht den Staatsanwalt, so zumindest den
Landesrechnungshof interessieren. Denn der hat zu kontrollieren, was
Professoren und Dozenten mit unseren Steuergeldern anstellen!
Das Angebot von "alt.sex" kann mit jedem gutsortierten Pornohaendler
mithalten. Bilder von Frauen, die zu Sex mit Hunden oder Pferden
gezwungen werden, am DrehspieB gegrillt, mit einer brennenden Kerze
oder mit Eisenstangen gequaelt werden. Alles in bester technischer
Qualitaet, in Farbe oder SchwarzweiB. Mit wenigen Tastengriffen kann
jeder Student, der Zugang zum Uni-Computer hat, Kopien furr den
eigenen Home-Computer in der Studenten-Bude anfertigen.
Die meisten dieser Bilder kommen momentan aus den USA, wo sie in
sorgfaeltiger Kleinarbeit erstellt werden. Noch scheinen die Deutschen
vor allem Konsumenten, nicht Produzenten der Wichs-Vorlagen zu sein.
Dasselbe gilt fuer pornographische Texte, die grundsaetzlich in der
Wissenschafts-Sprache Englisch abgefaBt sind. Sie bestehen entweder
aus Anfragen: "Wie kann ich meine Freundin am besten fesseln?", "Meine
Freundin ist allergisch auf Gummi, was soll ich tun?", "lch hasse den
Geschmack von Menstruationsblut - wer hat eine Idee?" Oder aus
verbalen Erguessen der unterschiedlichsten Art.
Opfer der Gewaltphantasien sind neben Frauen auch Schwule oder
Kinder. So droht "The Real Elvis" am 1. Oktober 1991 einem anderen
Computer-Benutzer: "Homosexuelle sind minderwertige Menschen. Wenn
ich herausbekomme, wer Du schwules Schwein wirklich bist, dann
ramme ich dir den Schuh in den Arsch."
Und in der Gruppe "alt.sex.bestiality"schildert einer die -tatsaechliche
oder fantasierte- Vergewaltigung seiner Tochter. "lch fuehlte, wie
mein Schwanz den Widerstand ihres Jungfernhaeutchens durchstiess,
sie heulte und schrie. Zum ersten Mal erfuellte ich sie mit Sperma. Sie
sagte: Danke, Vater. Das war das tollste Geburtstagsgeschenk, was ich
je bekommen habe..."
In Amerika sind die graduierten Pornokonsumenten dieser Tage gestoert
worden: Ein Reporter der "Seattle Times" deckte am 15. Oktober die
Sex-Programme von USENET auf. Helle Aufregung bei den
Verantwortlichen -"Wir hatten keine Ahnung, dass die Universitaet von
Washington pornographisches Material in ihren Computern hat' beteuert
Ivan Dansereau, der Verantwortliche im "State Auditores Office". Helle
Aufregung aber auch bei den Konsumenten der Porno-Programme: Bereits
einen Tag spaeter, am 16. Oktober um 22.06 Uhr, wird per USENET die
Devise ausgegeben: kein Wort mehr zu Reportern ! "Wenn euch ein
Reporter fragt, zeigt ihm die guten, sauberen Programme und nicht die
dreckigen, geschmacklosen. Wenn USA Today was von der Sache spitz
kriegt, wird der Congress ein entsprechendes Gesetz verabschieden ! "
Und in Deutschland? Da tummeln sich die old boys noch ungestoert im
DatenSex. Auch Emma haette davon nichts erfahren, wenn uns nicht zwei
Physiker Zugang zu "alt. sex" verschafft haetten. Sie waren bei der
Reise durch den Daten-Dschungel zufaellig auf die PornoDatei gestossen
und total schockiert. "Nichts gegen Erotik' finden sie",aber das hier ist
menschenfeindlich, frauenfeindlich und schwulenfeindlich. Das hat an
einem Arbeitsplatz nichts zu suchen." Ihren Namen wollen sie nicht
nennen, denn: "Wir sind uns sicher, dass die unzaehligen Liebhaber der
Porno-Rubrik sich gruendlich an uns raechen wuerden. Und wir haben
noch eine wissenschaftliche Karriere vor uns." A propos Karriere: Macht
sich bestimmt nicht so gut, wenn bekannt wird, welcher Professor
seine hochbezahlte Arbeitszeit als Porno-Konsument zubringt.
Informatik-Studentinnen, Hacker,Haecksen: Kriegt raus, welche von
Euren Kommilitonen und Profs sich in den Porno-Programmen tummeln.
Guckt ihnen ueber die Schulter, wenn sie auffaellig lange am
Vierfarbdrucker sitzen, denn Porno-Grafiken brauchen mehrere Minuten,
bis sie ausgedruckt sind. Erwischt sie in flagranti oder legt einen
Koeder aus -sowie dieser Tage die Hollaenderlnnen. Die boten per
Computer Porno-Programme an und speicherten jeden Interessenten:
2.000 Anfragen innerhalb von nur drei Tagen ! "Eine wahre Invasion von
geilen Boecken' klagten die Anbieter -und veroeffentlichten ueber
Computer alle 2.000 Anfragen. In dem Ausdruck, der Emma ,vorliegt,
stehen zwar keine Namen, aber die Kuerzel der Unis. So wissen wir zum
Beispiel, dass sich am 6. August 1991 um 21.26 Uhr das Institut fuer
Theoretische Physik der Uni Koeln fuer die Pornos interessiert hat. Ob
das nicht wiederum den Uni-Rektor interessiert?
Beschwert Euch bei Eurer Uni-Leitung und beim Landesrechnungshof !
Haltet uns auf dem laufenden ueber alles, was ihr rausbekommt ! Lasst
sie uns outen,die graduierten Porno-Konsumenten !
URSULA OTT
--
Kristian Koehntopp, Harmsstrasse 98, 2300 Kiel, +49 431 676689
"Ach, Maenner! Immer mit ihren Verallgemeinerungen!"
-- ilka@tpki.toppoint.de (Ilka Katofsky)
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Fri Dec 6 10:56:40 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA20267
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Fri, 6 Dec 1991 15:56:45 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 15:56:40 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199112062056.AA20261@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Dec 6 15:55:33 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
buboo@alf.uib.no ( : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: (comp.admin.policy) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Finger & Liberty
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Finger & Liberty
durrell@umaxc.weeg : Re: (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Finger & Liberty
mack23@sam.spc.uch : Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catal
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Gaming
rsr@bigbang.Berkel : Re: The dread F word
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) RE: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: buboo@alf.uib.no (Ove Ruben R Olsen)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.113642.7789@alf.uib.no>
Date: 6 Dec 91 11:36:42 GMT
References: <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
In article axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au writes:
[... much stuff deleted ...]
>This is the standard, handy cop-out for the sysadmin who doesn't
>give a toss about his/her users. "If you don't like the way it's
>done, set up your own." What service.
*smile* ... Since there are no global rules (written or "oral") in
the IRC Anarchy, one must learn to live by the rules of Anaracy...
I.e. The strongest Rule the Game.
I belive that IRC is a pretty good picture of what will happen if
a whole society got to the point of arnarchy. I bet a lot of
sociologist would love to make some research on the social experiment
that IRC also is.
Talking about service or not: Think of IRC a big company ( I didn't say
American ;)... a small customer can't force the company to change its
policy. No way. So the small customer will have to go to a smaller
company if he or she want's the his or her kind of service.
FYI: Bitnet Relay is such a small company.
Don't take IRC to seriously... it's not good for your health.. ;-)
>
>
>--
>Iain Sinclair __ +61 2 2812552 (faq)
>axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au +61 2 3301807 (fax)
Happy IRC'in...
\Ruben.
--
Ove Ruben R Olsen, Proffessional VI user. EMAIL: rubenro@viggo.blh.no
Also known as "The Gnarfer from Hell". (Registred character of ORRO.)
Maintaining the Largest VI/EX-STUFF Archive in the WORLD (alf.uib.no)
For more information Mail to buboo@alf.uib.no with GET HELP as subject
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 10:09:28 GMT
In article axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au writes:
>Carl, a /kill allows nothing less than the semi-permanent removal of a
>moderator, and is an unrestricted technique for harassing ordinary users
>and imposing censorship. (Pressure from other operators is almost
>never applied unless you do something REALLY SERIOUS, like /killing
>another operator [god FORBID!].)
Gee, I'm glad to see that you now support my stand on KILL. What a
turn-around for you. I'm proud. Now please continue by not harrassing
other users, not evading /ignore, and not killing and we'll be totally
proud of you.
[Hint for those unused to alt.irc flamewars -- the people who shout
loudest that they are being abused are sometimes the people who are
abusing the system the most.
A second hint is that when someone is KILLed on IRC, all operators see
it and this provides a form of checks and balances on operator
behavior. Some IRC operators ignore such complaints; sometimes a
complaint to a systems administrator provides satisfaction, sometimes
the irc operator is a systems administrator and the only recourse is
to try to kick a server off of IRC. Distributed software is fun.
Despite what Ax claims, I find that questions about bogus kills are
frequent. I make a lot of them myself. ]
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 15:02:35 GMT
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
[...]
>A second hint is that when someone is KILLed on IRC, all operators see
>it and this provides a form of checks and balances on operator
>behavior.
With /WALL removed, with flood control, with channel operators, what
are the advantages of allowing the irc operator on one server to /KILL
users on all the other systems? Is this power still necessary? (Can
you give examples of why?)
>Some IRC operators ignore such complaints; sometimes a
>complaint to a systems administrator provides satisfaction, sometimes
>the irc operator is a systems administrator and the only recourse is
>to try to kick a server off of IRC. Distributed software is fun.
[...]
Just as an email administrator's jurisdiction is limited to his or her
site, just as a Netnews administrators jurisdiction is limited to his
or her site, so an IRC operators's jurisdiction should be limited to
his or her site. IRC will not be fully distributed until the
jurisdiction of IRC operators is so distributed.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112061602.AA04979@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 6 Dec 91 04:02:25 GMT
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.154603.19297@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 91 15:46:03 GMT
dcw11111@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Blackmore) writes:
|First, just throw them off. IRC is very simple to recognize, and muds aren't
|real tough either. It is possible that they are doing classwork - they may be
|getting help from a friend on a program. I've done it many times. If this is
|the case, then have them switch to talk, so they don't get tempted to talk to
|everyone else while they're on.
Oh so the administration gets to dictate the tools eh? What if they
don't like talk? What if they want to have a conference? This is an
example of the administration taking excessive control of the users
rather than serving their needs, which is the reason for their
existance.
|Second, there is also the problem of mail and news, which you could also be
|using for classwork. If a policy is made, it should be standard throughout
|the different possible formats. Personally, I think someone should have to
|give up their computer if they are using IRC, muds, talk, news or mail, unless
|they are willing to let you see the screen, and see that they are discussing
|classwork.
What if they want to keep their work private? When the library is
full, do you poke your head in each of the study carrels, and look at
the papers on the desk to see if legitimate work is being done? What
if they were reading a paperback novel?
The real problem is lack of resources. If the library routinely fills
up, you limit access altogether, or you build an addition to the
library. You shouldn't go poking around in people's work, questioning
it's legitimacy. If someone around here came around looking at my
screen routinely, I'd explain to them how rude they were being, and
request they not do it again.
I'm really starting to get a bad taste for the ages old custom of
administrators deciding for the users that is legitimate and what is
not, especially when the object in question is a tool, such as
a teleconferencing system.
Sean
--
Sean Casey |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
U of KY, Lexington| conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
606-258-6000 x280 | of, but something to be danced with.''
-------------------
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.160029.22601@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 91 16:00:29 GMT
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org>
In article <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Just as an email administrator's jurisdiction is limited to his or her
>site,
Email administrators can refuse to handle mail from a given user or site.
If a user subscribes to a ton of mailing lists, then goes for 3 months
without reading his mail, I'm going to stop accepting mail for him from
those mailing lists (or ask the lists to unsubscribe him until he and I
have a chance to talk).
>just as a Netnews administrators jurisdiction is limited to his
>or her site,
Netnews administrators can refuse to handle news articles from a given
user or site. An example of this is michigan.com (CAT-TALK), which refuses
to deliver mail/Usenet to/from certain sites (those sites whose users have
annoyed the admin at CAT-TALK).
>so an IRC operators's jurisdiction should be limited to
>his or her site.
IRC administrators can refuse to handle messages from a given user or site.
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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.160804.24767@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 91 16:08:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.1991Dec6.160804.24767
References: <9112060430.AA19365@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>From: yduj@lucid.com (Judy Anderson)
>
>However, we have a substantial population of students who have done a
>lot of programming on the MOO, sometimes with surprisingly excellent
>results. We also clearly have a lot of people whose first computer
>language is MOO-code.
>
>I encourage sysadmins to allow their users to telnet to muds if they
>allow games at all; at the very least they improve their typing skills :-)
>
>And I do think that it justifies the network load (it's not like
>they're transferring huge GIFs) if only 20% of the users delve into
>the educational aspects of mudding. Those 20% are our future! Think
>of them as the star pupils in a class...
>
Many admins complain about the added network load created by MUDs.
Many users claim that the load is justified by the educational benefits.
Let's ask a subtly different question:
-- Why should sites allow access to MUDs around the world?
The benefits that most MUD enthusiasts claim is NOT a result of "hopping
over to California to play"; it's the MUD itself. If I allow, say, 3
MUDs (of various flavors) on my system, what's wrong with restricting
access to external MUDs? If the people want to work on MUD programming,
they can do that locally. If the people just want to play, they can do
that locally. If they want to exchange ideas, they have Usenet and email.
My outbound network traffic is lowered, and everyone's happy.....or are they?
Comments?
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9112061626.AA31346@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 6 Dec 91 04:26:19 GMT
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.041110.18323@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 04:11:10 GMT
In article <199112040654.AA19419@eff.org> IZZYCY1@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (The Jester) writes:
>The bottom line is that privacy is a right, not a privledge.>
>
> The Jester
Jester confuses privacy with secrecy. To borrow a page from his own
book on the need for privacy of e-mail, if you don't like the info
that !finger displays, then withdraw to a forum that is more to your
liking. Consistency never hurts.
Yes, there should be limits what information is involuntarily released.
But why should such basic information as address and name and office
number of a university-owned account be concealed? Would you also
say that one's office phone and room number be removed from a first-floor
building directory?
Revelation of basic information does not necessarily violate privacy.
Concealing *all* information pushes us into paranoid secrecy.
Jim Thomas
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9112061626.AA04540@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 6 Dec 91 04:26:28 GMT
From: IZZYCY1@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (The Jester)
Subject: Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <199112060652.AA29328@eff.org>
Date: 6 Dec 91 06:52:00 GMT
> Yes, there should be limits what information is involuntarily released.
> But why should such basic information as address and name and office
> number of a university-owned account be concealed? Would you also
> say that one's office phone and room number be removed from a first-floor
> building directory?
>
We are NOT talking about your university office address or your
university phone number. Were talking about HOME address and HOME
phone number. UCLA, at least, is required by LAW to NOT release
ANY of that information if the student doesn't wish it so. Luckly
UCLA complies with the laws.
However, as I have stated on several previous occassions. I do NOT
want to see a 'law' that states that my name should not be allowed
on a public account. Instead I simply won't use a system that lists
my name. Well apparently I will. Since UCLA DOES list my name. So I
was forced to make a decision. Either I could use a system that shows
my name or I could use no system at all as right now I don't have
any viable alternatives to the UCLA system. C'est la vie. I made
my decision. But what everyone INSISTS on doing is projecting my
point onto my specific case. Thats not what my comments are about.
They are commentary on the GENERAL situation and what I think
in *MY* perfect world, things should be like.
> Revelation of basic information does not necessarily violate privacy.
> Concealing *all* information pushes us into paranoid secrecy.
>
You know... I really should take your name (which you so proudly
display) and the relevant address info from your email address
and do some 'interesting' things to you which will show you that
maybe giving out names isn't such a 'safe' activity. I won't, because
I don't do things like that. But its something to think about.
> Jim Thomas
>
>
-------------------
From: durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Cyberpixie)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <9509@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 91 17:37:21 GMT
References: <9112061626.AA04540@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
The Jester writes:
>However, as I have stated on several previous occassions. I do NOT
>want to see a 'law' that states that my name should not be allowed
>on a public account. Instead I simply won't use a system that lists
>my name. Well apparently I will. Since UCLA DOES list my name.
S'funny, I don't see your name. I see a handle. I don't think
there's any problem as long as you can change/modify/conceal your
finger info. If I was at a site that didn't let you do that, I'd
probably be annoyed, yes.
--
Bryant Durrell durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is just like high school, but with better production values.
-------------------
From: mack23@sam.spc.uchicago.edu (Chris Walsh)
Subject: Re: Schools that outlaw on-line searches of library catalogs
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.172031.26982@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 91 17:20:31 GMT
References: <1991Nov22.155626.11919@eff.org> <1991Nov22.183858.26504@ms.uky.edu> <1991Nov25.120702.10871@cc.curtin.edu.au>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
In article <1991Nov25.120702.10871@cc.curtin.edu.au> chooper@cc.curtin.edu.au (Todd Hooper) writes:
>In article <1991Nov22.183858.26504@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>On a side note, this whole OSU thing has rather soured my view of that
>institution. Conciously or not, OSU will always be associated in my mind with
>the shootings in the sixties (?) and the Brack case.
Hello???? The shootings were at Kent State!
>
>Todd
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.180634.14594@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> <1991Dec6.160029.22601@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 18:06:34 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Email administrators can refuse to handle mail from a given user or site.
>If a user subscribes to a ton of mailing lists, then goes for 3 months
>without reading his mail, I'm going to stop accepting mail for him from
>those mailing lists (or ask the lists to unsubscribe him until he and I
>have a chance to talk).
[...]
>Netnews administrators can refuse to handle news articles from a given
>user or site. An example of this is michigan.com (CAT-TALK), which refuses
>to deliver mail/Usenet to/from certain sites (those sites whose users have
>annoyed the admin at CAT-TALK).
[...]
>IRC administrators can refuse to handle messages from a given user or site.
An IRC operator can only refuse to handle a message from a given user
by /KILLing that user from the *whole* network. Similary, an IRC
operator can only refuse to handle messages from a given site by
having that site expelled from the *whole* network.
For example, say the admin at CAT-TALK dislikes me.
email -- He can stop my email from going to/through his computer, but
he can't stop my email from going to/through other computers.
Netnews -- He can stop my Netnews articles from going to/through his
computer, but he can't stop my articles from going to/through other
comptuers.
IRC -- (If, however, he is an IRCnet operator) He cannot stop my IRC
messages from going to/through his computer, except by stopping my
messages from going to/through all other computers.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112061808.AA29954@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 6 Dec 91 06:08:27 GMT
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.160325.23414@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 91 16:03:25 GMT
oneill@cs.ulowell.edu (Brian 'Doc' O'Neill) writes:
|The only game to be banned completely from the University is MUD. This
|was a direct result of numerous problems and complaints. They would
|repeatedly gain access to the CS building (which is restricted to CS
|students after hours) to play MUD, and several of them passed around
|passwords to several other accounts to people elsewhere on the net, to
|the point that CERT was involved in tracking it down.
This sounds to me like poor planning on the part of the
administration. Why aren't there enough resources to go around? What
is the administration doing to create enough computing resources and
insure the availability.
One has to ask: Why is there crime? Are the students a bunch of
criminals?
When they dropped the ridiculous resource limits here, and started
handing out accounts a student could keep for the duration of their
stay at the university, some interesting things happened: (1) Account
stealing dropped off dramatically. About the only people that steal
accounts now are those who aren't actually going to school here. (2)
Resource consumption did not rise dramatically. (3) Students were a
lot happier.
Not that uky is a utopia, but it's a lot better than it used to be
since the administration loosened their grip a bit.
One of the interesting things is that the computing center's grip on
computing resources is almost gone. So many places found UKCC
inadequate, they bought their own systems. Now there are more
satellite computing resources here than central ones. The library put
in a very large computing lab, which is packed every day. They're
supposed to be buying a whole slew of NeXTs soon...
Sean
--
Sean Casey |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
U of KY, Lexington| conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
606-258-6000 x280 | of, but something to be danced with.''
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112061808.AA22847@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 6 Dec 91 06:08:59 GMT
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.163613.1162@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 91 16:36:13 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[Talks about VR-only interactions]
|However, we cannot allow "virtual skills" to become more important than the
|concrete, face-to-face social skills that are so desperately needed in each
|of us.
Agreed. One of the things I've become convinced of in the last few
years is that one cannot be truly happy without real social contact.
Real life friends, real life hugs :). At least that's true for me.
But... We have to be careful with administrative power. Even though
our ethics may scream for it, we can't make those decisions for the
users. I.e. we can't decide what a "proper" medium for interaction is,
and decide whether a tool is useful or useless.
It may be that there is a time in our lives for Virtual Interaction,
when it is entirely appropriate, and perhaps even desirable over
in-person interactions. This has also been true for me at times.
Even though there is substantial cultural diversity at this
University, the unwritten social rules do not encourage contact. Ask
anyone whether they've been walking across campus, seen 3000 people,
and yet felt utterly alone.
On the other hand, these programs are designed specifically to
encourage interaction. Where there once may have been little or
no interaction, there is now some. It's easy. And many of these people
eventually meet the others and make friends for life. (remember
Decparties :))
Sean
--
Sean Casey |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
U of KY, Lexington| conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
606-258-6000 x280 | of, but something to be danced with.''
-------------------
From: rsr@bigbang.Berkeley.EDU (Roy S. Rapoport)
Subject: Re: The dread F word
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Dec 91 18:42:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.kjvh5cINNfgo
References: <1991Nov22.183858.26504@ms.uky.edu> <9271@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang-ether.berkeley.edu
In article <9271@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
>This is an interesting and useful statement. An interesting consequence
>of this is that if I use the imperitive form, by typing:
> "F*** you, Doug Jones"
>It would seem to be just as bad as if I typed it out explicitly:
> "Fuck you, Doug Jones"
>The sentiment is exactly the same, and the use of *** to avoid actually
>spelling out the forbidden word does little to hide its meaning or
>diminish its impact.
You know, I've been wondering about that.
After all, we ALL know what F*** stands for, and as such it shouldn't be
less offensive than fuck. In other words, thoretically speaking (I probably
should be adding a smiley here), any OSU students participating in the
discussion so far will probably get expelled. . .
BTW, you realize, of course, that if F*** == Fuck, then you could just as
legitimately say that "The F-word" == Fuck.
In other words, the following are identical:
1) "So I told her "Fuck me""
2) "So I told her "F*** me""
3) "So I told her "F-word me"" (though this isn't very correct in sound or
grammer.
Of course, the context here is kind of important. In other words, if I was
actually to use any of the phrases above, this could (notice I use COULD,
not would/should) easily be offensive (especially to womyn[sic]). But if I
said something like "I can't believe someone got expelled just for saying
'Fuck you'", I doubt many people would object (except, perhaps OSU, and I
don't go there. . .)
Now, you see, the problem with this whole thing is that true, context is
highly important, because that is the difference between the use of the
F-word in the posting that precipitated the expulsion, and encountering the
word in a catalog search. (BTW, I guesss this means that OSU doesn't carry
rec.arts.erotica, eh? :-)
But the problem that I see with this is, that I just don't trust these guys
(read: the institution / beaurorcracy / people_in_position_of_power) to make
reasonable decisions (IMHO, expelling a student for saying 'Fuck you' is
certainly not reasonable, no matter whether it is legal). I'd much rather
have a specific, well-articulated policy that would curtail their blank
powers as much as possible (in Berkeley it's even worse -- we have the
Fighting Words Policy, on which most people (including me) are still very
unclear. . .)
But, of course, this is only my opinion. . .
Roy S. Rapoport rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu
Disclaimer: "It wasn't me!! Must have been a fake posting or something!! I
would NEVER say somehting like that!!"
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] RE: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112062023.AA06795@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 6 Dec 91 08:23:29 GMT
From: djanson@doc.ee.uidaho.edu (David Janson)
Subject: RE: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec06.180003.10985@groucho>
Date: 6 Dec 91 18:00:03 GMT
I have a few comments to make on this subject.
First, the system administrator on the network I use has done his
graduate research on networking, and is convinced that the network load
by players using off campus mud is inconsenquential compared to even a single
gif download or any kind of remote backup. or even a remotely mounted
hard-drive. This is, in his opinion, because mudding communication is very slow,
and spread out over time. If your network is bogged down with mudding, you don't
have enough network resources to support legitimate work. This is especially
considering how much network resources things like running X-window remotely
take (which will happen more and more in the near future, with X-window programs
being more common, and often installed only on a single machine).
If anyone has any hard figures on this subject, I'd appreciate looking at them.
This only applies to PLAYING muds, he has no idea what RUNNING a mud does to the
local network. We dont have a mud running on our campus.
HOWEVER, there is one resource that we do have troubles with, and thats the
actually terminals. Often, especially near the end of the semester, the labs
are all busy. Note that this applies to ALL the labs: PC labs AND UNIX labs.
The way most of our labs is handled is class work has top priority, with word
processing next (there are several labs with OLD PCs, just for word processing on
campus), and games last. If you need to do work, and find someone
with a lower priority using a machine you need, you ask him to leave. Its that
simple, and in the 8 years i've been here, I've never heard or seen of a problem
with this.
Actually, looking back, network games (like muds) have been much less of a
problem than even tetris, or other individual games.
David Janson
Graduate Student: CompE
University of Idaho
no other titles (yet!)
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112062024.AA31413@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 6 Dec 91 08:24:51 GMT
From: sds30742@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.184520.9543@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 18:45:20 GMT
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>dcw11111@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Blackmore) writes:
>|First, just throw them off. IRC is very simple to recognize, and muds aren't
>|real tough either. It is possible that they are doing classwork - they may be
>|getting help from a friend on a program. I've done it many times. If this is
>|the case, then have them switch to talk, so they don't get tempted to talk to
>|everyone else while they're on.
>Oh so the administration gets to dictate the tools eh? What if they
>don't like talk? What if they want to have a conference? This is an
>example of the administration taking excessive control of the users
>rather than serving their needs, which is the reason for their
>existance.
BZZZT! Thank you for playing.
The purpose of the labs in question are to provide services for users doing
schoolwork. We are not in business to provide every user with the facility to
do whatever they want. That is simply impractical. The University invests in
these computers to provide necessary services to users, and the use of the
IRC for recreation (i.e. NOT schoolwork related) is not a right, but a
privilege which can be revoked when the machine is needed for the purpose for
which it was purchased. One less conference is NOT going to kill you.
Not getting your paper in on time will do that pretty nicely.
>|Second, there is also the problem of mail and news, which you could also be
>|using for classwork. If a policy is made, it should be standard throughout
>|the different possible formats. Personally, I think someone should have to
>|give up their computer if they are using IRC, muds, talk, news or mail, unless
>|they are willing to let you see the screen, and see that they are discussing
>|classwork.
>What if they want to keep their work private? When the library is
>full, do you poke your head in each of the study carrels, and look at
>the papers on the desk to see if legitimate work is being done? What
>if they were reading a paperback novel?
Your analogy is weak. There is no real limit, outside of the imagination,
where people can get quiet studying done. Sometimes, however, you NEED
a computer to do schoolwork and then there are only a limited number of
places to go. Even universities which provide generous computing
resources to the student body can't cater to everyone who needs to do
legit work AND those who want (note: NOT "need") to use the facilities
for nonacademic work. As the Site Monitor, I reserve the right to determine
if what you are doing constitutes a legitimate use, and to scan your screen
to see. As the user, you have the right to expect me not to spread
information around wantonly from your conferences.
>The real problem is lack of resources. If the library routinely fills
>up, you limit access altogether, or you build an addition to the
>library. You shouldn't go poking around in people's work, questioning
>it's legitimacy. If someone around here came around looking at my
>screen routinely, I'd explain to them how rude they were being, and
>request they not do it again.
And if you were hogging a computer I needed while you carried on some
nonacademic teleconference, I would ask you to leave. It sounds fascist,
but if you aren't doing schoolwork, there are no other computers free, and
I AM doing schoolwork, then YOU LOSE. End of discussion.
Your analogy of building an addition to the Library breaks down on the
question of who pays for it. The taxpayers? They'll scream bloody murder.
The students? Not a chance, they'll be screaming too. People talk big
about how we should accomodate everyone, but this is totally infeasible.
>I'm really starting to get a bad taste for the ages old custom of
>administrators deciding for the users that is legitimate and what is
>not, especially when the object in question is a tool, such as
>a teleconferencing system.
A tool, yes, but if your using your tool for nonacademic purposes interferes
with my using mine for academic purposes, then you leave. End of discussion.
>Sean
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From warnold Sun Dec 8 06:39:44 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA12254
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 11:39:49 -0500
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 11:39:44 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "William W. Arnold"
Message-Id: <199112081639.AA12249@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Dec 8 11:38:54 EST 1991
[For information on how to get a much smaller edited version of the
list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf
- Billy ]
In this issue:
rocker@bucsf.bu.ed : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
rocker@bucsf.bu.ed : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
tjc666@coombs.anu. : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
pjg@acsu.buffalo.e : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
ECL4MV2@MVS.OAC.UC : Re: (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Finger & Liberty
RJB@MAX.U.WASHINGT : freely automated speech
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyr : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy) Gaming, and various commentary
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.admin.policy, et al.) Re: Gaming
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.irc) Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
From: rocker@bucsf.bu.edu (The Long Haired One)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Dec 91 20:35:49 GMT
References: <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
<1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
<1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org>
Sender: news@bu.edu
Followup-To: alt.irc
In-reply-to: kadie@eff.org's message of 6 Dec 91 15:02:35 GMT
In article <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>A second hint is that when someone is KILLed on IRC, all operators see
>it and this provides a form of checks and balances on operator
>behavior.
With /WALL removed, with flood control, with channel operators, what
are the advantages of allowing the irc operator on one server to /KILL
users on all the other systems? Is this power still necessary? (Can
you give examples of why?)
ok lets see if you can answer your own question. If operators were only
allowed to kill people on thier own server, and there are normally 30-50
operators on 130 servers, you don't see a need for killing people not on
your server. Epsecially with 600 users spread across 130+ servers.
Ok here's a situation for you, someone discovers a nasty bug or manages to
set up a rouge server and harrasses the irc community as a whole. like CTCP
bombing everyone on IRC, said person has local access to a server which has
no operator on it. How are you going to immediately stop this person?
You could squit the link, then again this person may have oper priv on the
server and reconnect it. Jupitering and/or Q:lining that server will
require having IRC admins(alot of ops dont have conf file access).
So how do you propose to handle this menace when you can't kill his session
to stop the flood of everyone? how do you propose to stop someone from
doing something disruptive when there are no ops on his system?
-Rocker
an emacs client coder
-------------------
From: rocker@bucsf.bu.edu (The Long Haired One)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Dec 91 20:44:24 GMT
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
<1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> <1991Dec6.160029.22601@ms.uky.edu>
<1991Dec6.180634.14594@eff.org>
Sender: news@bu.edu
Followup-To: alt.irc
In-reply-to: kadie@eff.org's message of 6 Dec 91 18:06:34 GMT
In article <1991Dec6.180634.14594@eff.org>
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
An IRC operator can only refuse to handle a message from a given user
by /KILLing that user from the *whole* network. Similary, an IRC
operator can only refuse to handle messages from a given site by
having that site expelled from the *whole* network.
[email comparison and netnews comparison]
I dont see why these make good comparisons since they are not the same
medium. why not try and compare IRC to BRC(Bitnet Relay Chat)?
at least they are REAL time intereactive systems for mass communication.
-Rocker
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112062155.AA17193@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 6 Dec 91 09:55:05 GMT
From: jim@piggy.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 20:47:14 GMT
In <1991Dec06.180003.10985@groucho> djanson@doc.ee.uidaho.edu (David Janson) writes:
>If anyone has any hard figures on this subject, I'd appreciate looking at them.
Last spring when CaveMUCK was still allowed to run on this campus,
I looked into network use. This was back at a peak time for
CaveMUCK. We were having peaks of 50 users, and averaging around
20 most of the time.
I got the nnstat package and wrote up some config files to count
packets, and total bytes, and all that good stuff. The result
was as expected that network use wasn't much. It averaged around
6000-7000 bits per second total, including packet headers.
Traffic was always much lower than most other types of traffic
on the subnet, including news, ftp, mail, telnet (to login), and
rlogin. And this was just for the subnet. It would have been
much more interesting to collect statistics off the campus
backbone.
If you are concerned about mud traffic caused by a server it
is very easy to measure locally. Measuring mud use of your
users connecting to remote muds is much more difficult unless
you want to keep track of them all. But what you can do is
measure local traffic and break it down into broad groups.
The amount of 'other' type traffic should be much lower
than the common services, especially news and ftp. Any
administrator worried about traffic should get nnstat and
collect some meaningful information before randomly instituting
policies.
Also, it should be pointed out that most muds use line-by-line
telnet mode. This means it sends a line in a seperate packet
by itself (as long as it doesn't exceed the MTU after which
it gets broken up). Normal telnet and rlogin mostly send each
character typed in a seperate packet, or at best packages a
few characters at a time together. The overhead for this
is tremendous. Look at the TCP/IP spec sometime and see how
much it takes to send a single character in a packet.
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | "On and on and on we go, where
(805) 893-4113 | we're going we don't know"
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | - Lilac Time
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112062156.AA11528@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 6 Dec 91 09:56:03 GMT
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.205152.4348@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 91 20:51:52 GMT
sds30742@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (John Stewart) writes:
|BZZZT! Thank you for playing.
I, for one, do not think it's a game.
This flippant remark at the beginning kind of ruined the rest of the
article, which was basically contradiction. I'm supposed to be
convinced? An essay would have been better.
My personal feeling is I just couldn't possibly work somewhere where
monitors came along randomly and forced me to let them look at my
screen so they could make a decision whether I was really working on
academia. Imagine if the government treated everyone that way.
And you know, it wouldn't be effective in my case. Just about every
time you came by, I'd be editing some perl or C++ code, which of
course looks quite academic. But what you wouldn't know is that
sometimes it's work related, sometimes school related, and sometimes
it's a project I'm working on, which could be anything from a
directory tool to a networked game. But you'd never know.
How much user input was used in developing this policy? How do the
users feel about the way things are now?
Sean
P.S. I'm not a student, I've been running Unix systems for 7 years.
--
Sean Casey |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
U of KY, Lexington| conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
606-258-6000 x280 | of, but something to be danced with.''
-------------------
From: tjc666@coombs.anu.edu.au (Titus Chiu)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec7.030437.29161@newshost.anu.edu.au>
Sender: news@newshost.anu.edu.au
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 03:04:37 GMT
In article <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>
>[...]
>>A second hint is that when someone is KILLed on IRC, all operators see
>>it and this provides a form of checks and balances on operator
>>behavior.
>
>With /WALL removed, with flood control, with channel operators, what
>are the advantages of allowing the irc operator on one server to /KILL
>users on all the other systems? Is this power still necessary? (Can
>you give examples of why?)
call me dumb if u want, but i totally fail to see your connection with /wall
flood control and channel operators compared to ircop kill's. If YOUR system
of kills is implemented, if someone on my server starts to become a real pain
in the your know where and i aint there.. everyone on irc has to live with it?
>>Some IRC operators ignore such complaints; sometimes a
>>complaint to a systems administrator provides satisfaction, sometimes
>>the irc operator is a systems administrator and the only recourse is
>>to try to kick a server off of IRC. Distributed software is fun.
>[...]
>
>Just as an email administrator's jurisdiction is limited to his or her
>site, just as a Netnews administrators jurisdiction is limited to his
>or her site, so an IRC operators's jurisdiction should be limited to
>his or her site. IRC will not be fully distributed until the
>jurisdiction of IRC operators is so distributed.
you cannot compare email and netnews with irc fairly. one cannot mail from a
site other than their own (unless u use another machines's mail port of course
) and one cannot use news on a site other than their own (as per mail's
exception). But with irc, users are free to move from one server to another.
--
titus chiu 3:711/425.2@fidonet
aka `cool' preferred -> tjc666@coombs.anu.edu.au
comp sci student u1042440@csdvax.csd.unsw.oz.au
IRC Administrator s1042440@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au
-------------------
From: pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec7.061635.29837@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: 7 Dec 91 06:16:35 GMT
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org>
Sender: usenet@acsu.buffalo.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: urth.acsu.buffalo.edu
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|Just as an email administrator's jurisdiction is limited to his or her
|site, just as a Netnews administrators jurisdiction is limited to his
|or her site, so an IRC operators's jurisdiction should be limited to
|his or her site. IRC will not be fully distributed until the
|jurisdiction of IRC operators is so distributed.
carl, while i admire and appreciate your concerns, your analogies are
rather wide of the mark. i think you probably have one or two
mis-aprehensions about what's going on and how irc works.
let me try an analogy and we'll see how wide my shot is.
irc is like a bunch of folks having a bunch of conversations in a large
field. now sometimes a brutish lout comes along and starts shouting at
some folks. this is annoying. some folks think the appropriate
response is to use a kind of mace (you know the unpleasant chemical
spray) that lasts 10 milliseconds. other folks think the thing to do
is shout even louder. some choose to show the shouter to the door.
however irc is a field of many nooks and so some folks will just move
to another one and leave the shouters to their shouting. once in a
great while the shouting gets so bad that folk join together and
burn down the part of the field where the shouters are louting. however
as you can imagine it's quite difficult to keep the flames under control
and nearly impossible to keep the smoke out of your eyes.
although i know free speaking is your favorite nail (and it seems you
find everything a hammer) what you're talking about here is confounded
by two things: 1) irc depends on the consistency of a distributed
database to work (this is not true of news or mail, if you think it is
you do not understand how news and mail work) which necessitates a greater
dependence on cooperation. people often propose things to weaken this
dependence but they are trying to deal with 2) the fact that technical
fixes to social problems rarely work.
get on irc carl, find some folks who know what's going on and have a chat.
--
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet)
opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
-------------------
From: ECL4MV2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Michael Van Norman)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty
Message-ID: <199112070647.AA02151@eff.org>
Sender: ECL4MV2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU
Date: 7 Dec 91 06:47:00 GMT
Cyberpixie :)
The Jester is posting to this forum from a machine that does not support
finger (yet) -- an IBM 3090 running MVS/ESA. The account he has on the
3090 is not the account in question, and from the 3090 he can modify the
From: line to read whatever he wishes. The system he complains about
does indeed list his real name (which I will not reveal out of respect
for his wishes), but as of five minutes ago it didn't list any address
in response to a 'finger xxx@yyy.ucla.edu'.
/Mike
> The Jester writes:
> >However, as I have stated on several previous occassions. I do NOT
> >want to see a 'law' that states that my name should not be allowed
> >on a public account. Instead I simply won't use a system that lists
> >my name. Well apparently I will. Since UCLA DOES list my name.
>
> S'funny, I don't see your name. I see a handle. I don't think
> there's any problem as long as you can change/modify/conceal your
> finger info. If I was at a site that didn't let you do that, I'd
> probably be annoyed, yes.
>
>
> --
> Bryant Durrell durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Life is just like high school, but with better production values.
-------------------
From: RJB@MAX.U.WASHINGTON.EDU
Subject: freely automated speech
Message-ID:
Date: 7 Dec 91 00:08:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
In the all-too-brief time that I have been following news
traffic, I've come to realize that there's a minor but real
flaw in the support given to news and mail.
I have sketched out the gist of a utility that I think
would save a great deal of time and trouble. I simply
don't have the time or resources to work out an
implementation, but I think the need for it is clear
enough that I would like to renounce whatever claim
I might have to the idea, in order not to stand in the way
of progress.
I've noticed that a major use for both general posting
and private mail is to communicate irritation,
exasperation, rage, and even nearly terminal pique at
something that's appeared in a posting. Much of this is
recursive, and indistinguishable across authors, but bears
all the marks of having been manually generated. This certainly
puts the contributors at risk for repetitive motion trauma, if
nothing else.
It should be possible to automate the generation and handling
of this sort of text. I envisage a utility that could be invoked
by typing its name (my working title, an acronym for Vast
Acting Phlaming Incoherence Device, is VAPID, but I
wouldn't object to another being used). It would prompt
for certain items, much as the ordinary mail and posting utilities
do. It would then transmit to the receiver not text, but the
*instruction to generate text*, of some definite or indefinite
length, as the posting was accessed by a reader. Thus, for,
example, one could generate a million repetitions of some
remark (e.g., "You, sir, are a bounder and a cad, and should
preserve what remains of your honor in the only possible
way left to you.") on the screen of the reader, without
undue use of disk space, band width, and all the other
precious things that systems administrators are always
laboring to defend.
Of course, certain othe features would be necessary. First,
senders should have the option not only of drawing on
different standard lexicons of epithet and invective, but also
of developing their own. A more sophisticated implementation
would provide not simply terms and phrases, but formulas that
could be filled in automatically in various modes (e.g., piratical
["Avast, ye bucket of sea-slime"], Shakespearian, schoolyard,
pious [most religions have rich condemnatory idioms], political,
and military).
Careful examination of posted invective shows that much of
it is appended to the text to which it claims to respond. This
suggests another feature. A sender should be able to use a
switch to indicate that the text stream is to be linked to some
other posting. Instead of just using "reply," for example, the
user could type "reply/vapid." The text generator would then
sample the stimulus text (as in the cut-up technique of Gysin
and Burroughs) and intersperse variable-length random chunks of it
with the automatically generated invective text stream (AGITS).
Readers must of course have certain options as well. When
reading mail, one should be able to see that a message consists
of AGITS before actually triggering its display. One could of
course choose to delete all AGITS messages without reading
them, or to read them selectively. The utility should however
also generate an AGITS.LOG file that would allow one to
keep track of the distribution of such messages per period of
time, per subject, and per sender.
Certainly not all readers would object to receiving AGITS
messages; examination of news traffic shows that some users
seem to post only to reap a harvest of condemnation, and are
gravely disappointed when they do not. In the same way
that it is now possible to post anonymously, it should be
possible to send mail to an anonymous site that would
respond either with one or more pure AGITS message
of specific length, an AGITS-annotated cut-up of the
original message, or a "surprise" choice of one or the
other options. This would probably effect a significant
reduction in net traffic, and free up a significant amount
of disk space.
Another option readers could have, in a more sophisticated
implementation, would be analogous to the way that word
processors reply approximate printer drivers and fonts
for a file being read on a system that does not have the
drivers and fonts originally specified. Thus the sender
might have specified Piratical or Military invective, but
the reader might have enabled only Wooster (Upper Class
Twit) or Schoolyard lexicons or formulas.
By automating the whole process of sending, generating,
receiving, and reading this considerable segment of
net traffic, we could obtain great economies in all
phases of the invective text cycle. In addition, it would
be unnecessary to pay any attention to it (systems
administrators might wish for a denunciation generation
and handling device as well). No one would have to
worry that a sufficient amount of invective was not being
generated, or that anyone who wanted to read it would
be unsatisfied.
We would then be able to say, updating the great 19th century
French prophet of AI, "As for flaming, our daemons will do that
for us."
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.185653.22629@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 18:56:53 GMT
In article <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>With /WALL removed, with flood control, with channel operators, what
>are the advantages of allowing the irc operator on one server to /KILL
>users on all the other systems? Is this power still necessary? (Can
>you give examples of why?)
This does not remove all forms of possible abuse. It's still possible
to invade someone's channel due to a network break and steal channel
operator. KILL is also required by the protocol to insure consistancy;
even if operator-level kill was allegedly removed, it would be trivial
to hack your server to generate KILL messages, making them look like
legit technical ones. I'd rather encourage people to fake them.
>Just as an email administrator's jurisdiction is limited to his or her
>site, just as a Netnews administrators jurisdiction is limited to his
>or her site, so an IRC operators's jurisdiction should be limited to
>his or her site. IRC will not be fully distributed until the
>jurisdiction of IRC operators is so distributed.
Er, Carl, last time I checked, a cancel on Usenet is global. You
should consider studying other distributed software before you
criticize IRC for having similar features. If you are willing to
volunteer time to make IRC fully distributed, I'd be happy to review
the code that you write.
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.191229.22768@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> <1991Dec6.160029.22601@ms.uky.edu> <1991Dec6.180634.14594@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 19:12:29 GMT
In article <1991Dec6.180634.14594@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>An IRC operator can only refuse to handle a message from a given user
>by /KILLing that user from the *whole* network. Similary, an IRC
>operator can only refuse to handle messages from a given site by
>having that site expelled from the *whole* network.
I don't know where you got this impression; perhaps you should
consider talking to someone who knows the IRC code before making
statements like this. It's fairly trivial to modify your IRC server to
drop messages from a given person or site, and since IRC links form a
directed acyclic graph, a well-placed nasty guy can really cut someone
off. Just because this isn't there now doesn't mean it cannot be done.
>Netnews -- He can stop my Netnews articles from going to/through his
>computer, but he can't stop my articles from going to/through other
>comptuers.
Check out the "cancel" message.
-------------------
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec7.123435.16344@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 7 Dec 91 12:34:35 GMT
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> <1991Dec6.185653.22629@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
In-Reply-To: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sauna.cs.hut.fi
In article <1991Dec6.185653.22629@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gl8f@fermi (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>Er, Carl, last time I checked, a cancel on Usenet is global.
The difference is that in Usenet anyone is able to post a cancel
message, but it's not socially acceptable to do so except perhaps in
very few cases (severe copyright violations which could get everyone
in legal trouble).
On the other hand, on irc there is a group of self-appointed persons
who have power (/kill, some other `violent' actions) over other users.
I think this inequality is one of the roots of the problems.
I pretty much agree with the points Carl has presented on irc.
//Jyrki
-------------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec7.191303.16491@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> <1991Dec7.061635.29837@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1991 19:13:03 GMT
Instead of responding to all the response one at a time, I'll
I'll try to respond to all at once. Items in ">" are paraphrases.
> Because I'm allegedly a 1) free-speech fanatic, 2) don't know the code;
> 3) won't volunteered to work on the code, and/or 4) haven't
> used IRC extensively, my comments are invalid.
I think my comments should stand (or fall) on their own.
Personally, I think IRC is a wonderful system. Moreover, I believed
that it is the prototype of an even better and very important future
system. My interest is in suggesting specifications for that future
system (with 100,000 sys ops and 1,000,000 users?) such that it can
thrive while respecting both free speech and freedom from harassment.
> Netnews has cancel, so IRC needs /KILL
Cancel requests are seldom applied to a note from another site. I've
never experienced "cancel wars". Also, I assume that cancel requests
can be ignored if they seem to be coming from a site with a history
of bad cancel requests.
> "technical fixes to social problems rarely work."
I disagree; I think the beauty of the new computer media
is many social problems do have technical fixes.
For example, the availability of kill files in newsreaders has,
in my opinion, greatly lessened the pressure to suppress speech.
Also, imagine the social problems if all IRC *users* could easily
/KILL each other.
> What if an IRC Op is not on-line to discipline a rogue user
> on his or her system?
Ideally, if all else fails, you should be able to cut your system off
from that user.
> IRC op decentralization can't be done for technical reasons (i.e.
> unlike News and email, IRC depends on a distributed database, also
> Q-lining [one system refusing connections from another] is transitive.)
This may the heart of the matter. Can someone expand on these
technical issues?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Gaming, and various commentary
Message-ID: <9112072230.AA12105@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 7 Dec 91 10:30:51 GMT
From: jasonp@cunix3.Prime.COM (Jason R. Pascucci)
Subject: Gaming, and various commentary
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.175645@cunix3.Prime.COM>
Date: 6 Dec 1991 22:56:45 GMT
Sorry, I don't read this newsgroup much...I just
caught the various articles today....
I agree that about 20% of people who 'program' (with a *wide* varience
from mud-to-mud) is probably a reasonable number. However, the
other 80% frequently consist of people who are of a number
of computer categories. People goofing off constantly, and whatnot,
are of the smallest number, as far as I can tell.
Many of the others are wouldbe computerphobes, who wouldn't go
near a computer if they didn't have to, but someone
turned them onto this new 'game'. In the sanitary acedemic
environment, it is possible, through many paths, to get
out without the slightest 'interesting' (read practical)
knowledge of computers. And, when they get out, they are going
to be screwed. *shrug* Another large category is the computer
philes, to keep consistant, who would spend *all* their time
with computers reguardless. The hacker contingent is part of this.
And, these factions get 'together', virtually, and mingle,
and express and interchange ideas. A form of social
intercourse.
Now, as to the contention that VR can overshadow physical reality,
yes, it's possible. In the same way as D&D can overshadow reality of
those who aren't really grounded in reality. Same thing, guys.
We, (yes me too), get happy, sad, etc, etc just like in RL. (Real Life)
And, we feel it, through our characters. So what? It's simply
a vicarious experience, akin to TV in that respect.
Wes, a few question: What do you mean by 'examining' muds?
If you look at the mudlist published recently, (on r.g.m)
you will find that out of the 20 or 30 active MU*s,
only four or five, if my recollection is correct, are of
the TinyMUD type, which, aside from bulidng, has no 'language'.
(I'll claim building itself is an artform.) Also,
you know that they 'classical hacker' I described was notorious
for his social skills (or lack thereof). It's the
man-on-the-mountain syndrom. If you don't have much in common
with 'Real People', then you don't really have a basis
for a normal relationship. But, eventually, all these
people head towards societal 'normal', so it's not much of
a detriment to society.
Now, more tidbits. I have, in the past, travelled out to various
places across the country to meet these MU* contingents,
and have been, thus far, impressed. I'm currently involved
in a long-distance relationship with a woman I met over these
VR's, and RL is pretty damn good too. :-) We could end up
getting married, maybe not. It's a normal relationship,
adn we keep in touch through the MU*s. It's less expensive
then phone,and a different medium. We are both very artistic,
I have a huge vocabulary which is better written then heard,
and the posing and motion inherent in MU* allow for a more
interesting expression.
Anyways...back on the subject, Brian, From Ulowell, remember
me? (I went to Ulowell a year ago, and things weren't
half as bad then. I kept giving him a hard time about
a lot of things, including policies on this. When I last looked,
people followed the If it's idle, I can use it for whatever
policy. But that has changed. Anyway to continue...)
You are setting yourself up for more trouble. I recall how bad resources
were. I also recall how bad departmental struggles were, that department x
had a few dozen computers which people from department y couldn't use,
and weren't in use at nights, for example. I will eat my words if you
say this has changed, that all sections can have free access to eachothers
equipment when not in use by that department's staff/or used for
Real Work. And, of course, ever teacher had, in a locked room, his
own personal workstation, which was precious and personal, and
only the most trusted could have the honor of touching it. I admit
to having a workstation here, multiple actually, but if
someone needs to use one when I'm away, I don't even blink,
It's a resourse which doesn't belong to 'me', it belongs to the
company, or in your case, the school. And, the school belongs
to, well, big buisness and investors, surely, but it's there
for the students, or so they claim in their PR literature. :-)
Okay, breaking keyboards is a little extreme, but you can
usualy find out who did it, and make them pay for it.
And getting a call from CERT has become no longer a major
thing, as I hear, they get their shorts in a bunch at
the smallest thing. And, *what* does playing MUD have
to do with passing passwords around anywyas. It's easy
to do in IRC, Mail, etc, etc ad nausium.
Anyways...enough tirade. I'm gonna grab some chinese, or something,
then go play MUD and MUSH and various until the wee hours in the morning.
Nyah. :-)
--
Jason R. Pascucci
jasonp@primerd.prime.com
Disclaimer: I do *not* speak for my company in this matter,
these are my *opinions*.
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <9112072231.AA02352@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 7 Dec 91 10:31:51 GMT
From: dcw11111@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Blackmore)
Subject: Re: Gaming
Message-ID: <1991Dec7.220058.5108@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1991 22:00:58 GMT
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>sds30742@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (John Stewart) writes:
>|BZZZT! Thank you for playing.
>I, for one, do not think it's a game.
>This flippant remark at the beginning kind of ruined the rest of the
>article, which was basically contradiction. I'm supposed to be
>convinced? An essay would have been better.
>My personal feeling is I just couldn't possibly work somewhere where
>monitors came along randomly and forced me to let them look at my
>screen so they could make a decision whether I was really working on
>academia. Imagine if the government treated everyone that way.
I do agree that monitors shouldn't be reading other people's screens. If
they see a program, then leave it go. If they see text scrolling quickly,
with someone laughing as it goes by, kick them off. That's why I suggested
that if they are using mail or news, and you tell them to give up their
computer, they shouldn't object to you taking a quick look to see that it is,
in fact, class related. The same happens when you are writing a letter in
Word Perfect, or whatever processer you use. We have to assume you are doing
something legitimate.
>And you know, it wouldn't be effective in my case. Just about every
>time you came by, I'd be editing some perl or C++ code, which of
>course looks quite academic. But what you wouldn't know is that
>sometimes it's work related, sometimes school related, and sometimes
>it's a project I'm working on, which could be anything from a
>directory tool to a networked game. But you'd never know.
That's a VERY specific case. To put it simply, there are not enough people
similar to your case to worry about. People who program on their own are
usually not in a lab because they either program from their own computer, or
go to an office to work. The problem is in IRC and muds, which is what the
original post was about. Most of us are not here to be tyrranical, just to
keep recreational use of the computers down to a minimum during busy hours.
>How much user input was used in developing this policy? How do the
>users feel about the way things are now?
The users that use computers for class (ie most) very much approve of it. The
people who use computers strictly for personal use either understand and go
along with it, or be a nuisance and cause problems (a few days ago, I told
someone who was mudding that people were waiting for a computer to do
classwork. He looked around, then said "what's wrong with the Macs?' - this
is the type of person that is causing problems.)
Dean C. Wagner "Sorry, I'm just...it's starting to
Bmore@uiuc.edu hit me like an um...um...like a
dcw11111@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu two ton heavy thing."
Blackmore@MUDs.MUCKs.MUSHs - Empire, Queensryche
-------------------
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.irc] Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <9112072243.AA21034@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 7 Dec 91 10:43:37 GMT
From: joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Dec 1991 22:31:36 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|>rocker@bucsf.bu.edu (The Long Haired One) writes:
|>[...]
|>>Ok here's a situation for you, someone discovers a nasty bug or manages to
|>>set up a rouge server and harrasses the irc community as a whole. like CTCP
|>>bombing everyone on IRC, said person has local access to a server which has
|>>no operator on it. How are you going to immediately stop this person?
|>>You could squit the link, then again this person may have oper priv on the
|>>server and reconnect it. Jupitering and/or Q:lining that server will
|>>require having IRC admins(alot of ops dont have conf file access).
|>[...]
|>(I confess that I don't understand much of the terminalogy, e.g.
|>"Jupitering", "Q:lining", "squit", "conf file access")
"Jupitering" is taking a server (or user) off IRC and then putting
a bogus one up so that he she or it cannot rejoin IRC.
"squit" == server quit, the command issued to cut a link.
"Q:lining" == putting a line in your ircd configuration file (ircd.conf)
which automatically cuts the link to IRC of a server allowing the Q:lined
server onto IRC.
"conf file access" means you can modify the configuration of a server, ie,
you have write privs in the ircd.conf.
|>I would refuse any traffic from the rogue. The same as if he or she
|>were sending lots of bogus email.
But if you alone did that and someone else did not? You *could* hack
your server so that neither you nor anyone using your server could see
any messages from the 'rogue'. This is socially unacceptable for a number
of reasons.
|>Would you say that /KILL is now being used mostly against such rogues?
|>In my very limited experience, the main use of /KILL is to retaliate
|>for the use of /KILL.
In 90% of the cases it is currently used /kill is stupid and futile.
|>(Also, if the rogue has oper priv on the server, how effective would
|>/kill be, since you could be /killed right back.)
yeah. But there is always something you can do. It doesn't necessarily
follow that there is something you can do *right now* though.
|>p.s. I don't make comparisons to Bitnet Chat because I know nothing
|>about it. I would, however, be interested in how they deal with these
|>problems.
By being lots more control oriented than IRC (or thus I am given to
understand).
josh
-------------------
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec7.224955.15794@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <1991Dec3.173457.4181@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Dec6.100928.8950@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> <1991Dec6.214326.21276@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1991 22:49:55 GMT
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>|>I would refuse any traffic from the rogue. The same as if he or she
>|>were sending lots of bogus email.
[...]
joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller) writes:
[...]
>But if you alone did that and someone else did not? You *could* hack
>your server so that neither you nor anyone using your server could see
>any messages from the 'rogue'. This is socially unacceptable for a number
>of reasons.
[...]
I would be grateful for an enumeration.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec7.234233.14157@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
References: <1991Dec6.150235.10506@eff.org> <1991Dec6.185653.22629@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Dec7.123435.16344@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 23:42:33 GMT
In article <1991Dec7.123435.16344@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>The difference is that in Usenet anyone is able to post a cancel
>message, but it's not socially acceptable to do so except perhaps in
>very few cases (severe copyright violations which could get everyone
>in legal trouble).
>
>On the other hand, on irc there is a group of self-appointed persons
>who have power (/kill, some other `violent' actions) over other users.
>I think this inequality is one of the roots of the problems.
But it's not socially acceptable on IRC either. Seems to be quite
similar to Usenet. Unless you can come up with a technical way of
eliminating KILL and are willing to implement them, we have no way of
dealing with the problem other than continuing to make kill socially
unacceptable.
--------------------
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
