From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Subject: Re: NSF crackdown (was Re: The USENET pornographic network)
Message-ID: <1991Dec23.011216.101@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 23 Dec 91 01:12:16 CST
References: <1991Dec19.221832.36510@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Dec20.182121.24027@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Dec21.030811.1156@news.iastate.edu>
In article <1991Dec21.030811.1156@news.iastate.edu>, john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> }rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
> }[...]
> }>For example, the NSF (National Science Foundation) has repeatedly cracked
> }>down on xxx gif sites, [...]
>
> }Also, the concern was raised not because the information provider
> }sites were NSF funded, but because information requesters at other
> }sites were accessing these sites via the NSFnet.
>
> Current NSFnet program director: George Strawn, on leave from his job
> as the Director of the Iowa State University Computation Center.
George Strawn wasn't program director at the time those actions were taken,
so I wouldn't attributed it to some enviromental effect of living in Iowa.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Mon Dec 30 10:21:42 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA27252
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 30 Dec 1991 15:21:45 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 11:27:10 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112231627.AA24857@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 23 11:26:42 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:
bh@anarres.Berkele : Re: (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
durrell@umaxc.weeg : Re: (alt.activism) Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
dmittleman@misvax. : Re: Piles o' porn (WAS some long confused string)
goehring@mentor.cc : Re: The USENET pornographic network
NEELY MP@DARWIN.NT : Legal files uploaded Dec. 23rd
NEELY MP@DARWIN.NT : Correction re:legal papers
NEELY MP@DARWIN.NT : Privacy Bibliography Part II
sean@sdg.dra.com : Re: NSF crackdown (was Re: The USENET pornographic networ
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Legal files uploaded Dec. 23rd
Message-ID: <911223150229.21000604@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Sender: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Date: 23 Dec 91 15:02:29 GMT
The following files were uploaded on 1 Dec., 1991:
Law.Privacy - _Computer Privacy v. First & Fourth Amendment_
by Michael S. Borella
Law.Security - _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)
_______
The following files were uploaded on Dec. 3rd 1991:
Lod_SecretServ - _The Secret Service, UUCP and the Legion of Doom_
By Kevin Mullet
Summary: Discusses the UUCP network, the Secret Services'
activies in relation to Operation Sundevil. the arrest
of Craig Neidorf (Phrack editor), Robert Riggs (LOD member)
Richard Andrews (Jolnet administrator), Leonard Rose,
the Steve Jackson Games situation, and the consequences
these and other "hacker" (better known as 'cracker') activities
have had on network security, reliability and trust.
Texas.law - Act amending the Texas Penal Code by adding Chapter 33
Summary: An Act relating to the creation and prosecution
of offences involving computers; providing penalties and
an affirmative defense; adding Chapter 33 to the Penal
Code
texas.law2 - "Hackers": A lawyer/users' interpretation of Chapter
33, Texas Penal Code
by Thomas J. Henry
_____
The following files were uploaded on Dec. 6th:
bbs-laws - Summary based on an article in the _Western New England
Law Review_ entitled "Legal Analysis fo Electronic
Bulletin Board Activities" by Prof. John T. Soma, Paula
J. Smith, and Robert D. Sprague.
The file gives a brief summary of the laws in place in
each US State!
tribe.; - _The Constitution in Cyberspace_, Keynote address given
by Prof. L H Tribe at the 1st conference on Computers,
Freedom and Privacy.
elec.rights - _Citizens Rights and Access to Electronic Information_
Ascii version of a booklet distributed by the American
Library Asscociation conference.
by Dennis J. Reynolds (editor)
virus.law - Computer Law: State of Wisconsin; Chapter 293, Laws of 1981
943.70 Computer Crimes
supercomputer.act
- The High Performance Computing Act 1991
The following files were uploaded to the /upload directory at Sydney
University Law Schools' anonymous FTP site (sulaw.law.su.oz.au) on
December 23rd, 1991.
They will eventually be moved to the /pub/law directory. I am told that
this directory has been mirrored by the EFF's archive site (eff.org).
Please do not mail me requesting copies sent via e-mail, as I do not have to
time to process such requests!
If you are interested in storing these files on your site, please e-mail me
as I am compiling a list of sites where these files may be found.
Mark Neely
Research Student,
Northern Territory Univ. Law School
Darwin, NT Australia
neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
_____
2ndamend.; - Draft Notes from an upcoming work by Clayton E. Cramer
2ndamend_2 - Ibid (part 2)
abernathy - War on Computer Crime waged with Search, Seizure
abernathy2 - Computer Porno: a keystroke away
BOTH by Joe Abernathy, Houston Chronicle
bbs_case - Linda Thompson v. Bob Predaina (Professional's Choice BBS)
Complain filed with the US District Court for the Sourthern
District of Indiana (Civil Division)
broadcast - Broadcasting, Property Rights and the First Amendment
By Gordon T. Anderson
civil.rights - The forgotten importance of Civil Liberties
By Jacob T Anderson
foia_computer - Computer Friendly FOIA? Data-Access laws may be Updated.
by George Lardner Jr, Washinton Post Staff Writer
kapor - Free Speech and Privacy Online
by Mitch Kapor & John Perry Barlow
software - Software - The Great Debate: Who Owns an Idea
by Kathleen W Weigner & John Heins
lookfeel - Against User Interface Copyright
by League for Programming Freedom (Feb 24, 1991)
patents - Against Software Patents
by League for Programming Freedom (Feb 28, 1991)
morris - US v. Robert T. Morris, US Court of Appeal 2nd Circuit
decision
njlaw - Extract from New Jersey Statutes Annotated
Title 2c NJ Code of Criminal Justice
Chapt. 20, Part II - Computer Related Crime
Telephone_Privacy
- Telephone Privacy in the 1990's
by Mark Rotenberg, Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility
privacy_legis - Simons' Electric Privacy Bill (S.516)
To prevent potential abuses of electronic monitoring in the
workplace
rivera - Transcript of _Now it can be told: Mad Hacker's Key Party_
hosted by Geraldo Rivera (Sep. 30, 1991)
sysops - Misc. files of interest to Sysops (i.e. Piracy, Liability)
appears to be extracted from PHRACK magazine
irc_thesis
- Electropolis: Communication and Community on IRC
By Elizabeth M Reid, Honors Thesis, 1991
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Correction re:legal papers
Message-ID: <911223155036.2100053e@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Sender: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Date: 23 Dec 91 15:50:36 GMT
Howdy!!!
This was the file I initially intended to send out! Sorry for the inconvenience
and waste of diskspace!
Mark N.
____
The following files have been uploaded to Sydney University Law Schools'
anonymous FTP site (sulaw.su.law.oz.au). A majority will be found in the
/pub/law directory, whilst some may still be in the /upload directory
waiting to be moved across.
Mark Neely
Research Student
Northern Territory Univ. Law School
neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
____
Law.Privacy - _Computer Privacy v. First & Fourth Amendment_
by Michael S. Borella
Law.Security - _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)
Lod_SecretServ - _The Secret Service, UUCP and the Legion of Doom_
By Kevin Mullet
Summary: Discusses the UUCP network, the Secret Services'
activies in relation to Operation Sundevil. the arrest
of Craig Neidorf (Phrack editor), Robert Riggs (LOD member)
Richard Andrews (Jolnet administrator), Leonard Rose,
the Steve Jackson Games situation, and the consequences
these and other "hacker" (better known as 'cracker') activities
have had on network security, reliability and trust.
Texas.law - Act amending the Texas Penal Code by adding Chapter 33
Summary: An Act relating to the creation and prosecution
of offences involving computers; providing penalties and
an affirmative defense; adding Chapter 33 to the Penal
Code
texas.law2 - "Hackers": A lawyer/users' interpretation of Chapter
33, Texas Penal Code
by Thomas J. Henry
bbs-laws - Summary based on an article in the _Western New England
Law Review_ entitled "Legal Analysis fo Electronic
Bulletin Board Activities" by Prof. John T. Soma, Paula
J. Smith, and Robert D. Sprague.
The file gives a brief summary of the laws in place in
each US State!
tribe.; - _The Constitution in Cyberspace_, Keynote address given
by Prof. L H Tribe at the 1st conference on Computers,
Freedom and Privacy.
elec.rights - _Citizens Rights and Access to Electronic Information_
Ascii version of a booklet distributed by the American
Library Asscociation conference.
by Dennis J. Reynolds (editor)
virus.law - Computer Law: State of Wisconsin; Chapter 293, Laws of 1981
943.70 Computer Crimes
supercomputer.act
- The High Performance Computing Act 1991
2ndamend.; - Draft Notes from an upcoming work by Clayton E. Cramer
2ndamend_2 - Ibid (part 2)
abernathy - War on Computer Crime waged with Search, Seizure
abernathy2 - Computer Porno: a keystroke away
BOTH by Joe Abernathy, Houston Chronicle
bbs_case - Linda Thompson v. Bob Predaina (Professional's Choice BBS)
Complain filed with the US District Court for the Sourthern
District of Indiana (Civil Division)
broadcast - Broadcasting, Property Rights and the First Amendment
By Gordon T. Anderson
civil.rights - The forgotten importance of Civil Liberties
By Jacob T Anderson
foia_computer - Computer Friendly FOIA? Data-Access laws may be Updated.
by George Lardner Jr, Washinton Post Staff Writer
kapor - Free Speech and Privacy Online
by Mitch Kapor & John Perry Barlow
software - Software - The Great Debate: Who Owns an Idea
by Kathleen W Weigner & John Heins
lookfeel - Against User Interface Copyright
by League for Programming Freedom (Feb 24, 1991)
patents - Against Software Patents
by League for Programming Freedom (Feb 28, 1991)
morris - US v. Robert T. Morris, US Court of Appeal 2nd Circuit
decision
njlaw - Extract from New Jersey Statutes Annotated
Title 2c NJ Code of Criminal Justice
Chapt. 20, Part II - Computer Related Crime
Telephone_Privacy
- Telephone Privacy in the 1990's
by Mark Rotenberg, Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility
privacy_legis - Simons' Electric Privacy Bill (S.516)
To prevent potential abuses of electronic monitoring in the
workplace
rivera - Transcript of _Now it can be told: Mad Hacker's Key Party_
hosted by Geraldo Rivera (Sep. 30, 1991)
sysops - Misc. files of interest to Sysops (i.e. Piracy, Liability)
appears to be extracted from PHRACK magazine
irc_thesis
- Electropolis: Communication and Community on IRC
By Elizabeth M Reid, Honors Thesis, 1991
___
Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Research Student
Northern Territory University Law School
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Privacy Bibliography Part II
Message-ID: <911223171410.21000721@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Sender: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Date: 23 Dec 91 17:14:10 GMT
Howdy,
Here is the most recent update to Stacy Veeder's bibliography on privacy.
Hope you find it of some use!
Mark Neely
neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
________
Here, at long last, is the next bibliography installment... There's a
small bit of overlap with the first one, particularly the articles on
the Shoars vs. Epson case, but most of this stuff is new (to me). I
have about an inch of printouts of stuff I didn't use, but that is
of interest- I will send that along, too, eventually. But I figured
I might as well forward this to you now... (Eventually, I'll combine
it all into one great big list, but not yet- when I eventually do get
around to it, I'll send it to you, if you want, even though by then
you'll have everything on separate lists...)
Okay- here it is! (drumroll, please!)
**********************BIBIOLOGRAPHY #2 STARTS HERE*********************
Compiled 12/91 by Stacy B. Veeder
BITNET: SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET
Internet: sbveeder@suvm.acs.syr.edu
Betts, Mitch, "Do Laws Protect Wireless Nets?" Computerworld
(June 17, 1991), p. 47.
"Big Brother in the Water Cooler," The Washington Times
(September 12, 1990), p. G2.
Blickenstorfer, Conrad, "Where Does All the E-Mail Go?"
Computerworld (July 22, 1991), p. 25.
Burke, Steven, "Electronic-Mail Privacy To Be Tested in Court in
Suit Against Epson," PC Week (August 20, 1990), 7(33):124.
Caldwell, Bruce, "Big Brother Is Watching," Information Week
(June 18, 1990), (275):34 (three 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
Confronting the E-Mail Privacy Issue Head-On," Information Week
(August 20, 1990), (283):53
Casatelli, Christine, "Setting Ground Rules for Privacy,"
Computerworld (March 18, 1991), 25:47 (two pages).
"Class-Action Suit Filed Against Epson America Inc. For Invasion
of Privacy," Business Wire (August 9, 1990).
Davis, Fred, "Beware: 'Little Brother' May Be Reading Your Mail,"
PC Week (October 29, 1990), 7(43):198.
Eckerson, Wayne, "Privacy Suit Forces Users To Examine E-Mail
Policies: Case Against Epson Raises Troubling Questions," Network
World (September 17, 1990), p. 1.
Electronic Privacy Act of 1986, 18 USC Chapter 119 et seq. (P.L.
99-508; 100 Stat. 1848).
"Epson America Inc. and Two Employees Named in Lawsuit for
Electronic Eavesdropping and Wrongful Termination," Business Wire
(May 23, 1990).
"Epson E-Mail: Private or Company Information," Infoworld
(October 22, 1990), 12(43):66.
Feldman, Loren, "Epson Dumps Jackson, Lewis," The American Lawyer
(November 1990), p. 24.
"Getting a Handle on the Boom in E-Mail Use," Communication News
(August 1991), 28(8):9.
Holding, Reynolds, "Firms Assailed for E-Mail Monitoring," San
Francisco Chronicle (October 3, 1991), p. A1.
H.R. Report 647, 99th Congress, 2nd Session, 62 (1986). Quoted
in Hernandez, Ruel Torres, "ECPA and Online Computer Privacy,"
Federal Communications Law Journal, 41(1):17-41.
Keppel, Bruce, "Electronic Mail Stirs Debate on the Privacy
Issue," Los Angeles Times (May 23, 1990), p. D1.
Kobielus, James, "On the Net Manager's Role as Guardian of
Privacy," Network World (July 1, 1991), p. 25.
Kolstad, Rob, "Privacy and Policy: Two Views on the Privacy of
Electronic Mail and Files," UNIX Review (August 1991), 9(8):74.
Kuebelbeck, Amy, "Getting the Message: E-Mail Is Fast and
Efficient, But It Isn't Always Private--And That Can Mean Big
Trouble for Users," Los Angeles Times (September 4, 1991), p. E1.
LaPlante, Alice, "Epson E-Mail: Private or Company Information?"
Infoworld (October 22, 1990), 12(43):66.
LaPlante, Alice, "Is Big Brother Watching," Infoworld (October
22, 1990), 12(43):58.
Maney, Kevin, "Electronic-Mail Policies Ignite Debate," USA Today
(July 8, 1991), p. 3.
Maney, Kevin, "Firms Grapple with Email Ethics," Gannet News
Service (July 7, 1991).
Marmel, Steve, "Workplace Privacy Must Be Protected," USA Today
(September 17, 1990), p. 12A.
McNary, Dave, "Nissan Sued for Allegedly Spying on Staff's
Email," UPI (January 7, 1991)
Molloy, Maureen, "NW [Network] User Panel Takes Stand on E-Mail
Privacy," Network World (November 5, 1990), 7(45):2 (two pages).
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?"
Computerworld (January 14, 1991), 25:1 (two pages).
"Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. Named in Lawsuit for Electronic
(E-Mail) Eavesdropping," Business Wire (January 7, 1991).
Resnick, Rosalind, "The Outer Limits," National Law Journal
(September 16, 1991), p. 1.
Richards, Evelyn, "Privacy at the Office: Is There a Right To
Snoop?" The Washington Post (September 9, 1990), p. H1.
Richards, Evelyn, "Sorting Out the Legality of E-Mail
Eavesdropping," Washington Post National Weekly Edition
(September 17-23, 1990), p. 21.
Rifkin, Glenn, "The Ethics Gap: Despite Growing Attention, Many
IS Managers Say, 'It's Not My Job,'" Computerworld (October 14,
1991), p. 83.
Savage, J.A., "E-Mail Bust Generates Privacy Rights Uproar,"
Computerworld (January 23, 1989), 23:2.
Schuyler, Michael, "Rights of Computer On-Line Users," Small
Computers in Libraries (December 1990), 10(11):41.
Schwartz, John, "How Did They Get My Name?" Newsweek (June 3,
1991), p. 40.
Slind-Flor, Victoria, "What Is E-Mail, Exactly?" National Law
Journal (November 25, 1991), pp. 3, 22.
Wickham, Dewayne, "Privacy Issues Await Souter," Gannett News
Service (September 17, 1990).
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: hart@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (Heath)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <23DEC199113155423@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 23 Dec 91 18:15:00 GMT
References: <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Sender: usenet@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Distribution: usa
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.40
In article <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu>, cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes...
>
>Listen up, Marquette and Ann Mallinger. The poster was indescribably cruel and
>ignorant, but you are worse. You are censors of freedom of speech, and as a
>so-called University, you, of all people, should know better. Persoanlly, I'd
>rather have the ignorant broadcasting their hatred openly.. it makes it easier
>to keep an eye on them. I start to worry when they get forced underground
>(read: politically correct).
>
Get a grip. "Freedom of speech" guarantees an individual the right to
express an opinion. It does not, however, guarantee an individual the
right to express that opinion in any manner s/he sees fit. The poster
had the responsibility for knowing what the computer use policies of
Marquette University were, the poster knowingly chose to violate those
policies, and the university sanctioned the poster for that.
I too abhor censorship. Censorship did not take place. Ms. Mallinger
rightfully took action, not for the opinion which was expressed, but
for the "inflammatory" (her word) manner in which it was expressed.
Heath
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: ajr@sparc58.hri.com (MFHorn)
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Dec 91 19:27:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: sparc58.AJR.91Dec23142741
References:
<1991Dec13.082053.23933@math.ufl.edu>
<1991Dec19.221832.36510@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
<1991Dec20.182121.24027@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@hri.com.hri.com
Followup-To: alt.sex.bondage
Nntp-Posting-Host: sparc58.hri.com
In-reply-to: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu's message of 20 Dec 91 18:21:21 GMT
In article <1991Dec20.182121.24027@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> I'm not sure I'd characterize the NSF's actions as "repeatedly
> crack[ing] down". I'd say the the NSF has intimidated one or two
> sites. As far as I know the NSF has never made a definitive statement
> one way or the other.
In a previous life, I ran a site that had (publicly announced) x-rated
GIFs available. The NSF did in fact call me and told me to remove
them or my site would be disconnected from the Internet. I'm quite
sure it was not an idle threat.
> Also, the concern was raised not because the information provider
> sites were NSF funded, but because informatio requesters at other
> sites were accessing these sites via the NSFnet.
This was true in my case.
> Personally, I think it should be the information requester's
> responsibility stay within the guidelines of whatever network the
> requester is using to access information. The information provider
> often doesn't even know (and shouldn't care) which networks are being
> used to access the information.
Maybe, but it is the NSF's network and they have every right to
control who uses it and how. Is it better to squirt your cats every
time they scratch the leg of your new leather couch or to provide them
with an old 2x4?
--
Andy Rosen (ajr@hri.com) | "The most valuable commodity I know of,
Horizon Research, Inc. | is information." -Gordon Gekko, "Wall Street"
1432 Main St. | "I got this guitar and I learned how to
Waltham, MA 02154 | make it talk." -"Thunder Road"
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Alcor email priv. suit papers
Message-ID: <911224112152.21000c64@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Sender: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Date: 24 Dec 91 11:21:52 GMT
Keith Henson just mailed me the filings and associated papers relating
to the recent Alcor E-mail Privacy case, litigated and settled under the
ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act 1986).
My thanks to Keith (hkhenson@cup.portal.com)
The files will be made available at the Sydney University Law School's anonymous
archive site (sulaw.law.su.oz.au) in the /pub/law directory. They are presently
in the /upload directory:
alcor1 - Article: "Alcor files suit over electronic mail siezure"
by David Bloom, The Press Enterprise
alcor2 - Court Filing: Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages
(Under the ECPA)
alcor3 - Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory
Relief and Damages
alcor4 - Reply to Motion to Dismiss
alcor5 - Reply to Reply and Judges' ruling
alcor6 - Article: "Email privacy case settled"
alcor7 - Defendant's Memorandum of Point and Authorities in support of
their motion to dismiss
alcor8 - Full text of the ECPA suit
Also sent to me by Keith was a file discussing what sort of notices should be
used to prevent Law Enforcement Agencies frequenting your BBS! I have uploaded
it as:
bbs.warning
Mark Neely
neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jjh@uhura.neoucom.EDU (Jerod J. Husvar)
Subject: Problems with a user on IRC... Help.
Message-ID: <9112241925.AA10773@cs-mail.bu.edu>
Date: 24 Dec 91 19:26:20 GMT
Below follows a letter I recieved today, it has resulted in my server being
pulled off of the network, at least temporarily, if you can help corroborate
my story, please mail root@uhura.neoucom.edu.
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 10:53:12 est
>From: root (Billy Rootstown)
Subject: No More as of NOW!
Status: RO
From lex@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU Tue Dec 24 06:14 EST 1991
Received: from csufres.cs.CSUFresno.EDU by uhura.neoucom.EDU with SMTP
(15.11.1.3/15.6) id AA12561; Tue, 24 Dec 91 06:14:36 est
Received: by csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (5.61/6.02)
id AA03442; Tue, 24 Dec 91 03:14:34 -0800
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 03:14:34 -0800
From: lex@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (Captain Chuck)
Message-Id: <9112241114.AA03442@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU>
To: root@uhura.neoucom.EDU
Dear sir I have been harrassed on irc by the person who
owns the following account jjh@uhura.neoucom.edu, as for IRC
I'll be working very hard to put it down in the USA areas..
-Charles
JEROD, You are out of the IRC business until further notice.
Bill
>From jjh Tue Dec 24 14:16:30 1991
Subject: Re: No More as of NOW!
Bill,
As to the putative "harrassment" claimed by Charles: This user was continually
sending obscene messages to all operators on the net, and was otherwise
thoroughly making a fool of himself and creating distress for other users.
I purposely placed his id on an automatic "Kill" status on my server only
in order to live up to my responsibility as an IRC Operator to help keep
the net reasonably clean and free for use by the sensible majority.
I regret that this may have caused you any problem, but I will plead "guilty"
anytime some irresponsible user attempts to "take over" IRC by absive
behavior.
I take that responsibility seriously and have developed quite a reputation
as a someone who takes the administration of the IRC Network seriously.
Charles need not have used the server here at neoucom at all. He has the
capability of linking through other servers at will. His action was
specifically designed to cause trouble on the net and for me.
Apparently he has succeeded.
"Charles" is not the only user who does such things. And all IRC
Operators get complaints. For the most part these are from users who have
hacked into systems or who ahve otherwise proven themselves undesireable.
I assure you I shall enter my own complaint regarding "Charles" with his
own site Administration for whatever good it might do.
I find it difficult to take seriously one who lists his name as "Captain
Chuck," but I guess anyone can do a setenv statement.
I hope you will reconsider your decision in light of this information.
I shall try to have others with corroborating information provide it to
you if you so desire.
thank you for your consideration,
Jerod.
|| Jerod J. Husvar || Black Rabbits with Red Eyes??? Smoke 'Em! ||
|| jjh@uhura.neoucom.edu || Can YOU feel the presence??? -- Dream Weaver ||
|| NEOUCOM Comp. Services || "With the lights out... It's less dangerous... ||
|| Rootstown, Ohio USA || Here we are now... Entertain us..." --Nirvana ||
|| Computer Dude... || What the hell do you mean Disclaimer??? ||
|| IRC Operator || I don't even know her!!! --jjh ||
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
Message-ID: <1991Dec26.003948.29608@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 26 Dec 91 00:39:48 GMT
References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Followup-To: alt.religion.kibology
Distribution: usa
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>No, here is another *possible* censorship incident. It isn't censorship,
>for example, to prohibit someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
>theater.
That's true. Even if there is a fire. You have to shout "Lutefisk!"
--
Ted Frank + "I believe that Oswald acted alone..."
1307 E 60 St, #109 + -- Kevin Costner as Crash Davis in Bull Durham
U o' C Law Skool + "It's too bad you saw me, Timmy. Now I'm going to have
Chi, IL 60637 + to kill you." -- Santa Claus
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Sun Jan 5 19:21:13 1992
Received: by eff.org id AA06223
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Mon, 6 Jan 1992 00:21:18 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1991 15:21:42 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199112302021.AA27245@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Dec 30 15:21:26 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:
hart@vtcc1.cc.vt.e : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
ajr@sparc58.hri.co : Re: The USENET pornographic network
NEELY MP@DARWIN.NT : Alcor email priv. suit papers
thf2@ellis.uchicag : Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Subject: Re: IRC's /kill
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Dec 91 14:03:54 GMT
References: <8Bw4cB7w164w@starcom.uucp>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Followup-To: alt.irc
In-reply-to: root@starcom.uucp's message of 17 Dec 91 15:46:30 GMT
root@starcom.uucp (Shadow) writes:
>Hahah.. just like Wumpus.. nice one.. yes.. and Avalon... He killed
>me earlier today for disagreeing w/him.. then I killed him back, and
>he said 'I wouldn't have killed you if I knew you were an operator.'
>How lame can you get, folks?
Would you please keep your petty squabbles confined to alt.irc? This
has *nada* to do with academic freedom; there's no point in babbling
on about it in alt.acad-freedom.talk.
--
A man walks into a crowded theater and shouts, "ANYBODY WANT TO BUY A CAR?"
The crowd stands up and shouts back, "WRONG THEATER!"
-- Edward Vielmetti (env@msen.com), news.admin, on the use of
USENET as an advertising medium
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: davis@kahane.cogsci.uiuc.edu (Gordon Davis)
Subject: Re: Dorner vs. the lunatic fringe
Message-ID: <1991Dec31.144936.19661@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1991 14:49:36 GMT
carey@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John Carey) writes:
>I read a survey in Computer World of managers in businesses that use
>computers for day-to-day work. Something like 28 out of 32 surveyed
>felt it was their right to monitor (that is, read) any
>electronic mail that their employees send or receive even if the
>content was personal! I wonder how many of these managers would feel
>about going through their employees' U. S. Mail mailboxes?
Now, wait a minute here. Do I understand that you do not see a difference
between the U.S. mail and sending/receiving electronic mail via an
employer-owned machine using an employer-owned account.
Just because many university/commercial employees with e-mail accounts
assigned to them are allowed to use them as virtually their own personal
account and do so (myself included), does not mean that they have an
INHERENT RIGHT to do so.
I am thankful that the university allows me to use my accounts to transmit
personal messages. However, if the rules changed and that privilege was
taken away, I would have no grounds on which to complain since it was
not a right but a privilege.
Gordon Davis
davis@cs.uiuc.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID: <1991Dec31.171325.18605@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 31 Dec 91 17:13:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1991Dec31.171325.18605
References: <1991Dec9.003623.2686@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
In article root@starcom.uucp (Shadow) writes:
>> This was tried, and failed, on the "anarchy net".
>
>I hope you don't mean what I am trying to setup. Lamer.
No, I was talking about the one a year and a half ago. Why are you
calling me names?
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: friedman@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Dec 91 17:53:40 GMT
References: <1991Dec9.003623.2686@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: news@ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: root@starcom.uucp's message of 17 Dec 91 15:25:36 GMT
In article root@starcom.uucp (Shadow) writes:
>gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>
>> In article <1991Dec8.153045.4177@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
>>
>> >Allow kill for everybody with no artificial limits on who is
>> >'privileged'. Seems to work on Usenet.
>>
>> This was tried, and failed, on the "anarchy net".
>
>I hope you don't mean what I am trying to setup. Lamer.
Oh, lighten up. I've never seen anyone so blatantly paranoid and
homophobic.
`anarchy net' refers to the original `Eris-net' consisting of
open-server servers. Basically, anyone could attach a server to the net,
become an operator, and blow users away.
If I recall, what actually killed it was the bug where people
could become chanops by joining the channel with a ^G (or other illegal
character) appended to it. Since chanop privileges were granted across the
anarchy-net <-> closed-server-net bridge, chaos ensued and the bridge was
removed.
Learn well the mistakes of the past, for you are bound to repeat them.
---
Noah Friedman
friedman@prep.ai.mit.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jgholm@crhc.uiuc.edu (John G. Holm)
Subject: Re: Dorner vs. the lunatic fringe
Date: 31 Dec 91 20:11:13 GMT
Message-ID:
davis@kahane.cogsci.uiuc.edu (Gordon Davis) writes:
>carey@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John Carey) writes:
[...]
>>I wonder how many of these managers would feel
>>about going through their employees' U. S. Mail mailboxes?
>Now, wait a minute here. Do I understand that you do not see a difference
>between the U.S. mail and sending/receiving electronic mail via an
>employer-owned machine using an employer-owned account.
[...]
This is a good point.
I believe that the university has a right to look through US mail
that they pay for. If I put a stamp on a letter and put it
in the outgoing mailbox, then it is a federal crime for the
university to look at it. If I put a letter in the
"mail needing postage" box, then the university can look
at it. I think this is university policy.
I think as long as the university is paying for the
personal use of their educational computers, they
have a right to monitor them. I don't like the idea
of them monitoring me, but I think they have the right.
John Holm
jgholm@crhc.uiuc.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
In-Reply-To: root@starcom.uucp's message of 17 Dec 91 15:33:22 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
References:
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 05:34:06 GMT
Shadow> == Shadow
Shadow> How can you judge something you haven't even been ON, dammit!
I have been on it, you keep killing me off. How am I supposed to judge
it (which you are asking that I do) if you won't let me stay on it for
five minutes?
Shadow> And no, the policy on the 5557 net is NOT open-operator; just
Shadow> open-server, where any SERVER can connect to the IRC. I can't
Shadow> say "I don't like you, so I am not going to let you connect to
Shadow> my network." But it is NOT open- operator. Get your facts
Shadow> straight, instead of running your mouth on bullshit.
Open-server, where any server can connect, is the SAME as open-operator,
unless you're all running Troy's leaf-only, no-oper-commands-come-out
patch.
RTFS
--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose Many thanks to Sun Microsystems
Electronic Frontier Foundation who approved EFF's $75K grant!
Systems and Networks Administration Flames to:
women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)
Subject: Re: Dorner vs. the lunatic fringe
Message-ID: <1992Jan1.134326.28721@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 13:43:26 GMT
LI>I am thankful that the university allows me to use my accounts
LI>to transmit
LI>personal messages. However, if the rules changed and
LI>that privilege was
LI>taken away, I would have no grounds on which
LI> to complain since it was
LI>not a right but a privilege.
The university would need to provide a disclaimer if it changed
its rules on personal messages. By calling something "e-mail"
(specifically by using the word "mail") there is an implication
of privacy. You are correct that it is not a right as such, however
as in the case of cigarettes for example a disclaimer is necessary.
Nobody makes you smoke but still you are entitled to the information
that smoking is bad for your health. Likewise with "e-mail." As long
as a disclaimer was provided so that the user was aware of the lack
of privacy, no problem. Otherwise the whole situation smacks of a
"setup." In other words, "Sure use this e-mail to send messages to
whoever you want -- *just like the U.S. mail, only better*" implies
privacy.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed)
Subject: Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
Message-ID:
Sender: news@newshost.anu.edu.au
References:
Date: 1 Jan 92 18:31:33 GMT
hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose) writes:
[...]
>RTFS
>--Helen
RTFS ? Hmmm....that used to be RTFM or is TFM badly out of date now ?
Anyone willing to write some comprehensive ones for irc ? the ones in
the server seem ok, are they ?
av
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: noe@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe)
Subject: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan1.214839.1611@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 21:48:39 GMT
In article jgholm@crhc.uiuc.edu (John G. Holm) writes:
>I believe that the university has a right to look through US mail
>that they pay for. If I put a stamp on a letter and put it
>in the outgoing mailbox, then it is a federal crime for the
>university to look at it. If I put a letter in the
>"mail needing postage" box, then the university can look
>at it. I think this is university policy.
If so, that policy violates federal law. This question has been decided
by the judicial system, if I remember correctly from a commercial law course
I took 10 years ago. The University probably has a policy that they will
not pay postage for personal mail. They can justifiably refuse to apply
postage to a piece of mail if the sender will not divulge the nature of the
contents, to show its relationship to University business. They cannot
inspect mail, since this is something that can be done ONLY by postal
inspectors.
Before the application of postage, the University enjoys no special
privilege of having paid for the mail. They certainly don't own it.
After the application of postage, the item is unquestionably U.S. mail
which has been deposited by its sender in a manner that the mail is
fully protected by postal regulations. The University does not gain
ownership over a piece of U.S. mail by applying postage. Since at
no time does the University own the piece of mail, they cannot inspect
it.
One of the issues in the trial law was when something becomes "mail"
and is protected from unlawful search and seizure. It is not an
absolute requirement that the item have postage affixed. Nor is it
an absolute requirement that the item be deposited in a box owned
by the U.S. Postal Service. Any receptacle marked as being for U.S.
mail, even if only a plastic tray, can qualify. The postal regulations
are purposely written this tightly.
>I think as long as the university is paying for the
>personal use of their educational computers, they
>have a right to monitor them.
This is an entirely separate issue and has yet to be settled by the
courts. Some questions about the protection of e-mail have been
decided, however tentatively. Generally, the courts seem willing to
protect the reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus essentially all
the University employees who have not been formally notified that
their e-mail is not private (such as NCSA employees) are protected
against warrantless inspections.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain D. Sinclair)
Subject: Re: IRC's /kill
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Jan 92 12:57:16 GMT
References: <8Bw4cB7w164w@starcom.uucp>
root@starcom.uucp (Shadow) writes:
>>Hahah.. just like Wumpus.. nice one.. yes.. and Avalon... He killed
>>me earlier today for disagreeing w/him.. then I killed him back, and
>>he said 'I wouldn't have killed you if I knew you were an operator.'
>>How lame can you get, folks?
("Lame"? It's just routine for IRC.)
goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:
>Would you please keep your petty squabbles confined to alt.irc? This
>has *nada* to do with academic freedom; there's no point in babbling
>on about it in alt.acad-freedom.talk.
If you have to use a chat program in the not-too-distant future, and
some un-hired, unqualified "operator" rips you off it because they don't
like your articles, or your surname, or anything else that displeases them...
What if you were an academic in the middle of a translation, design discussion,
moderated conference, etc.?
Are such issues irrelevant to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, in your opinion?
[NB. It's a rhetorical question -- nobody would rely on an oppressive
disaster like IRC for anything half-important.]
--
Iain Sinclair (axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au) +61 2 330 1816
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: rvloon@cv.ruu.nl (Ronald van Loon)
Subject: Re: IRC's /kill
Message-ID: <1992Jan2.151025.25371@cv.ruu.nl>
Date: 2 Jan 92 15:10:25 GMT
References: <8Bw4cB7w164w@starcom.uucp>
Sender: rvloon@cv.ruu.nl (Ronald van Loon)
In axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain D. Sinclair) writes:
| "If you have to use a chat program in the not-too-distant future, and
| "some un-hired, unqualified "operator" rips you off it because they don't
| "like your articles, or your surname, or anything else that displeases them...
| "
| "What if you were an academic in the middle of a translation, design discussion,
| "moderated conference, etc.?
What are the chances that some random operator will /kill a random user just
for fun ? *Something* must have happened to get the operator's attention
directed to a user. And an academic in the middle of a translation, design
discussion, moderated conference etc. is not likely to fall into that
category. Unless of course your name is Iain D. Sinclair, I suppose.
Personal question: If IRC pisses you off so much, why waste everybody's time
by telling us who *do* want to use it, how bad it is ? If we felt the same we
wouldn't use it - but as long as I can continue to speak to people at the
other side of the world (Singapore, for instance), I will use it.
--
Ronald van Loon (rvloon@cv.ruu.nl) 3DCV Group, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: dbabiy@isis.cs.du.edu (Dale Babiy)
Subject: Re: IRC's /kill
Message-ID: <1992Jan3.220824.28304@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
References: <8Bw4cB7w164w@starcom.uucp> <1992Jan2.151025.25371@cv.ruu.nl>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 22:08:24 GMT
rvloon@cv.ruu.nl (Ronald van Loon) writes:
>wouldn't use it - but as long as I can continue to speak to people at the
>other side of the world (Singapore, for instance), I will use it.
Exactly - communications is why I'm involved in all facets of the internet,
and IRC is definatly a part of this. So long as IRC continues to fill this
criteria, I will continue to use it. If I was politics I'll read my admin
conference in FidoNet :-)
Dale (TheCat)
--------------------
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Co-moderator, Computers and Academic Freedom list
helen@eff.org | << insert usual disclaimer here... my opinions
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | are mine alone, not EFF's or VCU's, etc. >>
From helen Sun Dec 15 05:52:17 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA15985
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sun, 15 Dec 1991 10:52:19 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 12:24:25 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199201041724.AA05145@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Jan 4 12:23:57 EST 1992
[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:
goehring@mentor.cc : Re: IRC's /kill
gl8f@fermi.clas.Vi : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
friedman@nutrimat. : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
hrose@eff.org (Hel : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
avalon@coombs.anu. : Re: IRC vs. Usenet & email (authoritarianism)
axolotl@socs.uts.e : Re: IRC's /kill
rvloon@cv.ruu.nl ( : Re: IRC's /kill
dbabiy@isis.cs.du. : Re: IRC's /kill
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jgholm@crhc.uiuc.edu (John G. Holm)
Subject: Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
Date: 4 Jan 92 19:31:15 GMT
Message-ID:
noe@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes:
>In article jgholm@crhc.uiuc.edu (John G. Holm) writes:
>>I believe that the university has a right to look through US mail
>>that they pay for. If I put a stamp on a letter and put it
>>in the outgoing mailbox, then it is a federal crime for the
>>university to look at it. If I put a letter in the
>>"mail needing postage" box, then the university can look
>>at it. I think this is university policy.
>If so, that policy violates federal law. This question has been decided
>by the judicial system, ...
>Before the application of postage, the University enjoys no special
>privilege of having paid for the mail. They certainly don't own it.
...
>One of the issues in the trial law was when something becomes "mail"
>and is protected from unlawful search and seizure. It is not an
>absolute requirement that the item have postage affixed. Nor is it
>an absolute requirement that the item be deposited in a box owned
>by the U.S. Postal Service. Any receptacle marked as being for U.S.
>mail, even if only a plastic tray, can qualify. The postal regulations
>are purposely written this tightly.
This is interesting considering that the CSL office was actually
opening letters that were not stamped to see if they were
personal. I remember some memo going around saying that mail
put in the "Mail needing postage box" was fair game. They
claimed that this did not violate federal law and that they
had legal precedence to this (What else would they claim?).
As far as I know, they have stopped opening unstamped letters.
>>I think as long as the university is paying for the
>>personal use of their educational computers, they
>>have a right to monitor them.
>This is an entirely separate issue and has yet to be settled by the
>courts.
It is similar in that in that it is a right to privacy issue.
>Some questions about the protection of e-mail have been
>decided, however tentatively. Generally, the courts seem willing to
>protect the reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus essentially all
>the University employees who have not been formally notified that
>their e-mail is not private (such as NCSA employees) are protected
>against warrantless inspections.
The internet is scanned by some security agency (FBI?) for key words.
Other companies scan their e-mail for keywords such as product
names and such. Many sites also scan for worms attached to e-mail.
The email legal cases that I have heard are companies that read
personal email for fun or managers who want to get the dirt on
their employees. This is a definate privacy issue. Sending
viruses, passwd files, and proprietary information is not
as clear cut. It is similar to sending explosives or even
volatile material through the US mail.
I am not trying to defend the university. I don't like
the idea of the university looking at my mail, but I
am happy that they look for malicious behavior.
John Holm
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <1992Jan5.003533.107@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 5 Jan 92 00:35:33 CST
References: <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org>
In article <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> The NSF does not own or control the whole Internet. They have no right
> to restrict material from the whole Internet.
Nor do they. You are quite free to do whatever you like on your own network.
Likewise, NSF can decline to provide a route across the NSF backbone to or
from your network.
If you're running a system that isn't capable at making such distinctions,
then I guess you have to remove the material completely. But the NSF isn't
responsible for inadequacy of your equipment.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org>
References: <1991Dec13.082053.23933@math.ufl.edu> <1991Dec19.221832.36510@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Dec20.182121.24027@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 02:39:36 GMT
>kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[referring to x-rated gif ftp sites]
>>Also, the concern was raised not because the information provider
>>sites were NSF funded, but because informatio requesters at other
>>sites were accessing these sites via the NSFnet.
goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:
>Not to mention the rather remarkable network load that X-rated ftp
>sites create when they're up. In fact, I can understand the NSF's
>feelings in this regard: X-rated GIF sites don't serve any reasonable
>research purpose, and they do interfere with legitimate research uses
>of the net, in some cases substantially.
[...]
The NSF does not own or control the whole Internet. They have no right
to restrict material from the whole Internet.
Must every provider site enforce the rules every network and site that
access it? Boston University prohibits its users from transmitting
"offensive material". [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu]
Is your site responsible for making sure that no student at BU
violates this rule during an anonymous ftp to your site?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1992Jan5.025518.11163@eff.org>
References: <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu> <23DEC199113155423@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 02:55:18 GMT
hart@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (Heath) writes:
[...]
>Get a grip. "Freedom of speech" guarantees an individual the right to
>express an opinion. It does not, however, guarantee an individual the
>right to express that opinion in any manner s/he sees fit.
[...]
The Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the Constitution (which, by the
way doesn't legally apply here) *does not* require that speakers be
polite:
Paraphrasing from an ACLU handbook on teacher's legal rights:
==============
Generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment
by the First Amendment, 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, from _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam, p. 157:
=========
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote [in _Hustler Magazine v. Falwell_] that
"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."
=================
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1992Jan5.030134.11300@eff.org>
References: <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu> <23DEC199113155423@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 03:01:34 GMT
I have some more information about Marquette University. It is
from _The Insider's Guide to the Colleges 1991_ by the staff
of the Yale Daily News.
In the entry on Marquette University it says: "A recent controversy at
MU involed an ad that ran in the school newspaper to drum up support
for a pro-choice march on Washington. The administration felt that
this ad did not reflect the values of a Catholic institution, and
subsequently repremanded three students who were involved with running
the ad. Although this episode has had little lasting influence on the
campus, it made many students, and faculty members ponder the question
of free speech at a Catholic university."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Student Publications at Harvard
Message-ID: <1992Jan5.033351.11856@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 03:33:51 GMT
[p. 12 of the new _America's Best Colleges_ by U.S. News and World
Reports:]
"Acknowledging the remarkable vitality of grass-roots publishing at
the school [Harvard, the school they rated #1 -cmk], officails have
set up a new center for publications. It offers offices, computers,
phones and production equipment to any student publication that
reserver space. Among the new campus publications: 'The Rag,' a
feminist newsletter, and 'Tablu Rasa,' a magazine offering a
'multi-opinional forum.'"
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur)
Subject: New York Teacher Loses 'Censorship' Fight.
Message-ID: <01GEXQ9FT9S0ANBL2L@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Date: 5 Jan 92 04:52:00 GMT
Date sent: 4-JAN-1992 23:49:49
Although the article quoted below has nothing to do with computers, nonetheless
it is relevant to the discussion of Academic Freedom in Public Schools.
The following are the first four paragraphs of an article that
appeared in Newsday on January 3, 1992. The article is accompanied
with a picture of Thomas O'Connor with a copy of the "Better Orgasm"
article in his hand. The article is excerpeted here without permission under
what I believe to be the "fair use" provisions of the copyright laws.
(background info: Brentwood is a town in Long Island, New York. Neswday is
Long Island's main newspaper.)
Teacher Loses 'Censorship' Fight
by Roni Rabin
Staff Writer
It all started Nov. 19, 1988, when a Brentwood High School Senior clipped out
an article called "Better Orgasms: Four Sex Experts Tell You How to Increase
Your Pleasure," and brought it to a class discussion on censorship.
The student argued that the sexually explicit article -- found in the
school's own library -- was a perfect example of writing that should be
censored for a younger audience.
Now, more than three years later, the classroom teacher, Thomas F. O'Connor,
has lost his private battle against what he has labeled censorship. After
being reprimanded for photocopying and distributing the article without asking
his supervisors, O'Connor, citing his free-speech rights, fought the Brentwood
school district in court, taking his arguments all the way to the Appellate
Division of the State Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, the panel rejected his argument. Affirming a lower court ruling,
the court said the school district was not violating O'Connor's rights by
requiring him to clear controversial materials before presenting them in class.
-----
The article then goes on to report that O'Connor considers the decision reeking
of society's hypocrisy. School officials claim that they had not prohibited
the material, just required it it to be cleared by them. The article also
quotes O'Connor's attorney Mitchel Gittin predicting the case would have a
"chilling effect" on teachers and students investigative research. Mitchell
Gittin is a board member of the Suffolk County Chapter of the New York Civil
Liberties Union. The article did not mention if O'Connor plans to appeal the
decision in Federal Court.
Sanjay Kapur (SK54) |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:+1-516 632 8029, FAX:+1-516 632 8046
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.irc-operlist] Problems with a user on IRC... Help.
Message-ID: <199201051719.AA00139@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 5 Jan 92 07:19:26 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Censorship
Message-ID: <9201050905.AA13749@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 5 Jan 92 09:05:35 GMT
What are the censorship guidelines for USEnet? I would think that
whatever terms apply to USEnet could be applicable to IRC as well.
As the person who will end up being responsible for "censoring" people
here, when it happens, I would prefer it avoid it. There was a problem a
few months ago with one of our users who was posting pornographic material
to inappropriate newsgroups on USEnet, and later he flamed various sysop
groups as well. The interesting thing is that he wasn't doing it from the
fsf machines at all. He was doing it elsewhere, but in anger the groups
involved tried to force us to remove his gnu account too. When we refused,
they threatened to throw all sorts of legal trouble at us.
It's not clear to me what "obscenity" really is, either. There aren't
that many things that offend me anymore. Some people are no doubt more
touchy than others, and they'll demand that people be stifled for the least
little thing. The above example leads me to believe that if it will
easily get out of hand.
IMHO, obscenity and racial harassment laws are *bad* things, because
they set a precedent for curtailing freedom of speech. As bad as I think
some ideas are, I think that trying to suppress them is worse.
"Out of site" is *not* "out of mind", and I urge people not to
contribute to a growing social problem in the US, especially on university
campuses (where the aforementioned "racial harassment" laws have really hit
home).
There is always going to be something out there that offends people.
Why should obscenity (for example) be outlawed and not, say, poor
personal hygiene? (which is far more offensive to me)
---
Noah Friedman
friedman@prep.ai.mit.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general] privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
Message-ID: <9201052109.AA29379@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Jan 92 09:09:20 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general] Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
Message-ID: <9201052109.AA10861@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 5 Jan 92 09:09:49 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.irc-operlist] Re: Censorship
Message-ID: <199201052226.AA04868@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 5 Jan 92 12:26:24 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <1992Jan5.161331.29246@eff.org>
References: <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org> <1992Jan5.003533.107@sdg.dra.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 16:13:31 GMT
In article <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
> The NSF does not own or control the whole Internet. They have no right
> to restrict material from the whole Internet.
sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>Nor do they. You are quite free to do whatever you like on your own network.
>Likewise, NSF can decline to provide a route across the NSF backbone to or
>from your network.
>If you're running a system that isn't capable at making such distinctions,
>then I guess you have to remove the material completely. But the NSF isn't
>responsible for inadequacy of your equipment.
Are you suggesting that it would be proper for Boston University to
call me on the phone and tell me to either remove everything
"offensive" from the CAF archive or else they will cut off *all*
contact between our two sites (e.g. email, ftps to inoffensive
material, etc)? I concede that such an ultimatium would likely be
legal, but would it be proper in terms of academic freedom?
Why should the information provider be required to stop an information
requester from (maybe) violating the rules of NSFNet?
The NSFNet rules (ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/polices/nsf) apply only to
the use of the net (for example, doing an anonymous ftp). Making
information available to NSFNet (and dozens of other nets and
thousands of sites) is not a use of NSFNet (or the other nets or
sites).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
Message-ID: <1992Jan5.212529.30220@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 21:25:29 GMT
>>>I think as long as the university is paying for the
>>>personal use of their educational computers, they
>>>have a right to monitor them.
Because the U. of Illinois respects academic freedom and the Bill of
Rights it generally does not violate the privacy of students and
staff.
The U. of Illinois has written privacy policies that apply to assigned
office space, dorms, and telephones. These policies basically require
a search warrents. It is working on a "privacy" policy for email and
disk space that will likely be similar.
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. Access information follows.)
=================
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.
=================
law/email.bib
=================
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.
=================
=================
To get these documents 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
send caf-law email.bib
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
pub/academic/law/email.bib
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET Readership report for Dec 91
Keywords: arbitron, statistics, full
Message-ID: <1992Jan5.235537.5395@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 5 Jan 92 23:55:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Jan5.235537.5395
References: <1992Jan2.042823.3762@PA.dec.com>
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes:
>This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Dec 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 230000 5311 70% 1730 5074.4 19% 0.03 13.6% alt.sex
> 2 200000 4599 85% 499 1028.0 19% 0.01 11.8% misc.jobs.offered
> 3 170000 3924 90% 9 140.6 100% 0.00 10.0% news.announce.newusers
> 4 170000 3904 84% 73 162.2 0% 0.00 10.0% rec.humor.funny
> 5 160000 3657 85% 984 1178.4 30% 0.01 9.3% misc.forsale
> 6 160000 3534 83% 1519 2677.9 4% 0.03 9.0% rec.humor
> 7 150000 3445 74% 37 711.8 0% 0.01 8.8% rec.arts.erotica
> 8 120000 2735 86% 537 1035.1 13% 0.02 7.0% comp.graphics
> 9 120000 2723 81% 4198 9491.7 2% 0.13 7.0% rec.arts.startrek
> 10 120000 2628 90% 621 1278.5 23% 0.02 6.7% news.groups
[...]
> 437 28000 635 77% 379 819.0 5% 0.05 1.6% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
> 668 19000 438 54% 221 791.2 23% 0.05 1.1%
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
[...]
> 818 14000 308 47% 3 218.5 0% 0.02 0.8%
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
>1458 44 1 1% 8 36.0 0% 0.02 0.0% uiuc.cs.gwm
>1459 44 1 1% 7 13.0 0% 0.01 0.0% uiuc.cs.jobs
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
