From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: dmittleman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Daniel David Mittleman)
Subject: Re: [uiuc.general] Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
Message-ID: <5JAN199217104105@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
Date: 6 Jan 92 00:10:00 GMT
References: <9201052109.AA10861@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-Host: misvax.mis.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
In article <9201052109.AA10861@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes...
[forwarded posting by Hohn Holm]
>
>The internet is scanned by some security agency (FBI?) for key words.
>
>John Holm
Is this true? Can anyone tell me what those keywords are? Does
this mean that if I say "kill the President" on the internet I
will be visited by people in dark suits with no sense of humor?
===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman - danny@arizona.edu - (602) 621-2932
-------------------
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, 6 Jan 1992 00:21:13 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199201060521.AA06215@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Jan 6 00:20:14 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:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: The USENET pornographic network
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
kadie@eff.org (Car : Student Publications at Harvard
SKAPUR@ccmail.suny : New York Teacher Loses 'Censorship' Fight.
sean@sdg.dra.com : Re: The USENET pornographic network
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: The USENET pornographic network
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.irc-operlist) Problems with a user on IRC... He
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (uiuc.general) privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (uiuc.general) Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.irc-operlist) Re: Censorship
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: USENET Readership report for Dec 91
dmittleman@misvax. : Re: (uiuc.general) Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
jim@c.mscs.mu.edu : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
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: jim@c.mscs.mu.edu (Jim Phillips)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Keywords: 2714sviatkos marquette
Message-ID: <2127@spool.mu.edu>
Date: 6 Jan 92 03:06:25 GMT
References: <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu> <23DEC199113155423@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu> <1992Jan5.030134.11300@eff.org>
Sender: news@spool.mu.edu
Distribution: usa
Nntp-Posting-Host: c.mscs.mu.edu
In article <1992Jan5.030134.11300@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>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
I am a Marquette Student also known as 2118phillips and was around during the
above-mentioned controversy. First of all, this was hardly a free speech issue.
There have been articles in the Tribune in support of abortion which have
passed without incident. This was an advertisement placed by an off-campus
group. The Tribune is published by the University and as such they place
certain restrictions on the ad policy. Think of it along the same lines as
Marquette not allowing such an ad to appear in its basketball program.
While Marquette tries to provide an open forum for student and faculty
expression, they do not open the forum to all comers, even those who pay.
This is not all that unusual. How many Universities would accept an add from
the K.K.K., for instance (David Duke does not count).
Just my opinion, but if anyone cares I could dig up the whole story.
Also, I might be able to find out exactly what happened to 2714 on this end.
James Phillips jim@c.mscs.mu.edu Marquette University (sorry, no humor ;-)
--------------------
--
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 Fri Dec 20 19:01:55 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA18022
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 00:02:04 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
Message-ID: <1992Jan6.051253.5585@eff.org>
Keywords: 2714sviatkos marquette
References: <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu> <23DEC199113155423@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu> <1992Jan5.030134.11300@eff.org> <2127@spool.mu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 05:12:53 GMT
jim@c.mscs.mu.edu (Jim Phillips) writes:
[...]
>While Marquette tries to provide an open forum for student and faculty
>expression, they do not open the forum to all comers, even those who pay.
>This is not all that unusual. How many Universities would accept an add from
>the K.K.K., for instance (David Duke does not count).
[...]
It would be illegal for a state university to accept so-called prolife
ads while refusing so-called prochoice ads.
(See ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd).
Also, as I understand the case, the ad was not rejected; the student
staff of the MU Tribune apparently published the ad. The staff was
then punished. It is a violation of the principles of academic freedom
for the University to punish the newspaper staff because "of student,
faculty, administrative, or public disapproval of editorial policy or
content."
- 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: [bit.listserv.pacs-l] Libraries & Computer Centres
Message-ID: <199201061924.AA02162@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 6 Jan 92 09:24:48 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: "Patrick Teskey"
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 09:43:50 CST
Message-ID:
Subject: Libraries & Computer Centres
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Does anyone out there work in an institution where the Library and the
Computer Centre are under a common Director and effectively merged as
one unit. Such an arrangement is being suggested as a possibility
here, and those on the ground have some reservations as to whether
such an arrangement can work effectively in spite of our close
relationships. Are there any examples of where this approach has been
tried, either successfully or otherwise.
I will be happy to summarise any replies I get for the list
Patrick Teskey
The Library
University of Ulster
Magee College
Lonnonderry
N. Ireland
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <1992Jan6.070807.109@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 6 Jan 92 13:08:07 GMT
References: <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org> <1992Jan5.003533.107@sdg.dra.com> <1992Jan5.161331.29246@eff.org>
In article <1992Jan5.161331.29246@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 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 ultimatum would likely be
> legal, but would it be proper in terms of academic freedom?
I don't think that BU (or anybody) has to give any reason for not
communicating with another site. If they were polite, I think it would
be phrased more along the lines "Please don't make such material available
to connections originating at ." If they don't receive cooperation
from your end (which you don't have to give), then they can severe their
links to preserve what ever they are trying to preserve. Your freedom to
talk doesn't require them to listen.
> Why should the information provider be required to stop an information
> requester from (maybe) violating the rules of NSFNet?
Stephen Wolff has stated that there's no attractive nuisance statute on
the NSFNET. So in general the IP isn't required to do so. But such an IP
may find the number of sites with which he can communicate dwindling. Much
like "900" numbers are blocked from many school phones, network administrators
will find it easier to block all attempts to communicate with such a site
rather than trying to control their users. An IP that wants the widest
accessibility for its information will need to meet the largest set of network
policies possible.
However some IP's may be more valuable to the network than the network to
the IP. For example the Library of Congress and the Vatican Library have
some of the largest collections of erotic literature in the world. I would
imagine a network administrator would suffer severe bodily damage from angry
clients if they attempted to block access to those places just because they had
erotic material in an FTP area.
> 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).
There is an escape clause in the AUP. NSF may rule anything to be
incompatible with the purposes of the NSFNET. "Uses" means whatever
they want it to mean.
From the NSFNET AUP:
> (3) The NSF NSFNET Project Office may at any time make
> determinations that particular uses are or are not
> consistent with the purposes of NSFNET. Such determinations
> will be reported to the NSFNET Policy Advisory Committee
> and to the user community.
However I know of no such determinations ever being reported to the user
community. So far all the actions have been taken "voluntarily" by the
individual sites.
--
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: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <1992Jan6.204341.5096@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 20:43:41 GMT
In article <1992Jan5.144430.23171@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton) writes:
>What, if any, effect did the decision have that held Compuserve
>not liable for the contents of the newsletter defaming some other
>individual have on the rest of the industry? Is this a signal from
>the court that they are ready to treat online systems as common
>carriers, or grant some other protections such as a library or
>bookstore or whatever might have? What is the state of sysop
>liability?
The following is an editorial that will appear in the next issue of
EFFector Online:
THE COMPUSERVE CASE:
A STEP FORWARD IN FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR ONLINE SERVICES.
By Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org)
By now you may have heard about the summary-judgment decision in Cubby,
Inc. v. CompuServe, a libel case. What you may not know is why the
decision is such an important one. By holding that only if CompuServe
had "actual knowledge" of the defamation would it be liable, the court
in this case correctly analyzed the First Amendment needs of most online
services. And because it's the first decision to deal directly with
these issues, this case may turn out to be a model for future decisions
in other courts.
The full name of the case, which was decided in the Southern District
of New York, is Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe. Basically, CompuServe
contracted with a third party for that user to conduct a special-interest
forum on CompuServe. The plaintiff claimed that defamatory material
about its business was posted a user in that forum, and sued both the
forum host and CompuServe. CompuServe moved for, and received, summary
judgment in its favor.
Judge Leisure held in his opinion that CompuServe is less like a
publisher than like a bookstore owner or book distributor. First
Amendment law allows publishers to be liable for defamation, but
not bookstore owners, because holding the latter liable would create
a burden on bookstore owners to review every book they carry for
defamatory material. This burden would "chill" the distribution of
books (not to mention causing some people to get out of the bookstore
business) and thus would come into serious conflict with the First
Amendment.
So, although we often talk about BBSs as having the rights of
publishers and publications, this case hits on an important
distinction. How are publishers different from bookstore owners?
Because we expect a publisher (or its agents) to review everything
prior to publication. But we *don't* expect bookstore owners to
review everything prior to sale. Similarly, in the CompuServe case,
as in any case involving an online service in which users freely post
messages for the public (this excludes Prodigy), we wouldn't expect
the online-communications service provider to read everything posted
*before* allowing it to appear.
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court case on which Judge Leisure
relies is Smith v. California--an obscenity case, not a defamation case.
Smith is the Supreme Court case in which the notion first appears that
it is generally unconstitutional to hold bookstore owners liable for
content. So, if Smith v. California applies in a online-service or BBS
defamation case, it certainly ought to apply in an obscenity case as well.
Thus, Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe sheds light not only on defamation law
as applied in this new medium but on obscenity law as well. This
decision should do much to clarify to concerned sysops what their
obligations and liabilities are under the law.
----------
Highlights of the CompuServe decision (selected by Danny Weitzner):
"CompuServe's CIS [CS Information Service] product is in essence an
electronic, for-profit library that carries a vast number of
publications and collects usage and membership fees from its
subscribers in return for access to the publications. CompuServe
and companies like it are at the forefront of the information
industry revolution. High technology has markedly increased the
speed with which information is gathered and processed; it is now
possible for an individual with a personal computer, modem, and
telephone line to have instantaneous access to thousands of news
publications from across the United States and around the world.
While CompuServe may decline to carry a given publication altogether,
in reality, once it does decide to carry a given publication, it will
have little or no editorial control over that publication's contents.
This is especially so when CompuServe carries the publication as part
of a forum that is managed by a company unrelated to CompuServe.
"... CompuServe has no more editorial control over ... [the publication
in question] ... than does a public library, book store, or newsstand,
and it would be no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every
publication it carries for potentially defamatory statements than it
would for any other distributor to do so."
"...Given the relevant First Amendment considerations, the appropriate
standard of liability to be applied to CompuServe is whether it knew or
had reason to know of the allegedly defamatory Rumorville statements."
Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc. (90 Civ. 6571, SDNY)
--
Mike Godwin, | Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (USNR Ret.)
mnemonic@eff.org | 1906-1992
(617) 864-0665 | Requiescat in pace.
EFF, Cambridge |
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <9201071539.AA07870@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 7 Jan 92 03:39:00 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <9201071542.AA16664@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 7 Jan 92 03:42:24 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.drugs, et al.] Censorship is alive and well here.
Message-ID: <9201071753.AA10602@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 7 Jan 92 05:53:36 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <1992Jan07.061636.26835@clarinet.com>
Date: 7 Jan 92 06:16:36 GMT
I wonder why Smith v. California has had not effect on the matter of
record store owners who have been prosecuted and fined for carrying
2 live Crew albums?
Is it because:
a) Their cases haven't made it up to a court that favours this
argument.
b) The record stores were informed that they had obscene records
in stock and declined to purge them?
If the latter, this still can mean trouble when it comes to defamation.
If you have a BBS and there is material on it that somebody claims is
defamatory (or obscene for that matter) are you required to then make
an examination of it, followed by a decision to keep or remove it, and
are you then going to be liable for its content?
I guess that's not too bad, but what standards of care are they going to
apply in such cases? How do you know if something is libel or obscenity?
Are you to be forced to remove anything that is "risky" to be on the safe
side? This can have a chilling effect, too.
I guess video stores that try to carry porn in non-porn states have run into
this problem a lot. I wonder how it will apply to electronic forums.
I, of course have a strong interest here. I do read everything posted to
rec.humor.funny in advance, and filter based on value judgements of the comedy.
I also pledged not to make value judgements on the politics or obscenity,
though I do not feel so bound when it comes to defamation of non-public
figures (such stuff rarely has widespread comedy appeal anyway.)
Will one be allowed, I wonder, to have a policy such as I have? After
all, a bookstore, like me, is selective of what it stocks. Bookstores
don't stock everything and chose what is on the shelves through some sort
of value judgement -- be it quality or (more likely) propensity for sales.
As such, a good bookstore, in many people's opinion, would not refuse to
stock a controversial or offensive book if it's a good book by other standards.
Are bookstores in trouble for stocking defamatory books they have heard to
be defamatory? That they know to be defamatory?
And how will this apply to online editors such as myself?
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
-------------------
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: <9201072130.AA24772@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 7 Jan 92 09:30:03 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: earendil@iastate.edu (Master Earendil)
Subject: Censorship is alive and well here.
Message-ID: <1992Jan7.101628.29026@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 10:16:28 GMT
Our computation-center just implimented a policy the effectively censors
the groups to which this messege is posted. Negotiations are supposed to
commence later this week for a fairer policy, but most of us hold little
hope. If this post manages to get out, further details will be forthcoming.
If you think these groups are worth it, don't waste them on petty
bickering (e.g. all-faggots-must-die...).
--
D.C. Stephens -- earendil@iastate.edu -- tnfy9@isuvax.iastate.edu
If you're afraid of dying, they're devils... tearing away your life.
But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels...
freeing you from the bonds of this earth. -- the healer
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <1992Jan7.133158.20238@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 7 Jan 92 18:31:58 GMT
References: <9201071539.AA07870@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
X-Bytes: 127
If you treat CompuServe as a bookstore rather than a publisher, what
does that do to their claim of copyright on all postings?
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: danam@world.std.com (Dana Moser)
Subject: Re: [uiuc.general] Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
Message-ID:
References: <9201052109.AA10861@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 18:33:31 GMT
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <1992Jan7.191453.115@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 7 Jan 92 19:14:53 CST
References: <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org> <1992Jan7.224750.21631@eff.org>
In article <1992Jan7.224750.21631@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> But would it be proper in terms of academic freedom for BU to do this?
> I don't think so.
The type of academic freedom one enjoys within the home institution is
very different from the relationship between institutions. Academic freedom
doesn't extend beyond your own institution, UNLESS your institution has
some type of reciprocal arrangement with another institution.
The mainstays of academic freedom is the notion of tenure. But tenure
doesn't mean that you can go to a different institution and say pay me for
the rest of my career. Your tenure is only valid at that one institution.
Likewise you can't use the notion of academic freedom to justify BU maintain
a network connection when they don't want too. Your academic freedom doesn't
extend to BU. However, you could use the notion of academic freedom if
you were at BU and BU was doing this to prevent you from communicating with
your colleagues.
> Surely, only use of NSFNET can be considered "use" by the NSF.
> Otherwise, it could say "Even though John Doe doesn't use computers,
> we don't like him, and we define his enrollment at State U. as an
> improper 'use' of NSFnet. Expel him or else we will cut your
> connection."
Anytime you accept something from the government you take the risk that
they will do something like that. The IRS and Dept of Education have used
tax-exempt status and students receiving financial aid to order changes in
school policies. If the Government did make such a statement it would be
very interesting to see which was more important to the school, that student
or the NSF grants.
--
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: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <3758@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 7 Jan 92 20:20:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: aldebara.3758
References: <9201071539.AA07870@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Jan7.133158.20238@ms.uky.edu>
In article <1992Jan7.133158.20238@ms.uky.edu> jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards) writes:
>If you treat CompuServe as a bookstore rather than a publisher, what
>does that do to their claim of copyright on all postings?
CompuServe claims a 'compilation copyright' on the collection of information
online as a whole, not copyrights on individual articles or uploads.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship is alive and well here.
Message-ID: <1992Jan7.214128.4707@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <1992Jan7.101628.29026@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 21:41:28 GMT
blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>They should include this in the new users group...
>USENET is a >privilege< and NOT a right.
>A Site can restrict access to any group it wants towards it users. The alt
>groups are especially open to this policy. Only when a site refuses to pass
>along a group or groups is that an issue for the USENET community.
>
>What you have there is an internal dispute.
>
>Hey, nobody ever said the world was fair!
[...]
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading ===============
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. Access information follows.)
=================
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")
=================
jmcabstract
=================
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he traveled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" and "alt.sex" was banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (In May 1991, an advisory committee said the
ban should be lifted. In October 1991, the ban was lifted.)
(Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
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).
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom stanford.statements
send acad-freeedom jmcabstract
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
send caf-faq netnews.writing
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/jmcabstract
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
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <1992Jan7.224750.21631@eff.org>
References: <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org> <1992Jan5.003533.107@sdg.dra.com> <1992Jan5.161331.29246@eff.org> <1992Jan6.070807.109@sdg.dra.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 22:47:50 GMT
In article <1992Jan5.161331.29246@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
> 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 ultimatum would likely be
> legal, but would it be proper in terms of academic freedom?
sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>I don't think that BU (or anybody) has to give any reason for not
>communicating with another site. If they were polite, I think it would
>be phrased more along the lines "Please don't make such material available
>to connections originating at ." If they don't receive cooperation
>from your end (which you don't have to give), then they can severe their
>links to preserve what ever they are trying to preserve. Your freedom to
>talk doesn't require them to listen.
But would it be proper in terms of academic freedom for BU to do this?
I don't think so.
[...]
>There is an escape clause in the AUP. NSF may rule anything to be
>incompatible with the purposes of the NSFNET. "Uses" means whatever
>they want it to mean.
[...]
Surely, only use of NSFNET can be considered "use" by the NSF.
Otherwise, it could say "Even though John Doe doesn't use computers,
we don't like him, and we define his enrollment at State U. as an
improper 'use' of NSFnet. Expel him or else we will cut your
connection."
- 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@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: The CI$ Case
Message-ID: <9201082125.AA24107@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 8 Jan 92 09:25:03 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Boycott them! (was Re: ALT.womyn.ONLY)
Message-ID: <9201090327.AA16289@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 8 Jan 92 15:27:06 GMT
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: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 17:56:12 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199201082256.AA04796@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Jan 8 17:53:54 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:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos
sean@sdg.dra.com : Re: The USENET pornographic network
kadie@eff.org (Car : (bit.listserv.pacs-l) Libraries & Computer Centres
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.drugs, et al.) Censorship is alive and well here.
jedwards@ms.uky.ed : Re: (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Effect of the Compuserve deci
danam@world.std.co : Re: (uiuc.general) Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
schweige@taurus.cs : Re: (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Effect of the Compuserve deci
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (uiuc.general) Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: Censorship is alive and well here.
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: The USENET pornographic network
sean@sdg.dra.com : Re: The USENET pornographic network
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: The CI$ Case
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: (URGENT): ACCESS LAWS TO SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT ONLINE MAT
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: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The CI$ Case
Message-ID: <1992Jan8.183626.24959@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 18:36:26 GMT
In article <447.296A4E34@puddle.fidonet.org> Harry.Lee@p1.f202.n321.z1.fidonet.org (Harry Lee) writes:
> Can you tell us how the decision related to the third party contracted?
The case was not dismissed as to the operators of the forum or the poster
of the allegedly defamatory messages.
> I.E., if CI$ was the "bookstore", was the third party the "publisher?"
Possibly. Whether the "bookstore" or "publisher" analogy is appropriate
will vary depending on the facts of particular cases, it seems to me.
Some "moderators" do no pre-screening of messages at all. Others
prescreen all messages before allowing them to be available publicly.
Moderators of the first sort are more like bookstore owners, it seems
to me, while those of the second sort are more like (but not entirely
like) publishers.
In the CompuServe decision, the only party to win a summary judgment
dismissal (so far) has been CompuServe.
> While encouraging, it's not clear to me this is 100% protection.
What ever is?
> I have
> no third parties contracted to post stuff on my system, unless you
> consider the implicit contracts between myself and my users, and myself
> and the networks whose conferences I make available.
The reasoning of the decision does not depend on a contractual
relationship. If you run your system by allowing users to post stuff
without your pre-screening, that's the relevant consideration.
> Are CI$ posts screened before making them available to the public, or are
> they simply removed as quickly as possible if they are out of line?
The latter.
It should be noted that *post-hoc* removal of material shouldn't
affect the "bookstore" analogy, since actual bookstores often make
decisions to quit carrying a book or periodical, and these decisions
would not be seen as transforming the bookstore owner into a publisher.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"In broadcasting, freedom of the speech and of the
mnemonic@eff.org | press has been compromised.... Full, robust citizen
(617) 864-0665 | participation in a democratic forum casts only a
EFF, Cambridge | shadow on the tube." --Ithiel de Sola Pool
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [URGENT]: ACCESS LAWS TO SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT ONLINE MATERIAL
Message-ID: <1992Jan8.215233.24855@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <7JAN199223555756@cc.utah.edu> <1992Jan8.184500.25535@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 21:52:33 GMT
An aside:
Libraries in some states (like Michigan [1]) are explicitly
exempt from minor-access laws. The American Library Association works
for such exceptions.
American Library Association policy forbids libraries from limiting
access because of a patron's age. They say that access restrictions
(if any) should come only from a minor's parents
[see ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/README]
Only a few states have legal definitions of a library. Some of those
definitions might cover a BBS (and/or a Usenet site) depending on how
the BBS is run [2] [also see ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/ladenson,_alex].
Also, in the CompuServ decision the judge said "CompuServe's CIS [CS
Information Service] product is in essence an electronic, for-profit
library that carries a vast number of publications and collects usage
and membership fees from its subscribers in return for access to the
publications." [see ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv]
Referenced Books:
1. marc:
am ocm17-358690 db 01/25/89 01/25/89 --/--/-- Lincoln Lincoln
TILN0 $ab $Before and after the censor :$a resource manual on
intellectual freedom.
IMP $abc $:Michigan: :$Michigan Association for Media in
Education and Michigan Library Association,
Intellectual Freedom Committees,$1987.
COL $abc $ 160 p. :$forms ;$28 cm.
NOG $a $Bibliography: p. 149-153.
SUT L $axx $Libraries$Censorship$Handbooks, manuals, etc.
SUT L $ax $Censorship$Handbooks, manuals, etc.
SUT L $ax $Freedom of information$Handbooks, manuals, etc.
AECNA $ab $Michigan Association for Media in Education.$
Intellectual Freedom Committee.
AECNA $ab $Michigan Library Association.$Intellectual Freedom
Committee.
CAS $acd $EZF$EZF$IEH
LON $a $ocm17358690
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX= ME IN B=
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1987 DATE2= CNTY=miu ILLUS=k REPRO=
CONTENTS=bf MODRC= CAT S=d GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
am ocm10-185522 db 10/04/85 10/04/85 09/15/90 4096 Lincoln
LCDN $abcde $2$3$3$3$3
TILN0 $ac $American library laws /$Alex Ladenson, editor.
EDN $a $5th ed.
IMP $abc $Chicago :$American Library Association,$1983.
COL $ac $x, 2009 p. ;$27 cm.
NOG $a $Includes index.
SUT L $az $Library legislation$United States.
AEPSA $ad $Ladenson, Alex,$1907-
AECNA $a $American Library Association.
GAC $a $n-us---
SBN $ac $0838904009 (alk. paper) :$$$65.0
CAL $ab $KF4315$.A4 1983
DDCF $aa2 $344.73/092$347.30492$19
CAS $acd $DLC$DLC$UIU
LON $a $ocm10185522
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX=x ME IN B=
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1983 DATE2= CNTY=ilu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS= MODRC= CAT S= GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--------------------
--
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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: ALT.womyn.ONLY
Message-ID: <1992Jan8.223749.20800@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <259@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> <1991Dec27.161028.1776@risky.ecs.umass.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 22:37:49 GMT
If you want to associate only with folks of like sex, race, or
religion, that is your right. Please do not, however, ask others to
help you enforce your criteria.
Specially, please do not create an unmoderated newsgroup and then ask
Usenet sites to enforce a no-men-in-this-forum charter. It might very
well be illegal for public institution like a state university to
enforce such a rule. Likewise, if you create a moderated newsgroup,
please don't ask Usenet sites to restrict readership or to punish
posters who pose as females.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Boycott them! (was Re: ALT.womyn.ONLY)
Message-ID: <1992Jan8.235217.14784@rice.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 23:52:17 GMT
In article <7436@tamsun.tamu.edu> Charles Herrick writes:
>>
>> One net.person suggest that if net.bigots are ignored, then
>> maybe they will go away. I suggest a more active approach: the
>> boycott.
>>
>> That approach was tried in talk.abortion with considerable
>> success on a certain David John Rasmussen, who would spout an enormous
>> volume of hysterical posts denouncing abortion
>> DJR was deprived of net.access last fall, and the boycott
>> message stopped appearing when DJR's postings stopped.
>>
>> Any comments?
>
>While I'd prefer that in our culture, women retain the choice to abort or not
>to abort (as long as I don't have to pay for it), if you'd like comments...
>
>..with the sound of the First Amendment crackling and burning over an open
>fire in the background....
>
>I'm certain at least someone at sometime must have pointed out that you have
>effectively used censorship (engendering depriving someone of net access) to
>avoid having to deal with them (because you don't like what they have to say or
>how much of it they have to say).
Just hold on a minute, there. DJR's net access wasn't removed because of
the boycott. He can still read news, as far as anyone knows -- but his
posting privileges were revoked because of his actions: harassing other
posters to t.a in e-mail. I should know that much -- I received e-mail from
him November 22 (which was a copy of mail he sent to my administrators here
at Rice) declaring that if the University didn't take steps to punish me,
he'd be suing the University for "gross negligence" in allowing me to use
their equipment to post! He's threatened a number of posters in t.a with
threats of legal action, and has gone so far as to contact administrators or
bosses of some demanding that they be disciplined -- or fired, all for
posting something *he* didn't like. Ask Steve Novak at USWest, or "Bear"
Giles at the U. of Colorado, or Sondra Menthers of AT&T in New Jersey about
what DJR has tried to pull on them.
(Interestingly enough, while no one has the final confirmation on it, it
appears that his posting privileges were removed because he was using a good
seven megabytes or so of NCSU's disk space to store files relating to his
opponents in t.a -- and about one-tenth that on files relating to actual
classwork. Add to that the fact that he spent massive amounts of time
logged in, as anyone could find out by fingering his account, and it adds up
to an all-too-plausible explanation for what happened to little Davey.)
>You might want to move to Red China, where more of your ilk find themselves in
>positions of power. I know I'd be willing to contribute at least $5.00 to a
>kitty/pool to help defray your travel expenses, assuming that the trip would be
>one-way.
Why go to that trouble when he could get the same effect by visiting College
Station?
>By the way, why didn't you just cut-off the guy's testicles... I'm sure you'd
>have much preferred this alternative.
>
>By the way, just who is "them?" Are you sure you're not included in this group?
>
> Chuck Herrick
Do us all a big favor and *look* before you leap next time, eh?
--
Patrick L. Humphrey (patrick@is.rice.edu) Rice Networking & Computing Systems
+1 713 527-4989 at Rice. 713 981-5952 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <9201100345.AA04885@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 9 Jan 92 15:45:37 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <1992Jan9.170510.4332@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 17:05:10 GMT
In article <721.296C08CB@puddle.fidonet.org> Harry.Lee@p1.f202.n321.z1.fidonet.org (Harry Lee) writes:
>Mike Godwin of (1:105/42), on writes:
>
> MG> But the sites that carry rec.humor.funny *should* be
> MG> protected under
> MG> the reasoning of the CompuServe decision, since they do not
> MG> make editorial
> MG> judgments about postings within the newsgroup--they merely
> MG> make it
> MG> available, much as bookstore owners make books available.
>
> By implication, are you saying that if you do make editorial judgements by
> killing some messages on your own, you are INCREASING your liability?
Not at all. Bookstore owners that choose to cease carrying a book
or periodical don't sacrifice their First Amendment immunity by
doing so.
A key factual issue is whether the material in question has been
*prescreened* prior to being made publicly available. CompuServe
does not prescreen public postings, although they may remove an
obscene or defamatory posting if there's a complaint. Prodigy, in
contrast, prescreens all public messages prior to posting.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"In broadcasting, freedom of the speech and of the
mnemonic@eff.org | press has been compromised.... Full, robust citizen
(617) 864-0665 | participation in a democratic forum casts only a
EFF, Cambridge | shadow on the tube." --Ithiel de Sola Pool
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: RWED@corral.uwyo.edu (Robert Wedlock)
Subject: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200*@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 92 01:38:00 GMT
Hello... this is Surfdog/Zonker
I wanted to tell all the operators about what happened to IRC here
at the University of Wyoming, to show what a can of worms it might
potentially be. You probably want to make real sure that the admins
of the computers it will be used on know exactly what it is.
Anyway... Wyoming has 1 university here in Laramie. However the 7
community colleges located about the state have direct access to
our network (129.72). And hence they get accounts on our main
computer.. a cluster of 2 VAX 8800's running VMS5.4-2. By virtue
of being a student at a college in Wyoming you are granted a VMS
account. It was on this cluster (outlaw/posse) that I compiled a
client for VMS and gave people easy access to. Then, on another
ultrix system (master) I installed a server. Master is a computer
on which grad students & students with projects may use. Anyway
root@master got a few complaints about IRC. Over 20 people at
the University of Wyoming were dis-usered. (people who "system" knew
used IRC. (system is like root for a VMS machine) In order to get thier
accounts back, they must remove all traces of IRC from thier directories
and agree to refrain from IRC-related activities while on the cluster.
After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster) account was reinabled
and I was told 2 hours later it would be searched for IRC files. If
any were ever found again, I would be disusered without hope for
reinstatement. I dont know whats going to happen to the ultrix account.
I have to attend a meeting to discuss things about it. MAster has been
down all day, so I dont know... anyway.. The consultant I talked to about
it said that "IRC was like a disease, you'd get someone an account and
minutes later she'd see the files in their directory". I feel really bad
about having a hand in so many people losing their accounts :(
I send a CC of the letter I wrote to my admin about removing IRC to
operlist so you can see...
Learn from my experience... be very careful what you do with your
access to computers.. that can really get you in trouble..
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.irc-operlist] IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <199201101353.AA07207@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 10 Jan 92 03:53:21 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.irc-operlist] Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <199201101353.AA07277@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 10 Jan 92 03:53:43 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.irc-operlist] Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <199201101401.AA07446@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 10 Jan 92 04:01:18 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.irc-operlist] Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <199201101511.AA08759@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 10 Jan 92 05:11:03 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: tami@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <9201100548.AA28230@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 92 05:48:52 GMT
>Hello... this is Surfdog/Zonker
>
> I wanted to tell all the operators about what happened to IRC here
> at the University of Wyoming, to show what a can of worms it might
> potentially be. You probably want to make real sure that the admins
> of the computers it will be used on know exactly what it is.
>
This is really sad.
Please remember you are not a bad person for using irc. IRC is not evil.
Please don't let this one experience with really paranoid and close-minded
power-mongers make you one of them. Open systems run by reasonable and
fair-minded people do exist. Hang in there. This, too shall pass.
Tami
tami@gnu.ai.mit.edu
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <9201101929.AA19291@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 10 Jan 92 07:29:07 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: Harry.Lee@p1.f202.n321.z1.fidonet.org (Harry Lee)
Subject: Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <1025.296DB5A6@puddle.fidonet.org>
Date: 10 Jan 92 07:30:49 GMT
Mike Godwin of (1:105/42), on writes:
> By implication, are you saying that if you do make editorial judgements by
> killing some messages on your own, you are INCREASING your liability?
MG> A key factual issue is whether the material in question has
MG> been
MG> *prescreened* prior to being made publicly available.
MG> CompuServe
MG> does not prescreen public postings, although they may remove
MG> an
MG> obscene or defamatory posting if there's a complaint.
MG> Prodigy, in
MG> contrast, prescreens all public messages prior to posting.
I wasn't clear. Consider the following two situations: let's say I get
what you call rec.funny (?) or what we would call Humor. Let's assume that
in the main, these conferences don't violate prevailing community standards.
However, perhaps 1% of the traffic is questionable. You seem to be saying
that if I post-screen, my liability is small. But in the other case, if I
pre-screen, and I let something through that does violate prevailing
community standards, would my liability be greater?
I hope I don't seem pedantic here.
--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!321!202.1!Harry.Lee
Internet: Harry.Lee@p1.f202.n321.z1.fidonet.org
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <199201101800.AA13167@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
References: <9201101641.AA05345@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 10 Jan 92 08:00:56 GMT
In open email chelsea@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU writes
> As long at the university is paying for the network services, paying
> for the equipment, paying for the people to maintain and operate the
> equipment, etc, then they can do WHATEVER they like. The equipment is
> private owned.
Like any organization, a public university must work within its
charter and rules. For state university, this includes the U.S.
Constitution, the state constitution, and the rules set down in the
university's Student Code. These documents constrain the university
and its agents. Specifically, they prohibit unreasonable searches and
they require some due process.
[see ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional and
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/constraints.contractual and
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/README]
Beyond legal responsibilities, a university and its agents also have a
moral responsibility to respect the academic freedom of its users.
> By dragging in lawyers,
My original note made no mention of law or lawyers. The statement that
I quoted, the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students, does
not have the force of law. It does, however, have great moral force,
having been endorsed by, for example, the American Association of
University Professors, the U.S. National Student Association, and the
Association of American Colleges.
The thesis of my original note was that two actions by the University
of Wyoming's were *morally* wrong. Specially, it was wrong for the
University to suspend users from the computer system before
establishing that they had done something wrong. Also, it was wrong
for the university to search user computer files without the same kind
of authorization that would be needed to search a professor's file
cabinet in University-assigned office space.
> and trying to fight this ruling,
> is feeding the growing fire of animosity towards irc. Give it up. The
> site is gone. Push your luck, and then only organizations like eff.org
> and std.com will have irc. I am sad that we lost a site as important
> as that, however, its a good example for the rest of us.
[...]
My note did not address the wisdom or propriety of prohibiting IRC.
My note did not address the wisdom or propriety of challenging
the prohibition.
--
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: [eff.mail.irc-operlist] Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <199201101802.AA13276@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 10 Jan 92 08:02:32 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <199201101912.AA15236@eff.org>
Date: 10 Jan 92 09:12:11 GMT
CD> == Chelsea Dyerman
CD> As long at the university is paying for the network services,
CD> paying for the equipment, paying for the people to maintain and
CD> operate the equipment, etc, then they can do WHATEVER they like.
CD> The equipment is private owned.
No, in many cases the equipment is owned by an agency of the state
government, as I believe UWyo is a state school.
CD> By dragging in lawyers, and trying to fight this ruling, is feeding
CD> the growing fire of anomosity towards irc. Give it up. The site is
CD> gone. Push your luck, and then only organizations like eff.org and
CD> std.com will have irc.
They came for the Jews, and I did not speak up, for I was not a Jew.
They came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, for I was not a Catholic.
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it, and I don't
think that knuckling under to heavy-handedness is the answer.
Nor is hiding and hoping they don't find out about IRC.
(I might also point out that, if "only organizations like eff.org and
std.com will have irc", it's still no tragedy; accounts on world.std.com
don't cost *that* much, and if people really want IRC, they'll be
willing to pay for it. Also, if there's money in it, it might get more
people developing for it; you might note that C News is currently being
worked on at ST&D on a contract for UUNET.)
CD> I am sad that we lost a site as important as that, however, its a
CD> good example for the rest of us. Let me try this logic: If I ran a
CD> BBS on a personal computer, and it was accessed through a public
CD> telephone system, and I paid for the bills, I would have the say so
CD> of who could and couldnt use that system. If I had a user that was
CD> problematic, I could and most certainly removbe that user. There
CD> is little difference here.
If the University has contractual or legal requirements for due process
in the revocation of computer accounts, then he and the others who lost
their accounts may very well have a case. I would be very interested in
seeing UWyo's computer use policy.
Please remember that a state university, or even a private university
that has specific contractual agreements with users of its computer
facilities, cannot be whimsical in the same way that a private person or
organization can be.
A public library can't kick people out for violating an unannounced or
unwritten rule. A bookstore can (barring violations of the civil rights
laws, not that those have too many teeth left these days).
I do not assert that the UWyoming students have a "right" to IRC, nor
that they have a "right" to computer accounts. However, if the policy
says that accounts may only be removed for certain offenses, and/or that
there is an appeals procedure, they may very well have a case.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.irc-operlist] Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <199201102256.AA21514@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 10 Jan 92 12:56:02 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <1992Jan10.141854.7702@eff.org>
Date: 10 Jan 92 14:18:54 GMT
tami@gnu.ai.mit.edu writes:
[...]
>
>This is really sad.
>Please remember you are not a bad person for using irc. IRC is not evil.
>Please don't let this one experience with really paranoid and close-minded
>power-mongers make you one of them. Open systems run by reasonable and
>fair-minded people do exist. Hang in there. This, too shall pass.
[...]
What is the U. of Wyoming policy on the status of students pending
final action? Does the U. of Wyoming have a privacy policy? The Joint
Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, the main statement of
academic freedom for U.S. students says:
"C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be
altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend
classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or
emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety
and well-being of students, faculty, or university property."
and
"B. Investigation of Student Conduct
1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied
by students and the personal possessions of students should not be
searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For
premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an
appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom
application should be made before a search is conducted. The
application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects
or information sought. The student should be present, if possible,
during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution,
the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed."
Whoever decided to "dis-user" you violated a principle of academic
freedom. Also, I believe that personal files on university's computers
(for example, files in a user's home directory) should have the same
privacy protection as personal files in university-assigned space in
an office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate
student's desk). And should not be searched without similar
authorization.
References:
The Joint Statement is available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as
file pub/academic/student.freedoms.
An unofficial Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom is available
as file pub/academic/caf-statement.
These issues are discussed in a mailing list/newsgroup described
in pub/academic/caf.
- 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: chelsea@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chelsea Dyerman)
Subject: Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <9201101641.AA05345@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 10 Jan 92 16:41:21 GMT
In response to the mail sent by Carl M. Kadie
>
> tami@gnu.ai.mit.edu writes:
>
> [...]
> >
>
> >This is really sad.
> >Please remember you are not a bad person for using irc. IRC is not evil.
> >Please don't let this one experience with really paranoid and close-minded
> >power-mongers make you one of them. Open systems run by reasonable and
> >fair-minded people do exist. Hang in there. This, too shall pass.
> [...]
>
> What is the U. of Wyoming policy on the status of students pending
> final action? Does the U. of Wyoming have a privacy policy? The Joint
> Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, the main statement of
> academic freedom for U.S. students says:
>
> "C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
> Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be
> altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend
> classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or
> emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety
> and well-being of students, faculty, or university property."
>
> and
>
> "B. Investigation of Student Conduct
> 1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied
> by students and the personal possessions of students should not be
> searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For
> premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an
> appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom
> application should be made before a search is conducted. The
> application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects
> or information sought. The student should be present, if possible,
> during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution,
> the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed."
>
> Whoever decided to "dis-user" you violated a principle of academic
> freedom. Also, I believe that personal files on university's computers
> (for example, files in a user's home directory) should have the same
> privacy protection as personal files in university-assigned space in
> an office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate
> student's desk). And should not be searched without similar
> authorization.
>
> References:
>
> The Joint Statement is available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as
> file pub/academic/student.freedoms.
>
> An unofficial Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom is available
> as file pub/academic/caf-statement.
>
> These issues are discussed in a mailing list/newsgroup described
> in pub/academic/caf.
>
> - 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.
>
As long at the university is paying for the network services, paying
for the equipment, paying for the people to maintain and operate the
equipment, etc, then they can do WHATEVER they like. The equipment is
private owned. By dragging in lawyers, and trying to fight this ruling,
is feeding the growing fire of anomosity towards irc. Give it up. The
site is gone. Push your luck, and then only organizations like eff.org
and std.com will have irc. I am sad that we lost a site as important
as that, however, its a good example for the rest of us. Let me try
this logic: If I ran a BBS on a personal computer, and it was accessed
through a public telephone system, and I paid for the bills, I would
have the say so of who could and couldnt use that system. If I had a
user that was problematic, I could and most certainly removbe that user.
There is little difference here.
* Chelsea Ashley Dyerman chelsea@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU
*
* EmailAddress: chelsea@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU
* Organization: University of California, Berkeley, CSRG
* Project/Plan: Maintain my sanity throughout the 4BSD project
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network
Message-ID: <1992Jan10.185817.14995@eff.org>
References: <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org> <1992Jan7.224750.21631@eff.org> <1992Jan7.191453.115@sdg.dra.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 18:58:17 GMT
In article <1992Jan5.161331.29246@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes (hypothetically):
> 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 ultimatum would likely be
> legal, but would it be proper in terms of academic freedom?
In article <1992Jan7.224750.21631@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
> But would it be proper in terms of academic freedom for BU to do this?
> I don't think so.
sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
[..]
>Likewise you can't use the notion of academic freedom to justify BU maintain
>a network connection when they don't want too. Your academic freedom doesn't
>extend to BU. However, you could use the notion of academic freedom if
>you were at BU and BU was doing this to prevent you from communicating with
>your colleagues.
I would hope that the respect that an academic institution gives to
freedom of expression extends beyond its own campus.
- 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: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: [eff.mail.irc-operlist] Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <1992Jan10.201914.8344@bradley.bradley.edu>
Sender: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
References: <199201101802.AA13276@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
Date: 10 Jan 92 20:19:14 GMT
As a sysadmin I have two minds about this.
1) The student should have considered whether or not an irc server
was significant load on the master machine. (That's not to say I
assume it was). If indeed it was a problem in that sense, and
he didn't ask sysadmin permission before running it, I think that
having the server removed is his/her own fault.
2) Even if the server was a significant load, I do not think the
sysadmins were justified in removing ALL irc files. I do not
think that irc clients create significant load, and unless irc
users are rudely tying up all possible terminals, there is no
gain in preventing people from running clients. Even if they
are tying up the terminals, there are better ways of dealing with
the problem than an outright ban on irc software.
Basically: don't run something "big" like a server unless you have
the agreement and hopefully cooperation of your system administrator.
But not getting permission is not justification for the wholesale
removal of any and all irc software.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads.
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kjb@cs.brown.edu (Ken Basye)
Subject: Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <98186@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 10 Jan 92 20:57:56 GMT
Sender: news@brunix.UUCP
I hate to appear naive, but can someone tell me breifly what irc is?
Thanks,
Ken
Internet/CSnet kjb@cs.brown.edu U.S. MAIL Ken Basye
UUCP uunet!brunix!kjb Box 1910
Dept. of Computer Science
Brown University
Providence, RI 02912
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <1992Jan10.124030.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 92 21:40:30 GMT
References: <98186@brunix.UUCP>
Sender: news@raven.alaska.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
In article <98186@brunix.UUCP>, kjb@cs.brown.edu (Ken Basye) writes:
>
> I hate to appear naive, but can someone tell me breifly what irc is?
> Thanks,
> Ken
>
> Internet/CSnet kjb@cs.brown.edu U.S. MAIL Ken Basye
> UUCP uunet!brunix!kjb Box 1910
> Dept. of Computer Science
> Brown University
> Providence, RI 02912
That deserves answering. It stands for Internet Relay Chat, and it's
software that allows you to chat with a bunch of people on the net
interactively. There is even a group that discusses these issues
called alt.irc. Lately, there has been a movement by sysops to ban
irc from their machines. Since most of the people affected are
teenagers and in their early twenties, it has evoked an emotional
response. It's the end of their life. === Al Sparks
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <1992Jan10.215932.19741@eff.org>
References: <98186@brunix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 21:59:32 GMT
kjb@cs.brown.edu (Ken Basye) writes:
>I hate to appear naive, but can someone tell me breifly what irc is?
>Thanks,
> Ken
It is a multiuser talk program.
- 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.
--------------------
--
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 12 08:31:59 1992
Received: by eff.org id AA21793
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Sun, 12 Jan 1992 13:32:05 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <1992Jan10.232756.22444@eff.org>
Date: 10 Jan 92 23:27:56 GMT
In article <1992Jan9.082512.9071@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>In article <1992Jan7.152637.6360@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>carries is obscene. This is how porn bookstore owners get convicted--
>>they can claim not to know a *specific* book or magazine or video
>>is obscene, but they have a pretty good idea that it is, based on the
>>general character of the product they sell.
>...
>>Online editors such as you, Brad, can't claim the kind of protection
>>CompuServe could claim in this case, since you have direct knowledge
>>of everything that is posted to rec.humor.funny. Your role is more like
>>an editor than like a bookstore owner, so your probable liability maps
>>more clearly to traditional publisher/editor law.
>
>This is interesting. I recently started carrying alt.sex.bondage on
>my BBS. I made it a request-to-join-only group and made it clear in
>the initial messages that anyone who read this ran the risk of being
>offended (by other people who were offended, if nothing else :-). It
>sounds like I might have been potentially less liable if I *hadn't*
>given any disclaimers. That seems unfortunate.
I don't see how this follows from what I posted, Kee.
First of all, I think a strong claim can be made that alt.sex.bondage
is not "obscene" as that term is understood in Constitutional law.
Secondly, it sounds very much as if your inclusion of a.s.b. on your
BBS is very different from Brad's treatment of messages on
rec.humor.funny. Brad prescreens everything posted to rec.humor.funny.
You certainly do not prescreen everything that gets posted to
a.s.b.--unless you're saying that's what you do at your BBS.
I don't see any connection between the disclaimers about "offensive"
postings and any criminal or civil liability. "Offensive" is not legally
synonymous with "obscene."
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"In broadcasting, freedom of the speech and of the
mnemonic@eff.org | press has been compromised.... Full, robust citizen
(617) 864-0665 | participation in a democratic forum casts only a
EFF, Cambridge | shadow on the tube." --Ithiel de Sola Pool
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <1992Jan10.233918.22849@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 23:39:18 GMT
In article <1025.296DB5A6@puddle.fidonet.org> Harry.Lee@p1.f202.n321.z1.fidonet.org (Harry Lee) writes:
>
> I wasn't clear. Consider the following two situations: let's say I get
> what you call rec.funny (?) or what we would call Humor. Let's assume that
> in the main, these conferences don't violate prevailing community standards.
> However, perhaps 1% of the traffic is questionable. You seem to be saying
> that if I post-screen, my liability is small. But in the other case, if I
> pre-screen, and I let something through that does violate prevailing
> community standards, would my liability be greater?
Your liability for *obscenity* would be nonexistent in either case, since
postings to rec.humor.funny are not "obscene" as that term is defined in
Constitutional law.
Moreover, "community standards" are relevant only in obscenity
cases, not in defamation cases.
Now if you were to prescreen everything before allowing it to be available
publicly, and one of the postings you let through was defamatory (let's
say it libelled Brad Templeton), the fact that you pre-screened all
postings would make it more likely that you'd be held liable.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"In broadcasting, freedom of the speech and of the
mnemonic@eff.org | press has been compromised.... Full, robust citizen
(617) 864-0665 | participation in a democratic forum casts only a
EFF, Cambridge | shadow on the tube." --Ithiel de Sola Pool
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <9201111519.AA31178@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 11 Jan 92 03:19:52 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <9201111520.AA11485@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 11 Jan 92 03:20:08 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] UC computer searches (was Re: hackers, crackers, privacy on KQED)
Message-ID: <9201111523.AA20549@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 11 Jan 92 03:23:31 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: UC computer searches (was Re: hackers, crackers, privacy on KQED)
Message-ID: <9201111529.AA03400@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 11 Jan 92 03:29:49 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] hackers, crackers, privacy on KQED
Message-ID: <9201111604.AA31119@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: 11 Jan 92 04:04:45 GMT
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: lear@oni.sgi.com (Eliot Lear)
Subject: hackers, crackers, privacy on KQED
Message-ID: <1992Jan11.083311.25336@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 08:33:11 GMT
[Followups to comp.org.eff.talk.]
Friday morning KQED's Forum program hosted a wide ranging discussion
of hackers, crackers, computer privacy, the government's role, and
corporate America's role in balancing computer security and privacy.
Guests included Cliff Stoll, author of _The Cuckoo's Egg_; Steve
Sawyer, cohost of The Hackers' Conference on The Well; Jay Ward(?),
founder of InfoWorld; and a member of The Legion of Doom (Chris ???,
apologies if you're reading this). Credit must be given to all
participants, who conducted a thoughtful and provocative one hour
discussion. I've mixed in some of my own comments in the summary
below. Apologies for any errors or omissions (like Chris' last
name!).
Notably Steve Sawyer and Jay Ward went to great pains to stress the
difference between hacker and cracker. Though there are differences
of opinion on just how bad crackers are, most participants seemed to
agree that crackers are not the major threat to society. More often
it is the case that the white collar worker uses authorized access to
some resource for unauthorized use. I particularly liked Cliff
Stoll's characterization of a hacker, someone who just simply must
dance on the keyboard.
Cliff Stoll talked about the balance between individual privacy and
the community's interests in snooping in order to learn. Chris from
LOD also stated that members were primarily interested in the pursuit
of knowledge.
A discussion on corporate policies towards privacy revealed at least
some sort of agreement among the participants that no matter what
policy a company uses, it should publicize it to its employees and
stick to it. I believe it was Mr. Ward who mentioned that Sun
Microsystems has a very strict privacy policy against indiscriminate
snooping in others' mail files, while other institutions declare that
all employee files are property of the employer, and that there should
be no expectation of privacy.
A breaking story involving litigation between U.C. Berkeley and a
student who is undergoing disciplinary review was also briefly
mentioned. For those who are not yet aware of the case, the pertinent
information for the discussion was a court order requiring Berkeley to
search all their computers for any files containing the student's user
or login name. I am told that in this particular case, U.C. is the
defendant. According to a Berkeley student's posting, the search is
occurring pursuant to The Buckeley Amendment to the California Family
Education Rights and Privacy Act, which apparently takes precedence
over the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), as it
is believed that ECPA allows such orders.
According to a panelist, wide searches (fishing expeditions) are the
latest tactic being used by litigation firms to prove damages in cases
ranging from stock holder suits to harassment. Note that the
examples involve civil remedies. Another panelist couldn't help but
note some level of irony when those employers who claim ownership of
all files get attacked by one of these court orders. On the other
side, such searches are particularly scary in a distributed
environment, where quite literally hundreds of machines may be
involved.
To prevent such overly broad searches, a number of panelists argued
for a higher level of technical competence among law enforcement
officials and judges. Of course, a line like that could only lead to
Steve Jackson Games, in which Steve Jackson (with the help of EFF?)
is suing the government for improper use of a search warrant.
The S.266 fiasco involving ``It is the sense of Congress...'' was
discussed to some extent. This was the piece of text that would
required back doors for encryption.
Towards the end off the program, one person on the panel made the
claim that there isn't any legislation to guide law enforcement and
corporate management in setting policies. This same person then went
on to say that ``...even bad legislation would be better than none at
all, because at least we would know where we stand.'' I must
disagree, and shamelessly steal one of Erik Fair's favorite sayings
(or at least paraphrase it): ``There are two ways to kill USENET - a
nuclear war and an act of Congress.'' S.266 was a perfect example of
legislation that would have made life worse and not better. One need
not have a vivid imagination to envision the government doing more
harm than good - it happens all the time.
It was claimed that the federal government is undertaking a war on
hackers, including a disinformation campaign through the use of laws
meant to fight the war on drugs. I'd like to get more information on
what the person knows, and what evidence exists to support such a
claim. Perhaps the participants in the discussion could comment
further?
--
Eliot Lear
[lear@sgi.com]
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu (Dean Pentcheff)
Subject: UC computer searches (was Re: hackers, crackers, privacy on KQED)
Date: 11 Jan 1992 09:10:35 GMT
Message-ID:
lear@oni.sgi.com (Eliot Lear) writes:
>Friday morning KQED's Forum program hosted a wide ranging discussion
>of hackers, crackers, computer privacy, the government's role, and
>corporate America's role in balancing computer security and privacy.
>...
>A breaking story involving litigation between U.C. Berkeley and a
>student who is undergoing disciplinary review was also briefly
>mentioned. For those who are not yet aware of the case, the pertinent
>information for the discussion was a court order requiring Berkeley to
>search all their computers for any files containing the student's user
>or login name. I am told that in this particular case, U.C. is the
>defendant...
Attached are the summaries I've posted thus far on what's going on
in this case. As I mention in the summaries - if you're interested in
receiving any other summaries, send me email and I'll add you to the
mailing list.
-Dean
--
Dean Pentcheff (Internet: dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu)
Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
Work Phone: (510) 643-9048 Home Phone: (510) 839-1790 Fax: (510) 643-6264
==================================
Jan 6, 1991
To those interested in the search of files on UC Berkeley's computers:
Now that I've returned from the holiday, I've made a few inquiries
regarding this incident. To recap, the following "news" item appeared
on our mainframes:
We were recently required by order of the Alameda County Superior Court
to search files on Garnet and Violet that may contain a particular
individual's name within the file. We are complying with that court
order.
We think it is important to alert you that files on the shared systems,
or even on personal workstations or microcomputers, are subject to
search, and even seizure, by court order.
Curtis Hardyck, Vice Provost
A number of mail messages arrived in my mailbox suggesting that this
search may not be legal within the bounds of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act. Basically, it appears that if there are
"electronic communications" stored on those mainframes (which there
certainly are), a court order to search them in bulk is not
specific enough. The analogy is that it would not be legal to search
all paper files in a building to find an incriminating document: the
warrant has to specify the specific people whose files are to be
searched, which files to be searched, and show probable cause of a
crime.
The current status of the case appears to be as follows:
1. The family of a student who is undergoing disciplinary action for
allegedly breaking into some computers is suing the university.
2. The family has requested that all "student records" concerning the
student which exist on two of our mainframes be turned over to the
court. These records have been defined as any record that names him
(based on his four- or five-letter login ID).
3. The university has complied with the court order to search all
files on the mainframes. They have located (surprise, surprise)
numerous files that include the login's letter sequence.
4. Tomorrow (Tuesday, Jan. 7) the university lawyers are going to go
to court to try to fight further execution of the order, on the
grounds that doing so would require printing out all of those files
(about 11 million lines) and examining them by eye. Thus they are
contesting on the grounds of undue burden, not privacy violation.
I have contacted the Vice Provost involved in the case and apprised
him of the interest we have. He has promised to keep me up to date on
developments.
Interested though I am in the case (and since I keep files on these
computers, I do suspect that I may have been illegally searched), I'm
not in a position to pursue legal action now. I'm in the last couple
of months of my Ph.D. here - if I were to get legally involved in
this, my professor would ensure that they were my last couple of
months, period.
If you're interested in being kept up to date on this "affair", let me
know with some return email (so I don't pester all of you with
updates).
-Dean
P.S. Just got a call from a San Jose paper (seems that they have a
reporter who reads comp.risks!). They're pursuing the story at the
university. Remind me to check my appointment calendar for the next
month before I post to comp.risks again...
===========================================
Wed Jan 8 15:17:03 PST 1992
To those concerned with the court-ordered search of files on University
of California computers:
Yesterday (Tuesday, Jan 7) there was a court hearing at which UC's
lawyers tried to convince the judge that UC should not have to do any
further search since that would impose an undue burden on the
university. The judge ruled that the university does indeed have to
search all files on two mainframes for all university records relevant
to a particular student (the plaintiff in the lawsuit).
At this stage, a grep/awk search of all files has been done. Computer
Services now has a list of the names of all files which contain the
target string (which is either the login ID or actual name of the
student in question, I'm not sure which [or both?]). It's unclear what
will happen next. Computer Services is well aware that they may have
located files which contain the string(s) accidentally, are otherwise
irrelevant to the case, or which contain lots of other irrelevant
information (e.g. mailbox files with dozens of letters, only one of
which may be relevant). They are waiting for the court to tell them
what to do next. Presumably this could range anywhere from turning
over copies of all the files to the court, through hand searching the
files for relevance, or further filtering the search on the basis of
file ownership, etc.
The University lawyers took a brief look at the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, but decided that it wasn't applicable.
[WARNING * WARNING: the following remarks are my non-lawyer's
interpretation of the non-lawer's interpretation in Computing Services
of the lawyer's interpretation. Don't take what I say here too
seriously!] Evidently there is a clause in the ECPA which states that
if there are other statutes which could require searching of files,
those statutes take precedence. In this case, there is the Buckley
amendment to the California Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
which states that any student has the right to access all university
maintained records regarding that student. The court's interpretation
is that the two mainframes are maintained by the university, hence any
and all files on them constitute "university maintained records" and
are subject to search.
Most of the above information comes from a chat I had with George
Lavender in Computing Services. Clearly, he is in the position of
having to comply with the court order. He is, however, aware of what
he's doing and is trying his best to minimize intrusion into files.
resolution of this conflict. This sort of competition between the
right of students/anyone to records on them vs. the right of privacy
of file owners is quite likely to arise again. Quite apart from legal
qualms, the folks at Compting Services have better things to do with
their time than bulk searches of files, so they'd be quite happy to
see some resolution.
Stay tuned for the next exciting installment of Searchout at the UC
Corral.
-Dean
--
Dean Pentcheff (Internet: dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu)
Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
Work Phone: (510) 643-9048 Home Phone: (510) 839-1790 Fax: (510) 643-6264
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: lear@oni.sgi.com (Eliot Lear)
Subject: Re: UC computer searches (was Re: hackers, crackers, privacy on KQED)
Message-ID: <1992Jan11.101118.26624@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 10:11:18 GMT
I'd like to make one minor note about my previous posting. Dean
Pentcheff was the student to whom I referred. I omitted his name
initially because I was uncertain how widely he would have wanted it
distributed. His postings were quite informative.
--
Eliot Lear
[lear@sgi.com]
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: cavrak@uvm-gen.UUCP (Steve Cavrak)
Subject: Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <1992Jan11.115233.15956@uvm.edu>
Originator: cavrak@griffin
Sender: news@uvm.edu
References: <1992Jan10.124030.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 11:52:33 GMT
That deserves answering. It stands for Internet Relay Chat,
and it's software that allows you to chat with a bunch of
people on the net interactively. There is even a group that
discusses these issues called alt.irc. Lately, there has been
a movement by sysops to ban irc from their machines. Since
most of the people affected are teenagers and in their early
twenties, it has evoked an emotional response. It's the end
of their life. === Al Sparks
This is an interesting phenomenon - in the wyoming case and on several
other systems around here - chatting was installed by students (read
users), supported by students (note that the computer center did not
advertise the service, instruct folks on how to use it, and probably
did not get any complaints about it -- until they turned it off!).
What is depressing about this is not that the computer folk at the U
of Wyoming turned it off (without an open discussion of the issues -
explaining why they didn't like it, opening some avenues of challenge,
etc). This is just the way you expect bureaucrats to "solve" problems.
What is depressing is that the all of those students who were just
chatting together one day went "poof" and vanished -- no outcry,
no "user group meeting", no demand for a meeting with the computer
center administration, no demand for due process, etc.
Whether or not IRC is a good or bad thing is irrelevant -- if it is a
good thing, eventually it will be commercialized (maybe students will
even build their own computer center), if it is a bad thing, it will
be a passing fad, like CB radio. (Which has probably been replaced
by cellular phones.) It is sad, however, to find a computer center
so ready to "crack down" on users with so little contact with them
before hand.
Oh well
Steve
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: RE: [clari.news.law.supreme, et al.] Court to reconsider if towns
Message-ID: <199201112154.AA21634@eff.org>
Sender: kadie
Date: 11 Jan 92 11:54:51 GMT
I accidently posted a news story from the Clarinet newswire service.
I've cancelled my Netnews post. If you got it via the mailing list
please ignore it.
Thanks,
Carl
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
Message-ID: <1992Jan11.145416.15000@eff.org>
References: <1992Jan10.124030.1@acad3.alaska.edu> <1992Jan11.115233.15956@uvm.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 14:54:16 GMT
cavrak@uvm-gen.UUCP (Steve Cavrak) writes:
[...]
>This is an interesting phenomenon - in the wyoming case and on several
>other systems around here - chatting was installed by students (read
>users), supported by students (note that the computer center did not
>advertise the service, instruct folks on how to use it, and probably
>did not get any complaints about it -- until they turned it off!).
>What is depressing about this is not that the computer folk at the U
>of Wyoming turned it off (without an open discussion of the issues -
>explaining why they didn't like it, opening some avenues of challenge,
>etc). This is just the way you expect bureaucrats to "solve" problems.
[...]
Policy at a university should be forumlated and enforced with the
participation of faculty and students. As the Joint Statement says
"The institution has an obligation to clarify those standards of
behavior which it considers essential to its educational mission and
its community life. These general behavioral expectations and the
resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable
regulation of student conduct, but the student should be as free as
possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his
education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and
interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles
of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be
instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with
significant student participation and published in advance through
such means as a student handbook or a generally available body of
institutional regulations."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]
- 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: UC computer searches (was Re: hackers, crackers, privacy on KQED)
Message-ID: <1992Jan11.160321.6798@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
References: <1992Jan11.083311.25336@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 16:03:21 GMT
dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu (Dean Pentcheff) writes:
[...]
>The University lawyers took a brief look at the Electronic
>Communications Privacy Act, but decided that it wasn't applicable.
>[WARNING * WARNING: the following remarks are my non-lawyer's
>interpretation of the non-lawer's interpretation in Computing Services
>of the lawyer's interpretation. Don't take what I say here too
>seriously!] Evidently there is a clause in the ECPA which states that
>if there are other statutes which could require searching of files,
>those statutes take precedence. In this case, there is the Buckley
>amendment to the California Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
>which states that any student has the right to access all university
>maintained records regarding that student. The court's interpretation
>is that the two mainframes are maintained by the university, hence any
>and all files on them constitute "university maintained records" and
>are subject to search.
[...]
I wonder if the he or she would also say that the file of papers in
your desk is a "university maintained record", after all the university
owns our office, your desk, and file holders in your desk.
According to the ACLU handbook _Your Right to Privacy_, by Evan
Hendricks, et al, 2nd edition, chapter 8:
"Each school subject to the [Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act, aka FERPA aka Federal Buckley Amendment] must make available to
parents and students, on request, a listing of the types and locations
of the personal records systems it maintains, together with the titles
and address of the officials responsible for each system of records
[20 U.S.C. $$ 1232g. (e); 45 C.F.R. $$ 99.5.]
Does UC do this?
Also:
"[Q:] Do students and their parents have the right to see all of their
records?
[A:] No. Some records my be withheld. FERPA rights of access do not
cover so-called 'desk-drawer notes,' the informal notes about students
kept by teachers and other school personnel solely for their own use,
as long as these are not accessible or revealed to any other person
except an official substitute teacher or administer."
And according to the ACLU handbook _The Rights to Students_ by
Janet R. Price, et al., 3rd edition, chapter 11:
"[Q:] What can be done about improper or inaccurate entries in a
student's record?
"[A:] [...] Under the Buckley amendment, if, upon checking your
records, you find that they contain material that you believe is
inaccurate or unfair, you have a right to meet informally with school
officials to ask them to change the records. If they refuse, you have a
right to a formal hearing, to be held within a reasonable time before
an impartial hearing officer, at which you must have a full opportunity
to present you side of the story. The decision, in writing, must also
be rendered within a reasonable time."
So, I can have your email files searched and then challenge what I
don't like in them?
What about your rights under Buckley for confidentiality of "your
records"?
Illinois's Freedom of Information Act has similar wording, but
according to the University officer in charge of FOIA, a student's own
computer files are likely not subject to a FOIA request from an
outsider.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: ALT.womyn.ONLY
Message-ID: <1992Jan12.025341.4239@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 12 Jan 92 02:53:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1992Jan12.025341.4239
References: <1991Dec27.161028.1776@risky.ecs.umass.edu> <1992Jan8.223749.20800@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
In article <1992Jan8.223749.20800@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>If you want to associate only with folks of like sex, race, or
>religion, that is your right. Please do not, however, ask others to
>help you enforce your criteria.
>
>Specially, please do not create an unmoderated newsgroup and then ask
>Usenet sites to enforce a no-men-in-this-forum charter. It might very
>well be illegal for public institution like a state university to
>enforce such a rule. Likewise, if you create a moderated newsgroup,
>please don't ask Usenet sites to restrict readership or to punish
>posters who pose as females.
Most importantly, don't create an ALT group and expect ANYTHING to be enforced.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Subject: Re: [uiuc.general] Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
Message-ID:
Date: 12 Jan 92 05:02:50 GMT
References: <9201052109.AA10861@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <5JAN199217104105@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine
In article <5JAN199217104105@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> dmittleman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Daniel David Mittleman) writes:
>In article <9201052109.AA10861@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes...
>>
>>The internet is scanned by some security agency (FBI?) for key words.
>>
>>John Holm
>
> Is this true?
Well, it's impossible to say if it's true or not, since if it were
happening the spies wouldn't be advertising their activities (obviously).
However, it is common knowledge (i.e. legend) that the FBI receives
usenet via tape. Whether this is so they can spy on the net or
just so they can have their own net access is unknown.
I *can* tell you this: there are actual chips that can scan for
keywords, so someone somewhere is obviously scanning a LOT of traffic
somewhere. My guess is that it's the NSA.
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, falk@sun.com
terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode,
NSA, CIA, NRO, SDI, communist, proletariat.
-------------------
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: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 13:30:42 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199201121830.AA21484@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Jan 12 13:30:05 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:
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: ALT.womyn.ONLY
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (alt.censorship) Re: Boycott them! (was Re: ALT.womyn.ONLY
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.irc-operlist) IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.irc-operlist) Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.irc-operlist) Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.irc-operlist) Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
kadie@eff.org (Car : IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.irc-operlist) Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: The USENET pornographic network
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
pwh@bradley.bradle : Re: (eff.mail.irc-operlist) Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming
kjb@cs.brown.edu ( : Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
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: 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: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 13:31:59 -0500
X-Digest-Sender: "Helen C. O'Boyle"
Message-Id: <199201121831.AA21778@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Jan 12 13:31:21 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:
fsars@acad3.alaska : Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
kadie@eff.org (Car : (eff.mail.irc-operlist) Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
cavrak@uvm-gen.UUC : Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming...
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) UC computer searches (was Re: hackers,
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk) Re: UC computer searches (was Re: hack
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu : (comp.org.eff.talk, et al.) hackers, crackers, privacy on
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.ed : Re: UC computer searches (was Re: hackers, crackers, priv
kadie@eff.org (Car : RE: (clari.news.law.supreme, et al.) Court to reconsider
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: ALT.womyn.ONLY
falk@peregrine.Sun : Re: (uiuc.general) Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail
kadie@eff.org (Car : Longterm forecast on NSFnet acceptable use policy
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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Longterm forecast on NSFnet acceptable use policy
Message-ID: <1992Jan12.154326.19109@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 15:43:26 GMT
A short excerpt from an article in the Houston Chronicle by Joe Abernathy
about NSFNet acceptable use policy (especially, commerical use):
Quoting Stephen Wolff, who over sees the Internet for NSF:
--------------------start-----------------------------------
"I've been working toward a consistent set of policies and a
consistent set of goals for five years," he said. "We know where we
want to be. We want to get out of the business. As soon as the
government stops funding the suppliers of networking and begins
funding the users of net working, it's the users who become
responsible for appropriate use."
--------------------end-------------------------------------
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
--------------------
--
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 Thu Dec 19 03:29:56 1991
Received: by eff.org id AA14521
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafb-list@eff.org); Thu, 19 Dec 1991 08:30:02 -0500
From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991
From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley)
Subject: Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision
Message-ID: <1992Jan12.193556.3818@alphalpha.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 19:35:56 GMT
In article <1992Jan10.232756.22444@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Jan9.082512.9071@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>Secondly, it sounds very much as if your inclusion of a.s.b. on your
>BBS is very different from Brad's treatment of messages on
>rec.humor.funny. Brad prescreens everything posted to rec.humor.funny.
>You certainly do not prescreen everything that gets posted to
>a.s.b.--unless you're saying that's what you do at your BBS.
>
>I don't see any connection between the disclaimers about "offensive"
>postings and any criminal or civil liability. "Offensive" is not legally
>synonymous with "obscene."
No, I definitely don't prescreen. I guess I'm more concerned with the
case of the adult bookshops, where the claim is made that they had good
reason to know that what was in the books was obscene. But I extrapolating
that to carrying BBS is probably too extreme... at least this year.
--
Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere
617/497-2922 | info@alfalfa.com
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
-------------------
