From caf-talk Caf Feb 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu)
Subject: umask & culpability
Message-ID: <9202102257.AA20024@crocus.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 92 12:57:37 GMT
While chatting with my TA earlier today, I learned that I may be in
potential violation of Cornell's Code of Academic Integrity by
having added "umask 022" to my .login file. For those who may not
speak UNIX, that's the command which lets everyone in the world
read and execute, although not modify, my files.
According to him, by leaving class files unprotected, allowing anyone
to walk in and peruse my solutions to programming assignments, I
could potentially be considered to be providing solutions to the
assignments, particularly since I've done it "knowingly" by changing
the protection myself.
Note that all of this is for a class in which "help" and "consultation"
has been expressly NOT forbidden. However, copying someone's code
would certainly violate academic integrity, as it should.
What are people's reactions to this? Is this sort of policy actually
stated in any school's honor code or code of academic integrity? (I
plan to pick up a copy of Cornell's tomorrow). Most importantly,
has anyone ever been disciplined under this sort of reasoning?
This "suggestion" (and it was really only a suggestion) didn't bother
me too much. I happily complied by changing the permissions on my
classwork directory while leaving my non-coursework files readable.
----
Eric Scheirer -- Cornell U. -- (607) 253-2431 -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
"Small change can often be found under sofa cushions." -- Lazarus Long
From caf-talk Caf Feb 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: umask & culpability
Message-ID: <1992Feb11.015106.22623@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 01:51:06 GMT
In article <9202102257.AA20024@crocus.cit.cornell.edu> escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu) writes:
>
>According to him, by leaving class files unprotected, allowing anyone
>to walk in and peruse my solutions to programming assignments, I
>could potentially be considered to be providing solutions to the
>assignments, particularly since I've done it "knowingly" by changing
>the protection myself.
>
>Note that all of this is for a class in which "help" and "consultation"
>has been expressly NOT forbidden. However, copying someone's code
>would certainly violate academic integrity, as it should.
>What are people's reactions to this? Is this sort of policy actually
>stated in any school's honor code or code of academic integrity? (I
>plan to pick up a copy of Cornell's tomorrow). Most importantly,
>has anyone ever been disciplined under this sort of reasoning?
Doing this could concievably fall under the 'facilitating academic dishonesty'
provisions at UMCP. Definition is 'intentionally or knowingly helping or
attempting to help another to commit an act of academic dishonesty'.
Obviously, this would fall squarely in a grey area. :-)
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Feb11.080542.20333@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 08:05:42 GMT
In article jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
>kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> So what's wrong with suppressing offensive speech? Here is John Stuart
>> Mill's answer.
>...which is fairly irrelevant because no one at CMU was arguing to
>suppress speech that was merely offensive. The issue is about
>suppressing speech that is intimidating, harassing, or sexually
>harassing. Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a
>crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm.
As I recall, the *actual* quote is *falsely* shouting Fire! in a crowded
theater *AND CAUSING A PANIC.*
i.e. It's the causing a panic which can be punished, *not* the shouting.
More importantly, what harm can they "be shown to do"?
The replies to Jefferson's messages certainly seemed intimidating and
harassing to me. Does that mean that the people who sent it are guilty too?
What exactly is the difference between offensive, intimidating, and harassing?
--
David M. Nieporent niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu
Orioles 1992 World Series Champs!!! Cal Ripken Jr -- 1992 AL MVP!!!
ALEast 92:1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto 4.Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Less likely to need Ultra Slim Fast than Cecil Fielder"
From caf-talk Caf Feb 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: pdh@netcom.COM (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: Re: umask & culpability
Message-ID: <1992Feb12.013327.3257pdh@netcom.COM>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 01:33:27 GMT
escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu) writes:
>While chatting with my TA earlier today, I learned that I may be in
>potential violation of Cornell's Code of Academic Integrity by
>having added "umask 022" to my .login file. For those who may not
>speak UNIX, that's the command which lets everyone in the world
>read and execute, although not modify, my files.
This is sort of like leaving the lock on a door in the unlocked state
as a routine action.
>According to him, by leaving class files unprotected, allowing anyone
>to walk in and peruse my solutions to programming assignments, I
>could potentially be considered to be providing solutions to the
>assignments, particularly since I've done it "knowingly" by changing
>the protection myself.
If you left written things in the unlocked room, would that be considered
the same thing?
>Note that all of this is for a class in which "help" and "consultation"
>has been expressly NOT forbidden. However, copying someone's code
>would certainly violate academic integrity, as it should.
Agreed!
>What are people's reactions to this? Is this sort of policy actually
>stated in any school's honor code or code of academic integrity? (I
>plan to pick up a copy of Cornell's tomorrow). Most importantly,
>has anyone ever been disciplined under this sort of reasoning?
It depends.
Consider the unlocked room and compare it to your "unprotected" home
file tree.
Do you actually tell people the room is unlocked?
Do you tell people there are certain things (not the class work)
that are worth looking at in the unlocked room?
>This "suggestion" (and it was really only a suggestion) didn't bother
>me too much. I happily complied by changing the permissions on my
>classwork directory while leaving my non-coursework files readable.
Seems to be the reasonable approach. I would have considered it
acceptable to merely put the classword in a separate directory, that
being equivalent to putting your classword in a drawer in the unlocked
room (no lock on drawer).
I consider locks (and the permission bits in UNIX filesystems) to be
the thing to use WHEN I DO NOT TRUST PEOPLE. However I do not think it
should be someone else's place to tell you who to trust and who not to
trust.
On the other hand, you may be accepting certain terms as part of your
agreement to get what you have (a room, an account).
--
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com | "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
From caf-talk Caf Feb 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: pdh@netcom.COM (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: program plagrism, a story -- Was: umask & culpability
Message-ID: <1992Feb12.015726.6006pdh@netcom.COM>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 01:57:26 GMT
Circa 1974, a friend of mine asked me if it was possible to compute all
the ways for 8 queens to be layed out on a chess board with none ready
to attack another in 1 move. I had no doubt it could be done, so I
went off to do it. I did this on a PDP-8 mini using the FOCAL language.
It took about 3 hours to work it out, and I even had it drawing the
steps of the iterations on a CRT terminal in the form of a chess board
as it went along. I proved to my friend that it could be done by
showing it to him. He proceeded to develop the program on his own
in Fortran for a class he was in. This very problem had been assigned
to the Fortran class using a batch/card input to an IBM system.
Considering the work I had put into the program, including recursion
simulation, I saved it on the disk space on the PDP-8, which has an
amazing total of 32K of space (not sure now if that was words or bytes).
The PDP-8 was in the Chemistry department but there were some terminals
(ASR-33's) around campus that connected to it.
A couple days later my friend told me he had peeked at some other people's
program on the output table after his was done, and noticed that many of
them looked alike, so I took a look as well. Not only did many of them
look alike, but they looked like MINE, including a couple of them that
used exactly the same variable names I had used (though now with Fortran
versions of the statements).
I knew the instructor of the Fortran class. I printed out my FOCAL
version and told him the date on which I saved it on the PDP-8. There
was no security at all on the PDP-8; not even userids. I took it to
him and told him that I had looked at some of the output and thought
he should consider closely examining handed in assignments with respect
to the possibility of plagarism.
The question of whether or not I had erred in making the program "publicly
available" on the PDP-8 had never been an issue.
He later told me he found that 5 students had handed in programs in which
the logic was exactly identical to mine. He said he asked them to talk
about the logic of their program and none was able to do so. He decided
to give D's to the ones that changed the variable names and F's to the
ones that had not, for that assignment.
--
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com | "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
From caf-talk Caf Feb 12 00:00:00 1992
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: umask & culpability
Message-ID: <1992Feb12.140210.10645@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 12 Feb 92 14:02:10 GMT
In <9202102257.AA20024@crocus.cit.cornell.edu> escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu) writes:
>While chatting with my TA earlier today, I learned that I may be in
>potential violation of Cornell's Code of Academic Integrity by
>having added "umask 022" to my .login file. For those who may not
>speak UNIX, that's the command which lets everyone in the world
>read and execute, although not modify, my files.
[stuff deleted]
>What are people's reactions to this? Is this sort of policy actually
>stated in any school's honor code or code of academic integrity? (I
>plan to pick up a copy of Cornell's tomorrow). Most importantly,
>has anyone ever been disciplined under this sort of reasoning?
Wow. I thought Dartmouth had a screwed up judicial system. This clearly
takes the cake. Why not start arresting people when people steal things
from them? It reminds me of how mad the drill instructor in "Full Metal
Jacket" got when his recruits left their footlockers open.
Anyway. Dartmouth has an honor code so a situation like that would be
treated a lot differently. If you leave something unprotected and someone
steals it for their own academic benefit they are at fault. Not you.
But, if you left something unprotected so that someone could copy it you
would be held responsible. Complicity = guilt.
Of course, that doesn't mean they won't say, "you should have taken better
precautions." But that is a lot better than getting charged.
Dartmouth is pretty reasonable about assiging blame, they just aren't very
good at dealing with things after that.
-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Technician, Tuck School of Business
_______________________________________________________________________________
"Are you sure?" | "That's a lot of money for a head!"
"Yeah. Sure I'm sure." | -The Ugly
From caf-talk Caf Feb 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: [clari.news.sex] Supreme Court lets stand 'dial-a-porn' restrictions
Message-ID: <1992Feb13.145225.18714@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1992 14:52:25 GMT
In article <10383@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
>
>My feeling is that vn has many faults, and there must be a way to make
>a newsreader start up quickly with a blank slate, but even so, we've
>got 1307 newsgroups on-line on our server (ns-mx.uiowa.edu) (that is, if
>no new groups were created while I wrote this note). With this wide a
>selection, a system administrator who gives new users anything other
>than a pruned down .newsrc file would have to be crazy. There's just
>too darned much stuff to wade through.
>
Agreed, we got a *lot* of user complaints until we started providing
a current default .newsrc to new users. Ours includes general groups
local to the machine/cluster and to the university. In addition,
we provide most of the intro "news" hierarchy groups, misc.jobs.offered,
rec.pets, and misc.forsale as these are fairly popular and usually
non-controversial subject areas, yet still give the new user some of
the "flavor" of USENET. We also provide extensive documentation and
workshops on "rn" for new users, in addition to online consultation help.
Users are of course free to subscribe to anything
we carry (which has grown to be quite a large selection (to quote
the previous poster "There's just too darned much stuff to wade through")).
--
==========================================================================
Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's
From caf-talk Caf Feb 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <1992Feb9.213333.3056@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1992 21:33:33 GMT
jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes:
>kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> So what's wrong with suppressing offensive speech? Here is John Stuart
>> Mill's answer.
>...which is fairly irrelevant because noone at CMU was arguing to
>suppress speech that was merely offensive. The issue is about
>suppressing speech that is intimidating, harassing, or sexually
>harassing. Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a
>crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm.
Unless, of course, there is a fire...
If I were to walk up to a strange woman at CMU and ask her "Would you
like to fuck?" and if she declined, simply walked away would I have been
guilty of some "crime" other than sheer rudeness? What if I made a
statement of fact -- "I would like to fuck you."?
Perhap sI could get away from rudeness and delve into ignorance. Would
I be punished for saying something like "All white people are bigots and
secretly support the KKK"? What about "All black people should work in
menial jobs since that is all they are mentally capable of doing"?
What is it about some speech that makes it worse than other speech that
you can quantify? And if so, how can you define such speech without
violating your own policies? I doubt there's much that could be said
that poses a clear and imminent danger without there being clear
physical circumstances. Saying that you want people to go out and hang
someone is not the same as having that someone at hand ready to hang and
telling them to hang him.
Mike Percy | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET | is really...bossy.
Clemson University | (803) 656-3780 | (Laurie Anderson)
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Who's going to CFP-2?
Message-ID: <9202141631.AA12685@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 06:31:51 GMT
Who's going to the CFP-2 Conference in Washington on March 18-20?
I'm going; it might be nice to get together with other CAF readers while we're
there.
Send me e-mail; after a week or so I'll post whatever responses I get.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Another OSU Lantern Imbroglio
Message-ID: <9202141919.AA21041@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:19:20 GMT
Well, the Ohio State University _Lantern_ is at it again!!
[begin objective mode]
Note: All direct quotes are from _The Columbus Dispatch_, Friday, February
14, 1992 on page 6 C.
_The Columbus Dispatch_ reported today that over one hundred Jewish students
at OSU have filed a complaint with the Office of Affirmative Action, claiming
that publishing a column in the _Lantern_ that called the Holocaust a hoax was
racial harassment. The complaints seek to have the editor "'disciplined.'" The
OSU Office of Affirmative Action has authority to to discipline students up to
and including expulsion.
The background is as follows:
Bradley R. Smith, a California-based Holocaust revisionist, wanted to run a
full-page ad in the _Lantern_ that said that Zionist organizations conspired
to create a "'Holocaust legend'" to arose sympathy and support for Jewish
causes. The Publications Committee, composed of both students and faculty,
voted 5-4 not to run the ad. The editorial staff of the _Lantern_ then voted
to run the ad as an editorial in the opinion page. The same day, there was an
editorial cartoon denouncing revisionism, along with a seven-paragraph
explanation defending publishing the text of the ad as news. Also, OSU
President Gordon Gee wrote a column denouncing the view of history advocated
by Smith. (There was extensive coverage of the deliberations of the
Publications Committee in prior issues.)
After the _Lantern_ went to press on Jan. 24, there was a demonstration at the
journalism building by Jewish leaders and students. The Hillel Foundation has
called for the resignations of Editor-in-Chief Samantha G. Haney, newspaper
advisor Dr. Mary Webster, and the _Lantern's_ business manager, Ray Catalino.
Daniel Newman, the vice-president of an OSU student group called Students for
Journalistic Integrity, said, "'Calling the Holocaust a Jewish hoax is an
anti-Jewish slur and should therefore be treated by the university the same
way as any other act of racial harassment.'"
[end objective mode]
My first reaction to this is the Students for Journalistic Integrity is
overreacting. The _Lantern's_ coverage was extremely well balanced. They
treated the ad as an editorial about political issues. On First Amendment
grounds, I would guess that writers are protected, as long as they do not
libel or slander, which Mr. Smith never did. (I read the Jan 24 issue. I'll
see if I can make it available to interested readers.) So I'm not sure if
there is a legal case here.
However, as I have emphatically stated before, it isn't the responsibility of
the creators of expression to determine if others are offended. They can't do
it, because there is no objective way to determine offense. Further, the
hallmark of a liberally-educated person is the ability to think critically,
i.e., to examine with an open mind all the facts and then make a dtermination
as to the validity of them. What SJI would like to do, apparently, is
substitute critical thinking for an ideology of doctrine. Doctrine,
traditionally, is that which is unquestionable and to be accepted
unconditionally. I reject this philosophy. As I've argued before, doctrine
backed by the force of law is merely totalitarianism. What SJI advocates is
actually totalitarianism of an academic sort.
When we become afraid to speak our minds, when we become fearful of expression
because of what others might think, and when we stifle academic pursuit
because of what is currently "correct," then we lose what it means to be
fully human. We allow our own dignity and freedom as individuals to be
lessened. We become nothing more than automata, unwilling to think for
ourselves, fearful of free expression, and blind to our own thoughts, ideas,
and feelings.
This is what Students for Journalistic Integrity want to do. They want to
destroy academic freedom and replace it with blind obedience. Under the guise
of protecting and promoting dignity and self-worth, they actually seek to
undermine it, by denying all people the right to think and evaluate for
themselves. Their very name is a misnomer. They aren't for Journalistic
Integrity. They're for Journalistic Slavery, and they want to be the
slave-drivers.
I stand for all expression. I am afraid of no idea, for I know that I can
look at it squarely and reject it or accept it on its merits, with no
preconceptions and no preconditions. Why do people continually advocate, here
in the U.S.A., philosophies that have been rejected by Russians, Latvians,
Poles, Germans, Chinese, and all who have fought, and died, for freedomn to
think?
If "Students for Journalistic Integrity" are our futire leaders, then I weep
for our generation.
Robert F. Solon, Jr.
rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
My opinions are my own.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: "Anti-Semitism Found on Large Computer Network"
Message-ID: <9202142017.AA16389@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 08:17:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Anti-Semitism Found on Large Computer Network"
Message-ID: <1992Feb14.90028.16870@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 14 Feb 92 14:00:28 GMT
pjl2@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Paul J Landsberg) writes:
>> But according to Jack Cohen of the ADL's Central Pacific Region,
>>unless Internet has a policy of censoring material, his agency won't
>>ask the network to stop the anti-Semitic electronic mail.
>>
>
>Now I don't understand, in paragraph one above, the ADL successfully
>lobbied Prodigy to censor its material. In paragraph three, Cohen claims
>that "we don't advocate censorship." Methinks I smell a load of
>hypocritical doublespeak here.
I don't think so. Prodigy is a *PRIVATE* company, held by a relatively
small group (Sears and IBM); anyone can pressure such a firm. Look at the
recent boycotts of Nike, Nestle, and Star-Kist for examples of effective
pressure.
The Internet, on the other hand, is a conglomerate of participating networks,
spanning the private, public, and government sectors. It is, quite possibly,
one of the most "public" services in the world.
I think that the ADL made a wise decision.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uxa.general, et al.] Official CCSO response
Message-ID: <9202142046.AA00078@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 08:46:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uxa.general,uiuc.general
From: bob@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bob Foertsch)
Subject: Official CCSO response
Message-ID: <1992Feb7.214834.17947@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1992 21:48:34 GMT
Here is the official CCSO response as written by the director George Badger.
During the last few weeks many questions have been raised related to
the groundrules under which CCSO computers are operated, particularly
where their use by students is concerned. The groundrules are based
on a combination of state or federal law, campus and departmental
policy, funds available and the realities of the various operating
systems environments. They vary somewhat from machine to machine
depending on the purposes for which that machine was purchased.
In the early 1980's the Center (then CSO) established the policy that
any student could have an account for use at their discretion. This
was in addition to any access provided in conjunction with courses.
At the time this was on a machine shared with research, coursework
and internal administration. Over time we have been able to establish
a separate facility -UXA- that provides much of this service, and to
provide UIUCnet and Internet access as part of this. We have been
able to relax many of the restrictions on use as the capacity of this
facility has been increased, including (in the near future) improving
the rather limited disk quota. The explicit purpose of this system is
to allow students to use a modern computing environment with the
broadest possible degree of personal discretion. We have treated this
facility as a high priority for funding, comparable to facilities
needed to complete assigned work in courses. Whether you consider
this a right or a privilege, it has been our clear intent to make
this as available as possible, as functional as we can, and to treat
it as an open invitation to students to experiment in the electronic
communications environment as they wish. Restrictions based on policy
are kept at a minimum, and students access is almost never suspended.
It is only one of many services we offer, and gets only a share of
our budget applied to these goals.
Issues of privacy, and of acceptable behavior, have always been a
part of this service. In the case of students there are additional
privacy laws that apply. Most of these laws were created without
thought for their impact in a technologically rich environment, and
most computer software was created without much thought for these
laws. We plan to honor all legal requirements for privacy and to
try and create an environment which allows as much freedom as is
consistent with the law and campus policies. We also will have those
policies necessary to us for responsible operation of the system.
These, of course, get very specific upon implementation. Part of this
set of policies will be maintaining our ability to associate things
done on the system with the person doing them.
Some specific issues are of current interest, but there will
certainly be more after we address them. The system currently has
utilities or operating procedures which disclose student information
which we plan to let you control in a manner consistent with other
sources of directory information. If a student files the necessary
forms with Admissions and Records to have their personal information
suppressed, the material we receive to build the ph database will not
have any record that they exist. (Note that suppression options and
our source of information are different for students than they are
for faculty/staff. A person who is both student and staff will
probably be handled as staff if this is allowed by the laws.) If they
wish to have a ph entry in order to use services which depend on this
database there will be a provision by which such a entry can be
created. It will contain their real name within the database, but
this information will not be disclosed, nor will we disclose the
existence of the entry in response to an inquiry using the name. We
will try and have a timely method of incorporating suppression
requests as they occur, rather than the current once a semester
practice.
"finger" is a part of the culture and history of UNIX. One use of it
is to get information about the owner of a particular id. There has
been much debate about whether the information provided in response
to this should be the persons real name or a nickname they have
provided. We will revert back to the practice of responding with the
nickname.This practice may change after people have had ample time to
suppress information. (Note that the nickname is the real name unless
the user has changed it intentionally.) If a person has requested
suppression of directory information, we will still require that we
can make the connection between an id and their real name, but will
not disclose their name.
"really" is a locally produced utility that provides a real name in
response to a request based on user-id. It is only available on UXA. It
is our intent to remove it in the near future when comparable
facilities are available using ph, so the rules of ph will apply.
There will not be any interim changes.
In choosing to exercise your right to protect information about you
there may be occasions where this is in conflict with your ability to
obtain a service. We will make reasonable efforts to provide
alternatives, with more effort expended when the service is essential
to your academic requirements, and less when it is not. A positive
example is an alternative way of being included in the ph database
despite having suppressed information. Another example is that ph
allows most fields to be blanked out by simple editing, offering an
alternative to the inconveniences of total suppression.
None of our efforts to provide privacy relieve anyone of
accountability for their actions, nor us of our obligation to be
responsible in the operation of these systems. Harassment, threats
and other illegal behavior will not be provided anonymity or
protection. We expect this medium of communication to be provided all
the freedom of expression, and associated responsibility, available
in more traditional media. We encourage, but cannot dictate, civil
behavior.
One final comment on the current debate. There has never been any
discussion about removing this service, or of restricting individuals
from using it. Like any other campus facility, abuse can be a matter
for legal action or official campus disciplinary procedures.
--
| Bob Foertsch | Unix Systems Administrator |
| | University of Illinois |
| bob-foertsch@uiuc.edu | 1304 West Springfield |
| (217) 333-8033 | Urbana, Illinois 61801 |
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general, et al.] Game Ban at CCSO Sites
Message-ID: <9202142112.AA07814@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:12:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,cso.general,uiuc.announce
From: declan@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Declan J. Fleming)
Subject: Game Ban at CCSO Sites
Message-ID: <1992Feb7.002838.9887@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1992 00:28:38 GMT
Beginning Monday all gaming will be banned from the CCSO Sites from
noon until closing, Sunday through Thursday. This includes all forms
of games, IRC, and MUDs.
This is an effort to free up as many computers for academic use during
peak usage hours.
Declan J. Fleming
Mgr. CCSO Sites
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [cso.general] Game Ban!!! (What the...?)
Message-ID: <9202142112.AA26112@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:12:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cso.general
From: drk20509@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (mighty odin)
Subject: Game Ban!!! (What the...?)
Message-ID: <1992Feb10.205803.738@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1992 20:58:03 GMT
Hey declan,
How 'bout modifying that rule to indicate that any time
the 'puters are getting full, or anytime a conflict arises where someone
wants to use a pc for other-than-game use, the gamer has to concede ?!
I mean, it is 2:50 right now at oregon, there are _20_ IBMs open, 11 macs
open, and i am being kicked off an IBM because of the rule.
While games are not considered by some to be maximum use of
computers, it definitely seems more productive than an unused terminal.
Seriously, there are 20 open computers here, and im being kicked
out!
How bout just making it that gamers have to leave when the lab is
even _close_ to filled.
a concerned and irritated student,
dwk
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [cso.general] Re: Game Ban!!! (What the...?)
Message-ID: <9202142113.AA06356@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:13:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cso.general
From: vanichth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mitri Van)
Subject: Re: Game Ban!!! (What the...?)
Message-ID: <1992Feb10.222049.27112@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1992 22:20:49 GMT
cap40944@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher A Parrinello) writes:
>In article <1992Feb10.205803.738@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> drk20509@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (mighty odin) writes:
>> How 'bout modifying that rule to indicate that any time
>>the 'puters are getting full, or anytime a conflict arises where someone
>>wants to use a pc for other-than-game use, the gamer has to concede ?!
>Actually I think that is what the policy USED to be and something has
>brought on change. I agree that when the IBMs and Macs are full then people
>playing MUDs and IRC should be kicked off (they seem to be some of the worst
>offenders). Until they do fill up then who cares what people are doing on them?
Yeah, the old policy used to be that you could game until someone needed it
for academic use. Lately, tho... we've noticed that people tend to be
intimidated by gamers, and would leave the lab rather than asking an op to
boot the gamer, or, someone would peek their head into a lab, notice that
all the computers were being used, and then leave without checking to see if
games were being played or not. This new policy is designed to ensure that
there are always open terms so that people don't have to be forced to ask
gamers to leave, as well as let people know that there *are* open terms.
For example, at Illini Hall before the game ban, 80% of the computers being
used would be occupied by people playing games. Someone that needed to do
academic work would usually peek into the lab, see all the computers full and
leave. I personally think that the ban is kinda good... it helps keep the
noise level down, which tends to annoy people doing real work, as well as
force _me_ to do schoolwork...
All these opinions are mine and _not_ CCSO's
Mitri Van
mv45925@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
vanichth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [cso.general] Re: Game Ban!!! (What the...?)
Message-ID: <9202142113.AA00928@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:13:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cso.general
From: declan@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Declan J. Fleming)
Subject: Re: Game Ban!!! (What the...?)
Message-ID: <1992Feb11.160723.20190@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 16:07:23 GMT
vanichth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mitri Van) writes:
>Yeah, the old policy used to be that you could game until someone needed it
>for academic use. Lately, tho... we've noticed that people tend to be
>intimidated by gamers, and would leave the lab rather than asking an op to
>boot the gamer, or, someone would peek their head into a lab, notice that
>all the computers were being used, and then leave without checking to see if
>games were being played or not. This new policy is designed to ensure that
>there are always open terms so that people don't have to be forced to ask
>gamers to leave, as well as let people know that there *are* open terms.
>For example, at Illini Hall before the game ban, 80% of the computers being
>used would be occupied by people playing games. Someone that needed to do
>academic work would usually peek into the lab, see all the computers full and
>leave. I personally think that the ban is kinda good... it helps keep the
>noise level down, which tends to annoy people doing real work, as well as
>force _me_ to do schoolwork...
>
>All these opinions are mine and _not_ CCSO's
>
This is a pretty good summary of why things are the way they are. The
computers are provided for academic use. Up til now, I didn't care if people
played games on them. But as more and more classes depend directly on the
machines in our labs, I want to make access as easy as possible for people
doing class work. I've personally seen what Mitri talks about above. Some
people don't want to bother someone else playing a game, so they leave. My
job is to see that that person gets a computer, not that another gets to
play 6 hours of Civilization.
Declan Fleming
>Mitri Van
> mv45925@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] "Anti-Semitism Found on Large Computer Network"
Message-ID: <9202142121.AA05298@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:21:12 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: "Anti-Semitism Found on Large Computer Network"
Date: 11 Feb 92 23:46:52 GMT
Message-ID:
[I have also posted this to alt.censorship and soc.culture.jewish.
I am posting it here separately to try to avoid cross-pollution and
keep this newsgroup friendly and free of neo-Nazi nuts. -- Ron Newman]
--------------------
from The Jewish Advocate (a Boston weekly), 2/7/92:
Anti-Semitism Found on Large Computer Network
by Garth Wolkoff, Northern California Jewish Bulletin
Late last year, U.C. Berkeley graduate student David Kaim logged
onto a school computer network. He heard that by pressing a few
buttons, he could access job listings, buy a bicycle, read movie
reviews and communicate with students at schools around the country.
He found all that--but he also was stunned to discover screen
after screen of anti-Semitic material, mostly entries describing how
the Holocaust was a gross exaggeration by a Jewish or Zionist
conspiracy and that Jews should apologize to David Duke for defaming
his character.
Kaim had tapped into Internet, a computer network that connects up
to five million scientists, researchers, students, and other academics
around the world; in the Bay Area alone it is used by tens of
thousands of students every day.
Other Jewish students involved with Berkeley Hillel told Kaim they
had noticed the entries. So had Giovanni Paoletti, who works for a
computer company in Silicon Valley and attends Temple Beth David in
Saratoga, as did many of Paoletti's friends who work at computer
companies in the area.
In fact, addresses and phone numbers where computer subscribers
can buy or obtain Holocaust-revisionist material and other
anti-Semitic texts are being posted on the Internet network with
alarming frequency.
"There never have been any proofs that Jews murder gentile
children to use their blood for matzah. There have never been any
proofs that Germans murdered Jews and used their fat to manufacture
hand soap," read one transmission from Oregon in September, an excerpt
from a Bradley Smith tract titled "Confessions of a Holocaust
Revisionist."
Some of the anti-Semitic material on Internet, which runs the
gamut from Jewish media conspiracy theories to the reproduction of
Holocaust-revisionist literature, originates in Oregon; a fax number
often included for more information has that state's area code.
Other transmissions collected by Kaim have come from the San Jose
area; Amherst, Mass.; New Jersey's Rutgers University; and an
unspecified branch of AT&T Bell Laboratories.
In Berkeley, the Hillel plans to respond to Kaim's complaint,
according to director Beverly Pinto. But no specific legal action
is planned, she said, since the university's policies on computer
expression are quite general.
Interestingly, Kaim's complaints come on the heels of a November
controversy involving the Berkeley student newspaper's refusal to
print a Holocaust-revisionist advertisement by the same Bradley Smith
whose "Confessions" were quoted on the computer network.
The discovery of the anti-Semitic material also comes after the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith successfully persuaded Prodigy,
a private computer network based in New York, to censure [sic]
anti-Semitic transmissions.
But according to Jack Cohen of the ADL's Central Pacific Region,
unless Internet has a policy of censoring material, his agency won't
ask the network to stop the anti-Semitic electronic mail.
"We don't advocate censorship," Cohen said. "We encourage
Internet subscribers to use their subscription power, their keyboard
power, to register their own objections to this perversion of computer
technology."
--
Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.callahans] Re: oops ! re: First Amendment
Message-ID: <9202142158.AA17456@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:58:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
From: tjlee@iastate.edu (Tom Lee)
Subject: Re: oops ! re: First Amendment
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1992 02:51:59 GMT
James M. Pierce writes:
> Hmm. I hadn't though of that. Oops. Well anyway, bowing to censorship
> is rather a sore point with me. Friends of mine died to protect the
> Constitution. I can see the administration's point *if* that is problem.
"To my knowledge," says Tom, "nobody has taken it upon himself
or herself to try to get the university to censor the groups it
censored. The computer center administration came through with a new
policy, just so it could have a policy to fall back on. They sent their
policy to the committees in charge of such things, and the committees
both tabled it -- put off talking about it until later. The
administration put the policy into effect anyway. This is not a case of
an individual trying to get the administration to censor our USENET
feed. This is a case of a group of administrators themselves trying to
censor our USENET feed."
> One other problem could be lack of disk space. { My University job, in
> a few months, might/probably will entail setting up newsgroups access.
> I'll definitely try and get alt.callahans on our system, but the machine
> that we are looking at only has enough room for 10 users after Unix is
> loaded. Ah, well. } Most small/microcomputer machines that my boss at
> USM looked at, didn't come with hard drives larger than 200 megs.
"It's not lack of disk space. The only one of the censored
groups that could possibly strain their storage capacity is
alt.sex.pictures, and they've censored several text-only groups."
--> Tom Lee, tjlee@iastate.edu <-----> Physics Dept., Iowa State University <--
"Come along, Homo sapiens, for all we humble friends of yours are waiting here
to cheer." -- A white-front goose, in T. H. White's _The Once and Future King_
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.activism.progressive] Canadian Paper Says "Fuck You" To Censorship
Message-ID: <9202142217.AA17074@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 10:17:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Canadian Paper Says "Fuck You" To Censorship
Message-ID: <1992Feb13.104014.10080@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1992 10:40:14 GMT
From: PENN@MITLNS.MIT.EDU (steve penn 26-567, 253-1521 Remember Our Humanity; Science is Not Neutral; MIT War Research Kills.)
Included below is an article from the New Liberation News Service
(NLNS) Packet 2.6 -- our autoposter is posting one article at a time
from this 168K file. To receive the full file, use the GET command
(see bottom) on the file NLNS PACKET ; to find out more about NLNS,
use GET on NLNS BROCHURE and/or email Steve Penn at the above address.
To find out more about the PROG-PUBS (Progressive Publications) email
mailing list, use GET on CAMPUS PROGPUBS, or contact RJ Hinde at
rjh1@midway.uchicago.edu
--Harel B.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NLNS Packet 2.6 - 1 February 1992
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Canadian Paper Says "Fuck You" To Censorship
Canadian University Press
Toronto--Ryerson Polytechnical Institute's student newspaper is
crying censorship and has given a front-page "Fuck You" to a
proposed code of conduct for campus media.
A large, red "Fuck You" headline led off The Eyeopener's Dec. 4
editorial, which claims a recent report from Ryerson's Harassment
Prevention Services advocates censoring the press.
"It's a very ominous, Orwellian suggestion," said Eyeopener
editor Mike O'Conner. "Censorship in any form is heinous. It's
basically a power grab by the administration."
The report, which evaluates the caseload of the year-old
harassment office, notes that several community members want
protection against shoddy or hateful journalism.
It cites the 1989 example of a story published by the
Ryersonian--another campus paper--that quoted anti-gay sentiment
in a story on Gay Pride Day. A student filed a complaint against the
paper, claiming the story was unbalanced.
"Some have suggested the establishment of a media-watch
tribunal," the report states. It then recommends a review of "the
issue of ethical constraints on reporting and the establishment of a
code of conduct for internal media and a system of appropriate
address."
But the author of the report says The Eyeopener is way off
base.
"If you've read it, then you realize the report says nothing
about censorship," said Jean Golden, director of campus safety.
The 'code of conduct' recommendation will be examined by a
harassment review committee in consultation with community
members. If accepted, it will be forwarded to Ryerson's president
and board of governors for approval.
The committee doesn't have any idea yet what power a code of
conduct could have, said committee co-chair Mitch Kosny.
"We haven't even looked at those recommendations yet," he
said. "I couldn't tell you or even guess what will happen."
Several campus officials and students objected to the
Eyeopener's headline, claiming it was loaded with violent symbolism-
-particularly in the context of Dec. 6 memorials for the murder of
14 women in Montreal in 1989.
Danielle Szandtner, coordinator of Ryerson's Women's Centre,
agrees with the Eyeopener's concern about censorship but says their
imagry was too aggressive.
"There is something a little bit macho about the language," she
said. "We have to be vigilant about [censorship] but at the same time
we don't want to look like complete morons."
"The headline delegitimized their complaint, which is too bad,
because they have a lot more skill than that."
The Eyeopener's headline actually formed a case example of
why campus papers should adhere to an external code of conduct,
said Arnice Cadieux, Ryerson's public relations officer.
"Both the headline and the reporting on the report reflect a
total lack of consideration of ethics and of the violence surrounding
the headline," she added.
O'Conner defended the headline, saying the entire editorial
staff--over half of which are women--approved it.
"The headline expresses our indignation with the idea of
censorship. It may be an obscene term but it isn't a sexist term. You
really have to stretch to see it as sexist, especially in the context of
the editorial."
Canadian University Press can be reached at 126 York St., Suite 408,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 5T5, CANADA; (613) 562-1799.
##################################################################
======================================
To get a file named FILE NAME from the archiver (files are
two words separated by a space), send the 1-line message
GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L
to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET
[or: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU]
======================================
Use GET with the file ACTIV-L ARCHIVE for a listing of
files available with the GET command.
e.g., send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET to be
emailed the index of archived files.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Cancelling an inappropriate posting
Message-ID: <9202150340.AA13365@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 15:40:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992
From: powers@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Cancelling an inappropriate posting
Message-ID: <1992Feb13.100153.9251@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
Date: 13 Feb 92 15:01:52 GMT
An inappropriate message was posted to ALT.PERSONALS from
JPALEXANDER@MIAVX1.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU on 2/11/92. I cancelled the message
and assumed it would be removed from the feed at other sites. I didn't know
that some (most?) sites don't honor control messages.
Two questions:
If you have NEWSMANAGER access to your news database would you please delete
this message. The woman will probably need to have her phone number changed
anyway, but cancelling the message will reduce the problems this message has
caused here.
Is there some mechanism in place for dealing with problems like this ?
Mark Powers
Academic Computer Service
Miami University
From caf-talk Caf Feb 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.callahans] Re: First Amendment (was Re: Assumptions and Axioms ???)
Message-ID: <9202150445.AA30027@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 16:45:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 15 00:00:00 1992
From: vad276g@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen McNamara)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: First Amendment (was Re: Assumptions and Axioms ???)
Message-ID:
Date: 14 Feb 92 20:58:36 GMT
The brumby seems to have missed the start of this conversation but
can guess at what's going on.
"Well, the entire alt.sex and alt.drugs hierarchies are 'filtered'
from the news feed over the Australian branch of the Internet. Specifically
no material pertaining to sexual or drug related matters may be transmitted
over AARNet funded links. This is set down by those who hold the purse
strings for this net so there is nothing that can be done. Interestingly,
none of these people actually use the net themselves. I hope you have
more luck than this country had in getting groups back."
Tom Lee writes:
>Elizabeth Mccoy writes:
>>"I'm doing my part for expanding the knowledge contained in 'cyberspace'
>>-- so far, I've gotten one of my Women's Studies classmates introduced
>>to the net, and I'll be hooking up the WS department too, soon! Heh heh
>>heh!"
> "Yay! The more diverse the net, the more interesting and fun
>net-life is."
"Oh definitely. The reason I've actually got this lindblat account is
that I'm in a group trying to set up a machine to allow Monash people
who aren't in computer related courses to have accounts. So this year
sometime there should be a few more non-computer people on the net. With
luck maybe a few of them will find their way here."
--
The Silver Brumby of vad276g@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (till Feb 29)
the Silicon Plains z8628595@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au ( " )
The grass is always greener on the other side of the network.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Lee Sproull's Talk
Message-ID: <9202152229.AA07229@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1992 10:29:10 GMT
[This is report on a talk by Lee Sproull at the U. of Illinois. It was
send to me via email and is reposted with the author's permission.
- Carl]
The title was "Making New Connections: Social Consequences of Computer
Networking". Her first statment in her talk was an addition to the
title "... Networking in the Academic Environment".
From your computing and civil liberties point of view, she had
several interesting comments. (She, by the way, is an organizational
physcologist who has studied how computers change and/or enhance
communication.) First, she argued that electronic communication
significantly increased student/teacher interactions in classes that
had it available, especially interactions between shy students and
the instructor. Second, she mentioned that there can/are problems
with "rudeness" in electronic communication. People, particularly
undergraduate students, are less hesitant to make offensive remarks
electronically then they are in person. (She said lots of other
things to, but these were the two that I thought were of the most
relevance to you and that I thought made sense.)
From her first point, one can argue that electronic access is\
important for students and that to deprive an individual student
of such access can significantly handicap that student's academic
performance. From her second point, one might find Universities
trying to either restrict or set guidelines for what consistutes
acceptable electronic communication.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Defining harrassment and email
Message-ID: <9202161716.AA20561@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 05:16:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Defining harrassment and email
Message-ID:
From: colinj@engin.umich.edu (Colin Johnson)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 92 17:22:30 EST
Recently a friend of mine recieved a very strange and
disturbing message on one of the systems here. The message
frightened her because it was unsigned (sent with a pseudo) and
it was rather angry in its contents. If I had received such a
message and didn't know who it was from I would have been frightened.
In this case I did know the sender and knew that he was not as
crazy as the message sounded.
My question has to do with a definition of harrassment with
email in mind. Certainly if the sender had called my friend and said
this over the phone it would have been harrassment.
My questions are:
What kind of definitions would people like to see for harrassment?
Is a definition needed?
Who should do the defining?
--
Colin Johnson | Dragging NASCO kicking and screaming
Colin.Johnson@um.cc.umich.edu (work) | into the 21st century
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Defining harrassment and email
Message-ID: <9202161720.AA26921@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 05:20:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Defining harrassment and email
Message-ID: <1992Feb16.032842.13810@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Date: 16 Feb 92 03:28:42 GMT
In article colinj@engin.umich.edu (Colin Johnson) writes:
>
> Recently a friend of mine recieved a very strange and
>disturbing message on one of the systems here. The message
>frightened her because it was unsigned (sent with a pseudo) and
>it was rather angry in its contents. If I had received such a
>message and didn't know who it was from I would have been frightened.
>In this case I did know the sender and knew that he was not as
>crazy as the message sounded.
>
> My question has to do with a definition of harrassment with
>email in mind. Certainly if the sender had called my friend and said
>this over the phone it would have been harrassment.
>
> My questions are:
>
> What kind of definitions would people like to see for harrassment?
>
> Is a definition needed?
>
> Who should do the defining?
Why do people always think that the technology makes things different?
I would say is it harrassment if and only if the same message delivered
by slipping it in the mailbox when no one was looking would be harrassment.
What does e-mail have to do with it? Other than that it may be easier or
harder to determine who did it?
So no new definitions are needed. The old ones (whatever they are) will do.
--
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Defining harrassment and email
Message-ID: <9202161723.AA20554@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 05:23:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Defining harrassment and email
Message-ID: <1992Feb16.083148.28349@clarinet.com>
Date: 16 Feb 92 08:31:48 GMT
In article colinj@engin.umich.edu (Colin Johnson) writes:
> [... nasty anonymous e-mail is coming ...]
> My questions are:
>
> What kind of definitions would people like to see for harrassment?
>
> Is a definition needed?
>
> Who should do the defining?
Well, no question that it should not be as strict as the phone. The
phone interrupts you and annoys you. Getting the equivalent of
heavy breathing in your postal mailbox is hardly a great disturbance, and
the same applies to e-mail.
In fact, I would say it applies even less to e-mail, since e-mail all comes
with some sort of "caller-id", and it would be possible down the road to
authenticate messages, and reject anonymous messages out of hand.
If a person makes *threats* then I don't think it matters what the medium
is. Threats are threats and there is law to deal with them.
Ideally we might someday seek an e-mail system that allows authenticated
recipient info (via digital signature) on the envelope, so that we can
easily classify our mail. Anonymous mail should still be possible, but
most people would probably just instruct their system to toss it if they're
being harassed.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs.allsysop, et al.] New Uploads (Computer Crime Statutes extracts)
Message-ID: <9202161725.AA13467@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 05:25:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
From: neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Mark Neely, NTU Law School)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs.allsysop,misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: New Uploads (Computer Crime Statutes extracts)
Message-ID: <1992Feb16.151824.2536@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Date: 16 Feb 92 15:18:23 +0900
The following files have been uploaded to the SULAW archive
(sulaw.law.su.oz.au). They are presently located in the /upload directory but
will eventually be moved to the /pub/law directory.
A word of warning - the SULAW machine has had a few difficulties resulting in
the loss of the computer hosting the /pub/law directory. This will be fixed on
or around Monday morning (17th Feb) so it might be prudent to hold off
downloading the files until then!
___
canada.law - Quotes from Canadian Criminal Code
by Henry Waldock
alabama.law - Extract from Alabama Criminal Code
Title 13A, Chapter 8, Article 1
arizona.law - Extract from Arizona Criminal Code
Title 13. Criminal Code Chapt. 23 Organized Crime and Fraud
s.13-2316 Computer Fraud
california.law - Extract from California Penal Code
Part 1. Title 13. Crimes Against Property
Chapter 5. Larcency [Theft]
s.502 Unauthorised access to computers, computer systems and
data
colorado.law - Extract from Colorado Criminal Code
Title 18 Article 5.5 Computer Crime
connecticut.law - Extract from Connecticut Penal Code
Title 53A Chapt. 952 Part XXII Computer Related Offences
delaware.law - Extract from Delaware Criminal Code
Title 11 Part 1. Chapt. 5 sub-Chapt.III Offenses Involving
Property
florida.law - Extract from Florida Computer Crimes Act
Title XLVI Chapter 815. Computer Related Crimes
georgia.law - Extract from Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act
Title 16 Chapter 9. Article 6. Computer Related Offenses
ghana.law - Text of *proposed* Ghana Computer Crime Law
hawaii.law - Extract from Hawaii Penal Code
Title 37 Chapter 708. Part IX. Computer Crimes
iowa.law - Extract from Iowa Criminal Code
Title XXXV Chapter 716A Computer Crime
idaho.law - Extract from Idaho Criminal Code
Title 18 Chapter 22 Computer Crime
illinois.law - Extract from Illinios Criminal Code
Chap.38. Div. I Title III Part C.
Article 160. Computer Crime
indiana.law - Extract from Indiana Criminal Code
Title 35 Article 43 Offenses Against Property
maryland.law - Extract from Maryland Criminal Code
Article 27, s.146 Unauthorised Access to Computers Prohibited
minnesota.law - Extract from Minnesota Criminal Code
Chapter 609.87 Computer Crimes
new_jersey.law - Extract from New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice
Title 2C sub-Title 2 Pt.2 Chapter 20(II) Computer-Related
Crimes
new_york.law - Extract from New York Consolidated Laws
Chapter 40 Part 3 Title J Article 156
Offences Involving Computers
tx.law - Extract from Texas Penal Code
Title 7 Chapter 33. Computer Crimes
united_kingdom.law
- Computer Misuse Act
us.law - Extract from US Code (Annotated)
Title 18 Part I Chapter 47
s.1030 Fraud and Related Activity in connection with computers
virginia.law - Extract from Virginia Criminal Code
Title 18.2 Chapter 5. Article 7.1 Computer Crimes
wisconsin.law - Computer Law - State of Wisconsin
Chapter 293, s.943.70 Computer Crimes
west_virginia.law
- West Virginia State Law
___
Mark Neely
Articled Clerk (Slave) | Tutor
Messrs Cridlands, | Law School
Barristers and Solicitors. | Northern Territory University
Darwin, NT Australia
neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.callahans] re: First Amendment
Message-ID: <9202161731.AA27875@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 05:31:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
From: pierce@NAVO.NAVY.MIL (James M. Pierce)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: re: First Amendment
Message-ID: <9202160719.AA24547@pops.navo.navy.mil>
Date: 16 Feb 92 07:19:19 GMT
> Tom says:
>"We get that one, all right," says Tom, "but I don't have time
>to read it! Actually there are several of us here who are doing
>whatever we can. We won't give up, and we won't stop trying. Some of
>us are in contact with the EFF and the ACLU. I wrote a petition, and
>we're going to circulate it, and others of us are writing a press
>packet, explaining what USENET is and what the Comp. Center is doing."
Nick Danger thinks for a second { okay, longer than that. }
"Tom, why not ask the ACLU to write up a form for USENET readers
to sign. Let them make it legal-tight. Anyone who wants to
read USENET newsgroups must sign it. Something like the University
is absolved of all blame if a newsgroup reader is offended by
what they might read. That being people over age 16 they will be
held accountable for their own actions. etc. I say 'age 16'
because I don't know what age group your University has as
students. Most of the Students at the branch campus of USM
where I work, are over age 30. Most of them are people who
already have some college-level classes. We have a few who
are 19-25, but they are few. We don't have dorms, everybody
commutes to class. { Only about 2,500 students total. }
We have already told several people that we can't do anything
about the 'flamers' they had run ins with, except to ignore them.
We give out Bitnet accounts to any faculty, staff, or student
that asks for it. We will probably do the same with Unix/Internet
accounts if we can get the equipment. I know there are no
'real' solutions as you have to get the systems/administration
people to listen to you. And they seldom listen, in any era.
Well, I have yammered on long enough. I hope the problem
gets solved." Nick Danger. aka Jim.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.callahans] re: First Amendment
Message-ID: <9202161732.AA24574@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 05:32:46 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
From: pierce@NAVO.NAVY.MIL (James M. Pierce)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: re: First Amendment
Message-ID: <9202160924.AA25205@pops.navo.navy.mil>
Date: 16 Feb 92 09:24:04 GMT
> Tom Lee writes:
>"To my knowledge," says Tom, "nobody has taken it upon himself
>or herself to try to get the university to censor the groups it
>censored. The computer center administration came through with a new
>policy, just so it could have a policy to fall back on. They sent their
>policy to the committees in charge of such things, and the committees
>both tabled it -- put off talking about it until later. The
>administration put the policy into effect anyway. This is not a case of
>an individual trying to get the administration to censor our USENET
>feed. This is a case of a group of administrators themselves trying to
>censor our USENET feed."
"I would call this: pre-censorship. The most diabolical type of
censorship. Censorship based on what _might_ be complained
about. Usually reserved for the cowardly types. :-( Oh well,
I can almost comprehend both sides, but I disagree with
the censorship."
>"It's not lack of disk space. The only one of the censored
>groups that could possibly strain their storage capacity is
>alt.sex.pictures, and they've censored several text-only groups."
"To my mind, cowardice of this type is unacceptable. But,
according to Robert Heinlein, Mrs. Grundy is still with us."
{ If I only knew what that 'Mrs. Grundy' routine was all
about. I presume it has to do with gossipers and other
people who disagree with the freedoms extolled in our
Constitution. }
" I was told by an E-8 that I worked for
in the Navy that anyone who didn't listen to Country and
Western music was a commie and unamerican. Ah well, 'never
underestimate the power of human stupidity. It can kill
you.' [ Nick Danger's corollary to Lazarus Long's musings. ]
"Speaking of Valentines. :-) In elementary school, we had to
buy our own valentines and give one to whoever we wanted to
give one to. I believe it was the fourth grade when I
received only two, out of 30 students. My mother had purchased
a package of 20 for about, ooh, $1.50. Money we really
wouldn't have for another three days. So I gave cards to 15
people who I thought liked me, turns out they didn't. Oh well,
I have received Valentines since then from people who really
meant it. This is a little late but: 'Happy Valentines Day !'
Nick Danger.
[ Maybe it was this one that bounced. ]
====== 'Atomic Cafe' The Motels ============
Jim 'sleepy' Pierce 'I go Pogo.'
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Defining harrassment and email
Message-ID: <9202161855.AA25985@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 06:55:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Defining harrassment and email
Message-ID: <1992Feb16.172315.11311@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 17:23:15 GMT
Here is an excerpt from a newspaper article about email harassment:
A Seattle judge has agreed that ...Bill Gates has been the victim of
harassment. ...In what may be one of the first cases of high-tech
harassment, a former Microsoft saleswoman Monday was ordered to stay
from Microsoft -- and Gates -- both physically and electronically.
Microsoft said Joan Brewer had been sending Gates a steady stream of
unwelcome messages over an electronic mail system. Brewer earlier had
claimed that she...was the victim of harassment,...EEOC dismissed her
complaint. Now King County District Judge William Roarty has told
Brewer any contact she makes with Microsoft must be through the
company's legal department.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: feanor@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Bryan Strawser)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 09:45:36 GMT
I logged onto our system yesterday, to find this /etc/motd (message of
the day) waiting for all users to see and read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ULTRIX V4.1 (Rev. 55) System #13: Thu Jan 16 16:05:05 EST 1992
UWS V4.1 (Rev. 197)
Games are restricted to the time period midnight to 8am.
Violators will lose their telnet privileges.
NOTE: ftp from remote sites during non-prime hours (that
is, 8 pm to 6 am).
NOTE: Do not put any subdirectories on the /tmp area.
NOTE: Backups are scheduled for 5pm on Sundays.
*********************************************************
Password hacking is unethical and will not be tolerated
on this system. Any potential and/or real violators will
lose their account on this system and perhaps others.
The system will be monitored for this and any other
potentially unethical problems.
*********************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did all of this come about? That has to be one of the first questions on
your mind. Here's the story... or as close as I think i've got it figured
out so far...
Apparently some user I am not even familiar with was running a password
cracking program, more than likely Crack, or something of that sort. It
placed a drain on the system, so one of the users (who had root's password)
went looking, probably with a 'ps -aux | grep something'. S/he found
a process that was consuming time, noticed it was called Crack, or something
of the sort. Su'ed root, killed the process, changed the password of the
account, and went looking around. Could have been a find / -name Crack* or
something else, I'm not really sure. They found copies of the program in
a number of accounts, in different forms. Some tarred, some compressed, and
some untarred and compiled. One of the accounts in which it was in was mine.
In my archive directory, where I store programs for download at a later point,
I had the newest version of Crack in a tar file, called crack.tar. I had
downloaded it a few weeks ago, and placed it on my 3b1 - awaiting the arrival
of my Sun 3/140 Workstation I bought a month ago.
Why did I have this?
In my research agenda in the field of Computer Science, I have many
varied interests. I'm involved in such things as Cognitive Science,
Computer Human Interaction (CHI), User interface design, Psychology,
and - of course - Computer Security, especially when considering
the people behind the breakins, what drives them, what are they
looking for, what are they trying to do...
What was I going to do with this?
On my 3b1, and my Sun (whenever it gets here :) I would be testing
the ability of these programs to crack passwords. If enough evidence
could be gathered to show that nearly any password could be broken,
given enough time - my future research paper could give a strong case
for the shadow password system, and othe ways of increasing security.
Where did I get it?
I ftp'ed Crack from a FTP site out there somewhere, off hand I just
don't remember which one it was.
Now, I have never EVER ran this program on any machine that I do not own
myself. There are multiple users on my 3b1, and there will be multiple users
on my Sun 3/140 as well, but since I have the root password , there is no
need for anyone to worry about myself running Crack on my machine.
Since this was discovered in my account, nothing has happened, yet anyway.
I did however, receive this mail message to my account on our VaxCluster
from the Chairman of the Department that owns and operates our Unix system.
==============================================================================
Please see me about your UNIX privileges. Since you will
be a computer science major, I want to see that you get on
the right track. Running password cracking program is not
wise,
==============================================================================
As I had already stated, I have never ran a password cracking program on
their unix machine. In actuality, I've never ran it on my machine, it
doesn't seem to like my 3b1 too well. I suppose a case could be made that
I could have downloaded the /etc/passwd file onto my machine, and
cracked it there. But, I will testify to the fact that I have not done
anything of the sort.
It really bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably
anyway) just for the mere possession of a program. In a way, I guess it's
kind of like being a locksmith.. should we kill all locksmiths because
they possess the knowledge to crack through any lock - just because that
mere possession of knowledge could lead him to break into your home, and
steal your wife's favorite doll?
While I know that I only possess the program, and I have never ran it, where
do they get the idea that I have ran it? Are they so paranoid now that
they will accuse me of running it even though I just possess it?
I've never been accused in a crime. I've only been in court once, to testify
concerning an assault and battery case that I witnessed a few years back.
Now, I could be accused of breaking into literally hundreds of accounts on
this system, just because I possess the program to do that.
What will happen now?
I'm not sure. Eventually, after I have calmed down, talked to
some people, and called different places.. I'll go in and see the people that
I need to see, and make my point. If they decide to take my account, I'll
fight it for as long as I can.
The Others
I only personally know one other person involved in this impropriety.
His account has been revoked pending "further investigation", who knows
if he will ever get it back. To the best of my knowledge, of all of the people
involved, I am the only one that still has access to their account.
Finished in a fit of frustration,
Bryan Strawser
The Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and the Humanities
Jeep Hall
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306-0655
(317) 285-7417
Please do not send mail to any other users here (like root) about this matter,
I would prefer to keep this discussion away from them until absolutely
necessary. Feel free to e-mail myself if you have any questions, or call
if you're really that interested :-)
Bryan Strawser feanor@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
-=-=-=-=- Ball State University - Computer Science Department Unix -=-=-=-=-
"Unix: It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there."
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <11062@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Date: 13 Feb 92 20:06:46 GMT
In article <1992Feb9.213333.3056@hubcap.clemson.edu>, grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
> If I were to walk up to a strange woman at CMU and ask her "Would you
> like to fuck?" and if she declined, simply walked away would I have been
> guilty of some "crime" other than sheer rudeness?
GUILTY of a crime? Iron Mike Tyson argued it made him INNOCENT of his!
--
cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: ADMIN: Need Makefile for CAF archive
Message-ID: <199202162000.AA16926@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 10:00:59 GMT
I have several tools that help me update the README files and FAQ
files in the CAF archive. I do not, however, have any way to run these
tools automatically. I think a Makefile is what I need, but I don't
know much about creating them. I would be greatful if someone could
create a Makefile for the CAF archive. Here is what it should do:
# This is just pseudo code
target: ~/ftp{$anything1}/README
depends on: ~/ftp{$anything1}/zzz/{$anything2}.d
build with: ~/makereadme {$anything1}
target: ~/ftp{$anything1}/{$anything2}
if there is no ~/ftp{$anything1}/zzz/{$anything2}.d
then print message "You need to create file
~/ftp{$anything1}/zzz/{$anything2}.d"
target: ~/ftp/faq/{$anything1}
depends on: ~/ftp/faq/zzz/{$anything1}.{$anything2}
build with: makefaq ~/ftp/faq/zzz/{$anything1}
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID: <1992Feb16.202149.17301@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 20:21:49 GMT
feanor@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Bryan Strawser) writes:
>I logged onto our system yesterday, to find this /etc/motd (message of
>the day) waiting for all users to see and read.
> Any potential and/or real violators will
*********
> lose their account on this system and perhaps others.
[...]
> I only personally know one other person involved in this impropriety.
>His account has been revoked pending "further investigation", who knows
>if he will ever get it back.
>To the best of my knowledge, of all of the people
>involved, I am the only one that still has access to their account.
[...]
It sounds like you need some due process procedures. I am appalled
that you can be expelled from the computer without a hearing because
one person thinks you have the potential to do something "unethical."
Here is what the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
says:
======================start quote 1 ============
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.
================end quote===========
==============begin quote 2=========
When the misconduct may result in serious penalties and if the
student questions the fairness of disciplinary action taken against
him, he should be granted, on request, the privilege of a hearing
before a regularly constituted hearing committee. The following
suggested hearing committee procedures satisfy the requirements of
procedural due process in situations requiring a high degree of
formality.
================= end quote =====================
For more on due process see:
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf-statement
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/README
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, et al.] Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <9202162204.AA26358@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 10:04:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Message-ID: <11062@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Date: 13 Feb 92 20:06:46 GMT
In article <1992Feb9.213333.3056@hubcap.clemson.edu>, grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
> If I were to walk up to a strange woman at CMU and ask her "Would you
> like to fuck?" and if she declined, simply walked away would I have been
> guilty of some "crime" other than sheer rudeness?
GUILTY of a crime? Iron Mike Tyson argued it made him INNOCENT of his!
--
cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Opposing Viewpoints/Facts in a public school
Message-ID: <1992Feb16.221917.12074@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 22:19:17 GMT
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:
> I remember reading a ruling somewhere, sometime that if a
>public school supports one viewpoint (by allowing posters, etc.) they
>must allow posters, etc. of the other viewpoint.
> Could someone please post a reference? I don't remember what
>it was.
[...]
This may be what you were thinking of. In the case, the school allowed
pro-Vietnam war ads by outsiders (recruitment ads) in the student
newspaper. The court said that school had to allow anti-war ads by
outsiders.
- Carl
===========excerpt from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n25 ======
Here is some info about to free speech forums at public universities.
It outlines the different types of forums and the rules for each one.
This is from _The Freedom to Publish_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian.
Published by Neal-Schuman Publishers 1989. It is part of the First
Amendment in the Classroom series. All the books in the series are
edited by Bosmajian. Each book is just a collection of court
decisions. Other books in the series include _The Freedom to Read
books, Films, and Plays_, _Freedom of Religion_, _Freedom of
Expression_, _Academic Freedom_, _Freedom to Publish_.
In San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986),
a high school board rejected an anti-draft advertisement that the
San Diego Committee Against Registration and the Draft (CARD)
wanted to place in student newspapers. The Court said:
--- begin quote--
CARD's advertisement comes within the boundaries of the limited public
forum the Board has created. Having established a limited public forum
the Board cannot, absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude
speech otherwise within the boundaries of the forum.... In particular,
the Board cannot allow the presentation of one side of an issue, but
prohibit the presentation of the other side ... Here, the board
permitted mixed political and commercial speech advocating military
service, but attempted to bar the same type of speech opposing
interest justifying its conduct. Accordingly, the Board violated the
First Amendment when it excluded CARD's advertisements from the
newspapers.
[...]
The Board has failed to advance any reasonable grounds for excluding
CARD's advertisement from the newspapers. Accordingly, even if we
assume that the newspapers are a nonpublic forum, that is, the type of
forum which receives the least protection under the First Amendment,
we must conclude that the Board violated the guarantees of that
amendment when it prevented the publication of CARD's advertisement.
-end quote---
Here is some more about the different kinds of forums. (This
is from the same decision).
-- begin quote ---
III. THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRINE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
[...]
The values embodied in the First Amendment require the state, under
certain circumstances, to provide members of the public with access to
its facilities for purpose of speech. Certain state facilities, which
may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special
constitution status as "public forums." [...references...] In these
public forums, the First Amendment narrowly circumscribes the
government's power to exclude or regulate speech. Of course, a state's
mere ownership or control of a facility does not, in itself, guarantee
access under the First Amendment. [... references ...] Similarly,
merely permitting public access to a government facility does not
necessarily open it for use as a public forum. [... references ...]
However, even with respect to nonpublic forums, the state may not act
unreasonably. _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct at 3448.
In _Perry_ and _Cornelius_, the Supreme Court identified three types of
forums to which the public's right to access varies, as does the type
of limitations the state may impose upon the right. The Court first
focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have
been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, where
"the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply
circumscribed. [...references...] The Court stated that
"{i}n these quintessential public forums, the government may not
prohibit all communicative activity. For the state to enforce a
content-based exclusion it mush show that its regulation is necessary
to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to
achieve that end. The state may also enforce regulations of the time,
place and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly
tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open
amble alternative channels for communcations. _Perry_
[...reference...]"
The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of
"public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a
place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call
this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum
by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state
to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the
public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first
place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and
the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for
the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the
groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed.
Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the
discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the
discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two.
Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to
impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that
forum is quite restricted:
"{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the
same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable
time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a
content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a
compelling state interest." [refs]
"Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and
second types of public forums, [ref]although in the latter type of
forums those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries
of the specific forum that has been established.
The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by
tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref]
such as a military base or jail. The Court recognized that this type of forum is governed by standard different from those applicable to the first two. The
Court stated that
"{i}n addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may
reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or
otherwise, as long as that regulation on speech is _reasonable_". [ref]
"The existence of reasonable grounds for limiting access to a
nonpublic forum, however, will not save a regulation that is in
reality a facade for viewpoint-based discrimination." _Cornelius_,
105 S.Ct. at 3454.
IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the
third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that
the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums.
In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a
nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government
intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by
"{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property
and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref]
In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to
create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are
devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a
newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some
other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that
is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted
policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the
students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to
certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under
the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most
other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of
the type found in _Widmar_. [ref]
[...]
Thus, the Board has allowed certain members of the public -- various
military recruiters -- to use its newspapers to engage in speech that
is not essentially commercial in nature but that combines elements of
political and commercial speech. As a result, the Board's _actual_
policy and practice leads, under _Cornelius_, to the conclusion that
the Board has established the school newspapers as a limited public
forum in which students can discuss any topic, and in which
non-students can engage in commercial speech generally and in speech
which is both political and commercial with respect to at least on
important and highly controversial topic -- military service. Because
the Board on a number of occasions permitted the publication of
advertisements advocating military service, there can be no question
by that the Board intended to open the newspapers for advertisements
on this topic -- at least by one side to the debate.
[...]
B. Viewpoint-Based Discrimination
Furthermore, it appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based
discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military
recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one
side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to
those who advocated military service. The Board then refused, without
a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the
same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was
engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated,
"{t}o permit one side of a debatable public question to have a
monopoly in expressing its views ... is the antithesis of
constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_ [refs] In other words,
"the First Amendment means that the government has no power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
matter, or its content. _Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref].
Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public
forum. _Cornelius_ [ref]. Accordingly, the Board's viewpoint
discrimination provides a second ground for holding that even if the
school newspapers do not constitute a public forum, the Board violated
the First Amendment in excluding CARD's advertisement.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
