From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.064054.24764@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 06:40:54 GMT
root@bogus.UUCP (David Grant) writes:
|Well, unforunatly, I have seen just that. From the server WORLD.STD.COM,
|the connections are VERY limited actually. It has a very nice machine,
|but if I am going to connect from another server/account that is cheaper
|for me to call, usually I must find a hopping stone. ;-(
this is not an accident and your circumvention of world's efforts to
be strictly by the ``book'' could be considered inappropriate use.
or not. ask wolff.
--
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet)
opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.070426.25111@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 07:04:26 GMT
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
|Why does the net suddenly need a guardian? It's never had one before.
in fact it always has had one and perhaps if this issue becomes sufficiently
troublesome some action will be taken.
i would imagine that most folks have simply been numbed by the apparently
endless droning about this topic.
--
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet)
opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.93950.13702@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 14:39:50 GMT
In article root@bogus.UUCP (David Grant) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>> I can always protect *my* site (or try to); I'm concerned about the hundreds,
>> if not thousands, of sites which haven't had the opportunity to read this dis
>> cussion.
>>
>
>There isn't _ANYTHING_ that you can't do from an authentic account that
>you CAN do from terminus. If that is the issue, that it is quite
>obvious.
That is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the anonymity
provided by servers such as terminus. You can easily access any
telnet port on my systems from an autheniticating host; however, I
can, just as easily, track that connection back to that system and,
with a minimum of effort, track it back to your userid. Of course,
I can do it *very* easily if your system happens to run an RFC 931
server. Many servers, including terminus, are completely anonymous.
>My thinking may be off on this, but, I would think that most good
>sysadmins monitor this newsgroup, and a few others on here for imporant
>things such as this.
Yes, but consider this expression:
(number of sysadmins who read this group)
-----------------------------------------
(number of systems on the "Internet")
The result is somewhat small, isn't it?
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.94335.14185@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 14:43:35 GMT
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (that's me) writes:
>>
>> I can always protect *my* site (or try to); I'm concerned about the
>> hundreds, if not thousands, of sites which haven't had the
>> opportunity to read this discussion.
>
>Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter.
>
>Why does the net suddenly need a guardian? It's never had one before.
Ah, but the net DOES have a guardian. Each RFC that contains the phrase
"This RFC specifies an Internet Standard" serves as a guardian. The RFCs
that standardize the Telnet and FTP protocols serve as guardians (of a
sort).
I am not suggesting that the net requires a HUMAN guardian; heaven knows
that I certainly wouldn't want the job (or even qualify for it)!
I am suggesting that there are problems, and that we need to decide the
manner in which we will resolve them.
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.unix.admin,alt.irc
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: [comp.unix.admin, et al.] Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.100400.18085@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 15:04:00 GMT
>From: weave@bach.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling)
>
>Therefore, I spent a day porting an IRC client to our system. It was an
>immediate hit. Too much of a hit, so much it has caused me headaches.
>
>To remidy this, I tried first to ask users to volunteer to restrict
>irc usage during off-peak times. I got flamed all over for being a
>dictator, etc, and that so-and-so in another country is only on at
>this time, and they can't just not talk to him, etc, etc...
>
>I then tried to use cron to disable IRC during those times, but they
>soon found they could telnet to several sites that offered annon. IRC.
>
>I really don't feel like constantly looking for abusers and kill'ing
>them...
>
Well, there are a few approaches you might want to consider:
1) Disable telnet during the "restricted" time periods. This is rather
drastic, and it may very well interfere with academic users.
2) During "restricted" time, modify your routing tables. You could, for
example, route packets destined for irc.foo.bar.edu into the bit bucket.
A cron job could accomplish this (and its reverse, when "restricted"
time is over).
This solution does require a bit of effort on your part; you'd have to
find all the anonymous servers and put them in a "dead route" file. Of
course, you could get this list by logging your telnet activities; how-
ever, you should only log the destination of each connection (after all,
you don't care who's doing it, right? Your only concern is which server
they are using)
3) I believe that many IRC servers can be patched to refuse connections
from certain sites. You might want to get in touch with the folks
running those anonymous IRC servers; perhaps they can "block" your
systems' access during your "restricted" times (or completely).
4) Lay it on the line with your users. Tell them, at point-blank range,
that evading the time restrictions on IRC WILL result in the removal
of the IRC client and/or loss of their computing privileges. You could
also, as a lesser means of control, restrict access to the telnet client
on an individual basis. Don't be afraid to yank the client; you'd be
amazed at the accomplishments of peer pressure......
>2) I am now playing a mother role. Whenever some user here "wrongs"
>another user here, I get mail asking me to straighten them out
>[...] (like IRC is now a right, I guess...)
Yup, welcome to the wonderful world of the easily offended. I've seen
this happen with Usenet, IRC, and email. IRC is, by far, the worst offender,
but it does happen among other means of communication. I would just tell
these people that you are the service provider, not the censor.
>3) Faculty notice that many students with poor grades are those that spend
>their entire life in IRC. The faculty complain, then took their complaints
>to the Dean.
>However, I don't like being dragged to an office to explain what in hell
>was I thinking of when I put this "program without a useful purpose"
>on the system.
This seems to be par for the course. Many academics view computers as
a simple tool; in their eyes, its sole purpose should be the accomplishment
of academic goals. You've run into that brick wall; I wish you well.
>Oh, and one solution suggested in the midst of all of this was maybe we
>should just yank our internet connection, that would solve this problem...
Ouch! If it ever came to that, I'd have IRC off the system in record time.
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.152423.20896@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 15:24:23 GMT
In article <1992Feb24.94335.14185@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes
Morgan) writes:
>
> I am suggesting that there are problems, and that we need to decide
> the manner in which we will resolve them.
Well that's pretty bloody obvious, now isn't it? You sound like a
politician.
What you are "suggesting" is more than that. You are proposing a
solution which is simply not acceptable to the people it will affect.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.110132.572@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 16:01:32 GMT
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>
>> I am suggesting that there are problems, and that we need to decide
>> the manner in which we will resolve them.
>
>Well that's pretty bloody obvious, now isn't it? You sound like a
>politician.
Well, at least you're admitting that the problem is "obvious"; after
many postings/letters claiming that the only problem is in my mind
(and those of other concerned people), I'm glad to see someone ack-
nowledge that the problem exists.
Getting both sides to admit that there is a problem is often the
most difficult part of any discussion.
>What you are "suggesting" is more than that. You are proposing a
>solution which is simply not acceptable to the people it will affect.
"Not acceptable"? Have you any jusitification for that blanket assertion?
How do I know that? No one has told me WHY it is unacceptable. I have yet
to see a justification for anonymous access to "raw" tcp/ip server ports,
other then those providing login prompts.
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.171839.15358@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 17:18:39 GMT
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
}In article <1992Feb24.94335.14185@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes
}Morgan) writes:
}> I am suggesting that there are problems, and that we need to decide
}> the manner in which we will resolve them.
}Well that's pretty bloody obvious, now isn't it? You sound like a
}politician.
}What you are "suggesting" is more than that. You are proposing a
}solution which is simply not acceptable to the people it will affect.
Ok, maybe you'll like my "suggestion" better. Everyone who is
pissed off at MIT does:
foreach x (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1)
ping terminus.lcs.mit.edu 2000 >& /dev/null &
end
John
--
John Hascall Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: magnus@lglsun.epfl.ch (Magnus Kempe)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Control by SWITCH
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.173533@lglsun.epfl.ch>
Date: 24 Feb 92 16:35:33 GMT
In article <1992Feb24.085804.26201@chx400.switch.ch>,
gilli@chx400.switch.ch (Peter Gilli) writes:
:
: SWITCH received legal advice that, if it - just like a book shop - stores
: and freely redistributes information, it can be pursued if somebody (a
: journalist, a women's right organisation, etc. - not SWITCH !) does not
: like the contents and files a lawsuit, claiming that information distri-
: buted by SWITCH is in violation with legal regulations.
1. Please indicate the _exact_ article of Swiss law that allows someone
to sue a bookshop for carrying intellectual material that this someone
"does not like". (Note that bookshops rarely "freely redistribute
information".)
2. If you can answer 1., please indicate how adult discussions of
human hetero- and homosexuality, of gun control, and newspaper news
are open to such legal attacks. How do you judge whether someone
may "not like" some newsgroup? Whose standard of morality have you
chosen as a yardstick? Why?
3. SWITCH does not "freely redistribute information". SWITCH is paid
by the Swiss universities and technical institutes to provide them
with network services. No free lunch here. Anyway maybe "free
distribution" is not an issue in the article of law you are going
to refer us to?
4. If SWITCH is legally responsible (remember, you still have to prove
1.) for the intellectual material it redistributes, please explain
what difference there is between e-mail and news. Do you intend to
filter all e-mail and throw away whatever someone may "not like"?
Again, who is going to read and judge the messages? According to
what standard? Is that part of the charter for SWITCH? Are you
already monitoring e-mail, in anticipation of future action? And
how do you relate your assertions with the activities of the Postal
Services and Telephone Companies? Are they liable for the
intellectual contents of the letters and phone calls they are
"redistributing"?
5. If SWITCH filters away some newsgroups (assuming you have shown
these were somehow illegal), does that imply that SWITCH fully
supports and takes responsibility for the material that appears
in the remaining newsgroups? Do you intend to monitor every single
news article? Is that part of the charter for SWITCH?
: it was not at all a tentative to exerce censorship - what a ridiculous idea!
Unless you show that your proposal is truly motivated by risks of legal
harassment, it is absolutely justified to consider that you have
merely, capriciously attempted to prevent people from reading and/or
writing on topics such as: human sexuality, guns, and newspaper news.
It is true that it is not censorship, as you are not part of the
government, although _all_ of your money comes from the state. It is
quite unfortunate that SWITCH was set up as a foundation, as it allows
you to take actions which are constitutionally forbidden to the state.
This is a loophole; but you don't have to dive into it, do you?
: The classification of news-groups into categories presently being dis-
: cussed is _one_ proposal to handle this problem - there are many other
: possibilities to handle this problem if this proposal is rejected.
What do you _mean_? Are you going to look for other ways to control
what people may read and/or write? E.g., are you going to track and
prevent all NNTP connections?
--
Magnus Kempe "I have sworn ... eternal hostility to every form of
magnus@lglsun.epfl.ch tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.04
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.202840.10690@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 20:28:40 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News followings the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n04
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending January 26, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-4 discuss whether unauthenticated dial-in Internet access
should be provided.
1. The problem with providing unauthenticated Internet access is that
it is not possible to trace responsibility for an action back to its
source.
<25353.Jan1904.08.2692@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
2. MIT's TERMINUS provides anonymous access by default. It has been
and will be used by crackers. If someone has an Internet machine,
they are responsible for that machine; no one takes responsibility for
TERMINUS.
<4342.Jan2010.33.3392@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
3. A partial solution to authentication problems is RFC 931. If the
originating machine runs an RFC 931-compliant server, other hosts can
find out which user owns the connection from that host to their
machine. An archive address is provided.
<26789.Jan1907.36.0392@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
4. "Net access is not a right; civil liberties do not apply to the
base issue of network access (they can apply to specific services,
such as netnews)."
<1992Jan21.110534.11426@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 5-6 discuss the right of an administrator at anonymous FTP site
to remove material protected by copyright.
5. A crack program was uploaded to an anonymous FTP area. The program
appeared to contain portions of a game copyrighted by Sierra. "...
having a publicly writeable upload area does not give someone else the
right to place anything they want there, as it is not a public forum."
<1992Jan20.225330.1164@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
6. The upsetting part of the administrator's action was that he said
he would notify system administrators. That notification may assume
illegal actions, when ignorance was actually the cause.
<27624@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Notes 7-10 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit
access to netnews.
7. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive
the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives. The head of
the department where the machines are located can request that the
machines have access to the omitted groups. Students and staff are
attempting to change the policy.
<1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>
8. The first amendment does not mean that a government entity cannot
edit or restrict the material it carries. "Your right to free speech
does not extend itself to include complete, unrestricted access to the
state's possessions."
<1992Jan25.193640.25341@anomaly.sbs.com>
9. Iowa State is not required to provide netnews. They may limit
which groups they carry. However, they have a moral responsibility
not to censor articles in a newsgroup.
<1992Jan26.170429.27078@eff.org>
10. "If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of
arbitrary censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of
arbitrary censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an
electronic library of ideas."
<1992Jan26.045844.10853@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Note 11 discusses security and privacy issues raised by a proposed
public directory service.
11. The North American Directory Forum (NADF) introduced a "User Bill
of Rights" to address security and privacy issues regarding entries
and listings in its proposed cooperative X.500 public directory
service. The proposed bill of rights is included.
<9201232252.AA04537@psi.com>
- Paul]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, or Carl M. Kadie). It
is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial
decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
From: bolwidt@fwi.uva.nl (Erwin J. Bolwidt)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.unix.admin,alt.irc
Subject: Re: [comp.unix.admin, et al.] Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.203759.27790@fwi.uva.nl>
Date: 24 Feb 92 20:37:59 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>From: weave@bach.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling)
>>
>>Therefore, I spent a day porting an IRC client to our system. It was an
>>immediate hit. Too much of a hit, so much it has caused me headaches.
>>
>>To remidy this, I tried first to ask users to volunteer to restrict
>>irc usage during off-peak times. I got flamed all over for being a
>>dictator, etc, and that so-and-so in another country is only on at
>>this time, and they can't just not talk to him, etc, etc...
>>
>>I then tried to use cron to disable IRC during those times, but they
>>soon found they could telnet to several sites that offered annon. IRC.
>>
>>I really don't feel like constantly looking for abusers and kill'ing
>>them...
>>
>Well, there are a few approaches you might want to consider:
>1) Disable telnet during the "restricted" time periods. This is rather
> drastic, and it may very well interfere with academic users.
>2) During "restricted" time, modify your routing tables. You could, for
> example, route packets destined for irc.foo.bar.edu into the bit bucket.
> A cron job could accomplish this (and its reverse, when "restricted"
> time is over).
[...]
>4) Lay it on the line with your users. Tell them, at point-blank range,
> that evading the time restrictions on IRC WILL result in the removal
> of the IRC client and/or loss of their computing privileges. You could
> also, as a lesser means of control, restrict access to the telnet client
> on an individual basis. Don't be afraid to yank the client; you'd be
> amazed at the accomplishments of peer pressure......
This problem looks exactly like the MUD-disease at our university. I remember
that then, someone had a program called mudhunt - it looked for specific addres-
ses INCLUDING ports and killed a matching link. It's less brutal than completely
disabling internet access, and is quite suitable for IRC as most servers use
6667 as their port number.
I am not saying this is the solution every superuser must issue; in most cases
students can combine studies & IRC, but when their is really a need for it,
I think it's a managable solution.
Erwin Bolwidt
/*
Erwin J. Bolwidt
Of COURSE my opinions are MY opinions; I wouldn't want to Universities'
opinions forced upon me either :)
* Connection closed by foreign host.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9202242209.AA10908@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 10:09:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: solsman@rohan.endor.cs.psu.edu (Mark Solsman)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 19:58:16 GMT
Sounds like your problem with IRC is in administeration.
You shouldn't have to honor any constitutional right governing the use
or disallowment of irc. After all, your system is a service- a privilege
not a right. Tell your boss that if she wants to discontinue the use of irc,
or any other service, that she should do this by legistics.
Simply, how about adding the clause "This system is only for use approved by
the university" Then, next time someone uses irc or does something that you
don't wish to allow, it is then a legal concern, send them to the dean. If
someone wants to carry on, revoke their account, expell them.
Any other opinions?
PLEASE, don't flame me, we are professionals. I can take criticism.
Mark Solsman
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.culture.celtic,talk.abortion,soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 24 Feb 92 22:28:48 GMT
[Apologies if you've seen this already. It was cancelled at my site over the
weekend, before most people would have had a chance to read it.]
Hmm. Interesting times are here in Ireland at the moment, and an issue has
come up which may well pose a question for those interested in the issues
of censorship, and especially where in concerns the Net.
As you may know, abortion is illegal in Ireland. The Eighth Amendment to
the constitution in 1983 made it even more so, and also led the way to
making the distribution of abortion information illegal. The Student Union
of this college, Trinity, was brought to court by the Society for the
Protection of the Unborn Child and was prevented from distributing such
information from its welfare section to women.
Recently, a 14 year old girl has become pregnant as the result of an alleged
rape. Unwittingly her parents told the police that they intended to bring her
to England for an abortion. Said police felt they had no option but to follow
up on this information, and as a result the Attorney General got an injunction
preventing the girl from leaving country.
The case hasn't left the headlines in the past week, and has become a rallying
call for pro-choice campaigners and those concerned at the fact that this
strident interpretation of the Eighth Amendment sees Ireland on the path to
a totalitarian state. (A pointed cartoon in the _Irish Times_ depicted an
Ireland surrounded by barbed wire, in the middle of which a little girl sits.
The caption - "February 1992. Internment - for women".)
Of course, people who called for and supported the amendment in '83 are now
saying the whole thing is a set-up by liberals, that they didn't forsee this
happening (despite repeated warnings at the time) and that "sure the mother
should have known she shouldn't have told the police". In effect, most of
them are now suggesting that people should break the law that they passed,
which seems to me the worst kind of hypocrisy.
That's the abortion issue. I'd love to hear comments on any aspect.
The computer/censorship issue related to the fact that only crosspostings
to the group _talk.abortion_ (which I hope this posting is getting through
to) appear here. The relevant people are concerned that we could be breaking
the law by allowing such postings to be read here, as they may have information
in them on how to procure an abortion, e.g. a telephone number for an abortion
clinic in England.
My question is - are they leaving themselves open to prosecution? It seems to
me that they cannot be seen to be "distributing" such information _per_ _se_;
any more than libraries are by having English telephone directories, containing
the numbers of clinics.
Anyway, I'll leave the floor open.
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] improper news posting
Message-ID: <9202242313.AA25311@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 11:13:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: kennard@tukey.berkeley.edu (Kennard White)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: improper news posting
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.200511.18201@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 24 Feb 92 20:05:11 GMT
A user of the pasteur newsserver recently posted an improper article
to various comps.sys groups. The article advertized some laptop computers
for sale in quantity. The user has been informed that this is improper,
and will not do it again (or else...).
Kennard
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.220725.21486@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 22:07:25 GMT
brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>I write:
>> What you seem to be saying is that by an organization attaching to the
>> network, you now have the right to come in and tell them how they can
>> and cannot do business.
>In this vain attempt to save your position you seem to be claiming that
Vain? Is this a value judgement?
>(1) the network service provider cannot dictate how its network is used;
This is a good smokescreen, actually. If you really look hard at it
(c'mon Dan, you can do it), the network provide can either provide or
not provide. It's choice.
If the network provider is charging money for its service, then
the service is the customer's to do with as they please...to the
point that if either is dissatisfied then either party can quit.
Typically, this is how sane people handle things. The network
provider does not make policy for the customer, and vice versa.
One may "request" of the other, and the other may comply voluntarily
of their own free will...or the other may say no.
But dictating policy is out of the question.
>You may or may not have noticed that there's a very big organization,
>the United States government, which spends a lot of its time and a lot
>of your money deciding how freely Bill can exercise his rights before he
>interferes with Ted's rights. Rights which affect other people are never
>absolute.
I've noticed. Oh how I've noticed. Ever heard of RICO? Are you saying
that big br..er...the United Stated Government is right in what they do?
>> One person was moving in on the fact that they are an
>> MIT alumnus and that their donation of money allows them access to
>> their policies...
>An MIT alumnus has the perfect right to tell MIT that he'll donate money
>only if they justify their policies. If they don't, he has the perfect
>right to follow through on his threat. Why does this bother you?
As you have it worded it doesn't. When someone donates money, and then
after the fact of that donation demands policy changes, I have a problem
with the ethics therein. Donation implies gift. If someone gave you
a christmas present and then 2 months later demanded that you loan
a friend of his $10,000 sight unseen, would you think that was ethical?
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh
Wisdom (n.) - 1. Something you can learn without knowing it.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9202241719.AA26757@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 05:19:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.225251.14472@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 22:52:51 GMT
In article <1992Feb23.210226.11496@ecst.csuchico.edu> warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Kennedy) writes:
> IRC, in this specific example, doesn't use telnet. It has it's own client
>that, as far as I know, makes it very desirable to not use telnet instead.
Indeed, it's much more efficient to use an IRC client than
character-mode telnet. The only resource problem I've heard about
related to IRC is "we don't have enough terminals/modems", which is
always a tough problem to deal with.
--
Signature virii are lame.
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9202241720.AA15158@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 05:20:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Feb 92 23:45:24 GMT
John> == John Kennedy
John> In article <49785@hydra.gatech.EDU> glenns@eas.gatech.edu writes:
John> a) Snarf a copy of telnet before the fact and use it
John> b) Write something that will replace telnet, or as much as you need
John> c) Find a client that someone else has already written
John> d) Ask net buddies to poke around and get an un-hacked version
John> offsite
John> IRC, in this specific example, doesn't use telnet. It has it's
John> own client that, as far as I know, makes it very desirable to not
John> use telnet instead.
You can access irc via telnet. The protocol is extremely simple. In
fact, some system administrators have threatened that they would nuke
user accounts for having irc client binaries in their accounts, and the
users have learned that it's quite simple to ->
telnet your.favorite.server 6667
user username x x IRCNAME
nick nickname
and lo and behold, you're on irc.
There are also client-telnet daemons which you can telnet to a certain
site and use a client (and a client only, no shell access).
--> The diehard solution may well be "Okay, we can be nice about this, or
--> I can get real nasty real fast." The original poster may well want to
--> mention to the users that it was suggested that the entire internet link
--> could be pulled. And remind them that if things do get pulled, and they
--> do decide to fight about it, that they stay down until the fight is
--> resolved... which could take months or even years.
John> I don't think they'll pull their internet connection. If
John> they're not addicted to it now, they will be as soon as everyone
John> starts catching on. IMHO, it's an unfortunate fact that some
John> people are unable to police themselves and are potentially
John> deluded into thinking they have certain rights. In many cases,
John> what "rights" people have is only based on convenience and the
John> fact that it doesn't totally interfere with whatever the
John> equipment/resources is really allocated for and, as such, aren't
John> really "rights" at all. This is not a "rights" discussion,
John> however.
My boss made a very good analogy: IRC is a a virtual party for people in
the general age-range of 18-28. It's like going to the student union and
seeing people you know there. And it's *always open*. There's always
something to do. If you're depressed (which happens alot to freshmen)
you can get on irc and *someone*, or just the general air of the place,
will make you feel better.
I've spent considerable energy organizing irc parties, get togethers,
places for people to stay who come in from out of town. I know many
others from around the USA and around the world who have done this also.
When irc was smaller, it was like a virtual family. Knowing everyone...
there were "clusters" of IRC communities ... one in Boston, one at WWU
in Bellingham, Washington, etc. It's hard to do that nowadays with over
500 users on IRC at any one time, but yet the family feeling remains. I
suspect this is alot of what keeps unsuspecting students on irc at all
hours...
John> I'd rather see IRC get crushed and reestricted a bit elsewhere
John> rather than seeing alternatives like network access denied to
John> everyone, IRC users or not. If anyone is thinking about going so
John> far as getting rid of all network access, I'd heavily recommend
John> they look into doing something as simple as only routing packets
John> off-site to ports less than 1024. That should leave all that
John> standard internet services intact while nipping many things in
John> the bud. Given the special associations these ports have for the
John> "official" services, it could also be written into many policy
John> statements for various goals.
This may not work in the future, as there have been MANY rumblings in
the IRC backbone community (NOTE: IRC is an anarchy, and is run by as
much cooperation as you can extract from your neighbor) about moving the
irc network to a port below 1024.
--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose Many thanks to Sun Microsystems
Electronic Frontier Foundation who approved EFF's $75K grant!
Systems and Networks Administration Flames to:
women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9202241726.AA22729@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 05:26:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.065916.18362@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 06:59:16 GMT
In article <16523@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> wb@cs.uni-sb.de writes:
>You don't need to be system admistrator to install a client. You only
>need a C-compiler ...
You don't need to be a system administrator to install an IRC server
either, which is part of why IRC is so loved and hated all over the
net. Ah, if only it took substantial resources (i.e. a fair amount of
disk space) to run a server...
--
Signature virii are lame.
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <9202241729.AA04964@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 05:29:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: jdb1145@summa.tamu.edu (There Is No Excuse)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <24FEB199209235618@summa.tamu.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 14:23:00 GMT
In article <1992Feb22.195645.16674@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bd671@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher P. Harr) writes...
> The question is does you university allow game playing. Please respond
>via e-mail with the name of your university, and whether they ALLOW, DISALLOW,
>ALLOW DURING CERTAIN HOURS, or ALLOW WHEN THERE ARE OPEN TERMINALS. We are
>trying to get this policy changed, and their excues for not listeneng is that
>very few other Universities allow game playing. It would be greately
>appreciated if you would respond. Thanx.
Here at Texas A&M, I first got started MUDding in Fall of '90. There were no
restrictions then, and there were almost always open terminals and people with
legitimate work could ask people gaming to give up their terminal for them and
they would (or at least *I* would, and encouraged others to follow suit). Come
Spring of '91, however, first they put restrictions on us (we could only game
from one node, and only from Midnight to 6 AM), but they found it notoriously
hard to enforce. So they put their heads together and came up with the MUD
Scanner, a nasty little device that checks accounts to see who's gaming directly
from their account on the wrong node or at the wrong time, and kicks them off
the system and sends an e-mail warning. Enough of these warnings gets your
account yanked and a wrist-slap put on your University files. In addition, of
course there are ten bazillion ways around the system, and every time the
University finds one and figures a way to block it to gamers, all it takes for a
new way to be found and circulated among the gamers is roughly 48 hours. Sooner
or later the Powers That Be will find that they can no longer restrict such
activities without cutting off the ability of other users to do what they need.
Their only legitimate reasoning for this is spite.
John D. Burke, Texas A&M University | "And your city lies in dust my friend."
JDB1145@tamu.edu | -Siouxsie and the Banshees
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9202241952.AA24279@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 07:52:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Kennedy)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.182818.5447@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 18:28:18 GMT
In article Helen Trillian Rose writes:
--> There are also client-telnet daemons which you can telnet to a certain
--> site and use a client (and a client only, no shell access). ...
--> This may not work in the future, as there have been MANY rumblings in
--> the IRC backbone community (NOTE: IRC is an anarchy, and is run by as
--> much cooperation as you can extract from your neighbor) about moving the
--> irc network to a port below 1024.
Again, if you must, don't play games. Route problem sites to packet hell.
I really like cisco products. (:
Server sites are probably few and far between. Sites with IRC with root
access (IE, ports less than 1024, assuming (probably) UNIX) would be much
rarer. A student/employee running a IRC server won't be able to do it.
I doubt if IRC servers and their hosts/ports are any great secret. There
is a regular posting of MUD sites/ports. It doesn't cover them all, but it
probably covers the most popular sites. Helpful news might even be able to
ASK. There must be an IRC newsgroup somewhere. (:{
I really hope that nobody gets pushed to this extreme. People can be
rather inflexible once they get forced to write policy. I know some people
who think "Ha! They can't stop me!" They *can*, in most cases, and it
would make for a very bleak world indeed.
I'm sure pro-IRC people will read this at some point. Don't drive your
administrators to this extreme. It would be unfortunate. It is nice, sterile,
and easily justified to people who use the net mainly for mail and files. IE,
the people who end up making decisions in many cases and who won't feel the
impact as much as IRC or other service users.
--
John Kennedy/KC6RCK/warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu "IBM, You BM, We All BM for IBM!"
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9202242114.AA26432@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 09:14:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.001419.25395@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 00:14:19 GMT
In article <1992Feb21.162615.22018@cs.dal.ca> legrady@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tom Legrady) writes:
>In article <1992Feb21.103237@sic.epfl.ch> brossard@sasun1.epfl.ch writes:
>>
>>---> REVISED CLASSIFICATION OF NEWSFEED
>>---> CATEGORY 3: PROHIBITED NEWSGROUPS
>>---> alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
>
>Your beaurocrats have obviously simply searched for newsgroups with
>"sex" in the title and banned them all. Alt.sexual.abuse.recovery is
>a serious newsgroup where people who have been sexually abused in the
>past come together and take part in a communal healing process by
>sharing their pain and progress. Switzerland wants to ban this?
>
>Will they be outlawing Alcoholics Anonymous next? No, because AA doesn't
>have "sex" in their title ...
It would be much easier to accept the "Switch" bureaucrats bigotry if
this were true, but unfortunately it is not. Where is the "sex" in
soc.bi and soc.motss? Or in talk.politics.guns? No, what is happening
here is censorship at it's worst... they are deliberately "banning"
discussion on any topic which they find POLITICALLY objectionable,
and discussions by the victims of sexual abuse and opression against
homosexuality are clearly deliberately included in this.
It's disgusting, but I'm sure the attempt is in vain... those who
attempt this sort of thing will be quickly removed from power or
else simply circumvented. ...
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9202242115.AA13426@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 09:15:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.002859.2250@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 00:28:59 GMT
In article <1992Feb22.084216.17385@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>The fact that they removed several clari groups, which contain nothing
>but newspaper news about issues (such as drug crimes) indicates that
>they deleted groups based on nothing but their names, rather than
>looking at what was in the groups.
I must say that I tend to disagree. If they based their judgement purely
on the names of groups, how would they even have known what 'soc.motss'
meant? No, I think what's going on here is censorship in its purest
form... an attempt at mind-control by regulating what topics are ok to
talk about. This may sound paranoid, but I've met plenty of people
who think like that...
>There is nothing to offend
>any laws in those clari groups, and of course large numbers of the stories
>there are crossposted to other groups not on the list.
Nor is there anything to offend any Swiss law in most of the other banned
groups. There are however lots of things which will offend the sensibilites
of certain anal-retentive Swiss reactionaries, and that's clearly who we
are dealing with here.
>This is one of the most capricious newsgroup bannings I have seen, and
>I've seen a few of them :-(
Not capricious at all... utterly fascist and malitious, but definitely
thoroughly planned. Look over the list again and think about it...
However, I feel confident that while much of the Swiss bureaucracy may
be controlled by reactionary assholes, there are enough progressive
people at the affected academic institutions that they will not only
not be able to get away with it, but actually get their fingers burned
in the attempt.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: zwicky@erg.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.011258.15180@erg.sri.com>
Date: 25 Feb 92 01:12:58 GMT
In article <32961@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>In article <18252@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>}This is not really relevant to mail order prices, since out-of-state
>}purchasers don't pay the sales tax either.
>In fact, they're supposed to. It's just not considered worth the trouble
>of persuing by most states. Also, if the mail order company exists or has
>an office in the customer's state, they must, and will, charge sales tax
>on the order form.
You can tell that Jerry is a Californian. A state can only require
entities which do business within its boundaries to collect sales tax;
thus if I sell jewelry to someone in Ohio, I do not have to collect
Ohio sales tax unless I have a sales outlet in Ohio. This irks
California, which applies two interesting tricks. First, they use a
*much* broader definition of "do business in". You don't need an
office in California to owe California sales tax; you only need to
intentionally solicit business in California. Second, they charge "use
tax". The use tax rate is coincidentally identical to the sales tax
rate, but the burden of paying use tax is on the consumer, not the
seller. As a consumer who lives in California, you owe use tax on all
tangible property on which you did not pay California sales tax, with
some exceptions made for things which were elderly when you brought
them into the state. The use tax will be rebated by the amount of
sales tax you paid when you purchased it, though. Reasonably enough,
California does not attempt to enforce use tax on anything small, but
try to register an out-of-state purchased vehicle and they'll get you
for use tax so fast your head will spin.
There may be other states that do this, but in general it is *not*
true that tax is owed on out-of-state mail-order sales. Sales tax
can't be owed, because such a tax would be a restriction on interstate
commerce and therefore only allowed of the federal government. Use tax
is a California hack. Given that US taxes often vary by county, and
occasionally by county *and* by city, it's rarely safe to generalize
about the US tax structure.
Elizabeth D. Zwicky
owner of a California business named "Elizabeth D. Zwicky"
zwicky@erg.sri.com
but not this California business.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9202250309.AA01222@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 15:09:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.224453.9522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 22:44:53 GMT
In article <1992Feb24.200643.10103@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> sherwood@space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) writes:
>While I'm not enough of a programmer to implement it, a sneaky way to
>do it would be to insert a delay into IRC packets. Program the router
>to hold them for n seconds, then forward them on. You could make the
>delay proportional to the IRC traffic squared. This would quickly
>cause people to change their hours of use. It still works, but it is
>painfully slow. Eventually they will get bored, and quit I suspect.
What this, and most of the other "solutions" I've seeon so far doesn't
do is address the actual problem. If the only complaint is "people
using IRC are tying up all the modems/terminals so that real work
isn't getting done", then deal with just those users. If I have a
workstation on my desk and the network traffic generated by IRC is
totally insignificant, what technical problem is there with me using
it? If there are many terminals/modems free at most times of the day,
is it necessary to ban IRC use 24 hours a day?
--
Signature virii are lame.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.misc
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: History of "alt" groups
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.032649.16633@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 03:26:49 GMT
Here is some first-hand history. Reposted from email with the author's
permission.
================================
To: "Carl M. Kadie"
Subject: Re: History of "alt" groups
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 18:40:48 PST
From: Brian Reid
The "alt" groups were created by Brian Reid and John Gilmore after a
meeting of the Bay Area USENET administrators in the spring of 198[7].
Each of us had one specific newsgroup that we wanted to create, and
both of us were fed up with the foolish authoritarian bureaucracy that
was being set up to "govern" the name space of the other news groups.
The initial "alt" backbone was between John's home computer "hoptoad", my
home computer "mejac", Gordon Moffett's system at Amdahl, and one more
that I can't remember. The first two alt groups were alt.drugs and
alt.gourmand. We also created alt.config for the purpose of holding
newgroup discussions and announcements. On April 3, 1988 I created
alt.sex, and, for the heck of it, alt.rock-n-roll. Alt.sex was what got
the alt network off the ground.
Brian
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.misc
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: History of "alt" groups
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.034807.16857@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 03:48:07 GMT
The Iowa State University Netnews policy should be rewritten for
historical accuracy. The policy implies that the "alt" hierarchy was
created be people who wanted to label "dangerous" groups. This is
false. The "alt" hierarchy by people who wanted a venue for free
expression in the face of network censorship.
Enclosed is a suggested rewrite.
- Carl
>'The use of Usenet to discuss a wide variety of issues has grown over
>the years. While the "purely technical" newsgroups still exist,
>Usenet also includes general discussion on almost anything, including
>such topics as aspects of
>sexual lifestyles,
censorship,
>illegal drugs,
civil liberties, academic freedom,
>and racist
>humor. The collective group of Usenet "news administrators" early on
>decided
that they "were fed up with the foolish authoritarian bureaucracy"
that tried to restrict the topics that could be discussed. So, they
created the "alt" group division. All groups, including these groups,
are handled by a site according to the principles that govern that site.
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9202250355.AA06806@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 15:55:13 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: kh@litsun.epfl.ch (Mark S.)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID:
Date: 24 Feb 92 22:14:59 GMT
hear hear
I hope somebody is going to answer to the points that were made in the
original posting. This is really getting out of hand.
I waited a few days responding because I was too mad and would have
only started swearing.
This will still not be just a rational follow-up. No personal offense
intended: if you feel like splatters of the puke have landed on you
just wipe'm off and join the discussion.
It hit me when I saw soc.motts being banned. Reading the list now
*really* makes me sad. Abortion and rape forbidden to talk about? What
is this: Ireland, where a raped young girl cannot go to another
country to get an abortion? Why will you not let me participate in or follow
this discussion through the net? I just do not feal like reading .chem
or .pinball all the time.
Somebody out there with vague anal fears pulled some strings and got
talk groups of the air like soc.motts. THIS IS LUDICROUS. And a purely
discriminatory act. Why would anybody think this would pass without a
ripple? People @ switch: you are out of line. Go home. Or at least
open up and talk. Or are you censored maybe? Who is controling you?
Who is Brossard's Boss? Who is in charge here?
Get those guys on line please. Let us in on the secret: Who Killed Our
Newsgroups? (And: No, I know it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald)
Are there any other institutions who dare to have an opinion? Speak up
or be screwed forever.
Hey, maybe Switzerland is as retarded as the UK. Did you know that
bugging is punishable by law there? I think it is a law from
18something which they haven't abolished because the didn't dare ask
the Queen to sign a law which would condone something like
butt-fucking. Hail Victoria! (Any sordid details about this, anyone?)
Yo SWITCHoos ! I bet Calvin would have been proud of you.
moi par contre ca me fais chier tout ce bordel de merde
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Soekarjo Living in a postcard
postcards to la Maison Rose e-mail to kh@litsun.epfl.ch
Ch. des Clos 53 fax +41'21'693'41'11
CH-1024 Ecublens voice +41'21'693'37'02
****europe*****
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: root@bogus.UUCP (David Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 18:52:42 CST
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes:
>
> this is not an accident and your circumvention of world's efforts to
> be strictly by the ``book'' could be considered inappropriate use.
>
> or not. ask wolff.
>
This is something "questionable", but as long as the services are free,
and I am stealing anything, I'm not going to worry. I would rather go
through another account, but, I haven't gotten my other account setup
that I can get to via world.std.com from telnet.
I should have a few sites soon.
->David
** Bogus -- Public Access Network Services (501) 525-1681 14400 HST/V.32 **
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <90912001@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 25 Feb 92 07:01:45 GMT
In article <1992Feb23.213859.11869@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter.
>
>Why does the net suddenly need a guardian? It's never had one before.
Yes it has: all of us. Still true. Willfully ignoring cooperative
good-faith persuasion is the only thing that could possibly inflict a
REAL "guardian" on us -- one that MIT would hate as much as anyone.
Cracking has become a more serious business than it used to be, and is
no longer considered too esoteric a subject to excite politicians and
their ilk. The age of innocence is over, and the stakes are high.
The question is, why does the net suddenly need to pretend that times
aren't changing? It's never done so before.
--
'The Nazis have no sense of humor, so why -| Tom Neff
should they want television?' -- Phil Dick |- tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.085100.15887@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 25 Feb 92 13:51:00 GMT
I can name a legit usage of a completely anonymous account: access
to services that need to be anonymous. For instance, posting to
alt.sex.bondage needs to be able to be anonymous because of prejudice vs.
bondage, submission, sadism, masochism, etc. You may say that the host
machine could still be non-anonymous login, but not respond to requests
for the identity of the user. What about court orders? Kinsey (author of
the Kinsey Report on Human Sexual Behavior, or whatever the proper name
was) was threatened repeatedly with court orders to get him to disclose
who had committed such "horrible crimes" as premarital sex. In order to
assure anonymity, the only location for the coding system they used was in
their own heads. He stated that, if a court order came for access to the
files of material they had, he would fight it legally as long as he could,
then destroy it to prevent the breaking of anonymity; he would then take
whatever legal consequences came.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.culture.celtic,talk.abortion,soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.143751.24948@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 25 Feb 92 14:37:51 GMT
chogan@maths.tcd.ie (Christine Hogan) writes:
>pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>>[Apologies if you've seen this already. It was cancelled at my site over the
>>weekend, before most people would have had a chance to read it.]
>As the sysadmin at "his site", I object very strongly to this.
>The article was NOT cancelled. It was posted before the weekend
>in groups that expire after two days. It died a natural death.
OK, wrong terminology. I apologise. Expired.
>>My question is - are they leaving themselves open to prosecution?
>How can anyone outside Ireland be expected to know Irish law
>(which is vastly different to anyone else's in cases like this)
>well eneough to answer that ?
No need to get ratty. I'm merely curious. Besides, there's a lot
of Irish, Irish ex-patriates and lawyers out there who might have info,
or at least pointers to more info.
>Our machines would be used to distribute illegal information,
>like as if someone posted copyrighted material. We would be
>liable for not getting rid of it.
Would we? That's what I'd like to know. Besides, banning a whole
newsgroup seems to me to be the heavy-handiest way of preventing such
an occurence.
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.culture.celtic,talk.abortion,soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.195146.27919@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 19:51:46 GMT
In the U.S., you could *increase* your liablity by getting rid of
"dangerous" newsgroups. The reason is that by excluding "dangerous"
newsgroups your are acting more like an editor and less like a book
seller or librarian. Thus, if something "dangerous" still makes it
through (say in a newsgroup you didn't restrict), you may be
responsible for it. I'm enclosing more information.
- Carl
=======================
Subject: CompuServe Not Liable for Vendor's Newsletter
Quoting from clari.nb.telecom,clari.nb.top:
"NEW YORK, NEW YORK, U.S.A., 1991 OCT 31 (NB) -- U.S. District Judge
Peter Leisure ruled that CompuServe cannot be held liable for
information in a newsletter it did not originally publish. His
decision, the first of its kind, held that computer databases are the
equivalent of newsstands or book stores, whose owners cannot be held
liable for the content of the papers they sell unless they know
beforehand that the stories are false."
The case is "Cubby vs. CompuServe"
Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:4853 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1833
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: CompuServe Isn't Liable for Contents of its Network
Message-ID: <1991Nov1.195246.13037@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 19:52:46 GMT
Lines: 25
[Short excerpts from a Doe Jones News Retrieval story:]
[...]
"CompuServe has no more editorial control over such a publication
than does a public library, bookstore or newsstand, and it would be
no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it
carries for potentially defamatory statements than it would be for
any other distributor to do so," wrote Judge Leisure.
[...]
The decision won't necessarily have the same direct benefits for
the Prodigy network, a joint venture of International Business
Machines Corp. and Sears, Roebuck & Co. That's because Prodigy has
an unusual policy of pre-screening its members' public notes. Thus, a
plaintiff could conceivably argue that Prodigy knew in advance about
any defamatory or offensive message.
[...]
The new decision could be influential because it tackles free
speech on an electronic network. But it's unclear how the ruling,
which involves "publications," would affect bulletin boards on which
users add comments to an in-house forum.
[...]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
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
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: 7 Jan 92 03:39:00 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 121
~Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
~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 |
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.143816.25230@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 19:38:16 GMT
allens@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>
> I can name a legit usage of a completely anonymous account: access
>to services that need to be anonymous. For instance, posting to
>alt.sex.bondage needs to be able to be anonymous because of prejudice vs.
>bondage, submission, sadism, masochism, etc.
This is hardly the sort of "need" I was anticipating, but I'll propose a
solution nonetheless:
This could easily be handled by installing/modifying the ACS software
used for alt.personals. This software is (as I understand it) public
domain.
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] The homo community crap
Message-ID: <199202252316.AA02759@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 13:16:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex
From: rsolson@caticsuf.csufresno.edu (Robert Solson)
Subject: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.032904.19455@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 03:29:04 EST
Well, I was reading through alt.sex Where else can you hear from total losers
expressing their rights as part of a homosexual community. What a crock. It is
a riot though! I've heard everything from "My pituitary gland is bigger than
yours so it's allright to be gay" to "AIDS isn't dangerous if I wear a condom
when I shove my penis into a guy's anus" Heh. On and on... Well, I have no
respect whatsoever for homosexuals nor for people who do respect them.
Allthough they have allready established themselves as separate from general
society and created their own sick little world, they should be regarded as
the absolute lowest scum of the earth. They are weak and disgusting and
their only means of escape is to confide in another like themselves. They
hope that science will come up for an explanation, an excuse for them, but
until that day that will never come, they grasp at theories and weak
speculations making fools of themselves proving again and again that they
have been conquered by their own self-righteous mentality. The homosexuals
are just a tiny revolting little group of squealing morons as are mass-
murderers, those involved with beastiality, etc. But if the strong wish
to help the weak then homosexuality should never become accepted in any
form. It should be fought against in any way possible forever. I absolutely
do not believe in conformity, I don't believe that everyone should be "normal"
or anything like that but there are rules that must not be broken. Homo-
sexuality is one of them. Whether you think it's right or wrong, it causes a
great deal of hurt in yourself and many people around you. It's comparible to
the violent drug addict or alchoholic. Yes, the alchoholic believes that what
he is doing is right. Until he finally realizes what he is doing is wrong
(wrong-implies the inflicting of unmerited injury upon another or self. As in
context) and surrenders to the fact that it IS alchohol that is the center of
the wrong in his life, he is sure to continue in the trap of spiraling
destruction. In much the same way, a homesexual can do the same thing. And
without losing their identity. I have much respect for a "recovered" homesexual
and I know and know of many. I can also respect feministic qualities in a man.
There is no such thing as a woman trapped in a man's body. <- Another excuse.
Everyone is different. Some are sick and need help. Should we care and respect
the sick? Yes, but not with the homesexual. He should be regarded as the lowest
slime dirt of the earth, humiliated, rejected, segregated, ignored, looked
down upon. Doing this will help the homosexual more than anything. Acceptance
will only add fuel to the horrifying reality. Rejection will prevent many
from turning their lives to a disaster and may convince active slime to get
help. Homosexuals allways lose the fight in the end. They are much too weak.
Pay little attention to their squealings and squabbles. It's just a load of
crap. Just a sickening heap of total stinking crap.
rsolson@caticsuf.csufresno.edu (I like mail)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help a homosexual today! Bash it's sickening face into the dirt until it's at
the point of death and then do it again and again and again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Alt.sex, homophobia, and censorship
Message-ID: <199202252318.AA02831@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 13:18:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex
From: positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Alt.sex, homophobia, and censorship
Message-ID: <5HP+zc@engin.umich.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 22:56:24 EST
I'm starting this new thread, because I've received a lot of mail
regarding something I posted here, and I think it would be better
to discuss it out in the open.
The situation thus far is this. Some guy posted a message to alt.sex,
in which he seriously flamed the gays, including advocating anti-homosexual
violence. In his .signature was his email address, and "I like mail."
Someone did a followup, saying that he had tried to send mail to that
address and it had bounced. A third person responded, saying that he
had sent the offensive post to the poster's sysadmin, and got the guy's
account pulled. I joined at this point, saying that I was a bit disgusted
that censorship was necessary.
Don't think for a moment that I agree with this guy's views. But whatever
they are, he has a right to say them, offensive as they may be. If you
don't like what he says, you can always add him to your kill file and
never listen to him again. But getting someone's account pulled is
overkill, and nasty to boot. The fact that this guy was nasty and
malicious doesn't give anyone else license to be nasty and malicious
also... aren't we supposed to be better than he is? I'm sure each and
every person who follows this newsgroup has at least one belief that
is offensive to at least one other person... don't you think that you
have a right to air your belief, without fear of having your account
(which perhaps you need for schoolwork, or to receive mail) pulled?
Some people pointed out (correctly) that the guy was using someone
else's system, and the admins had a perfect right to pull his account.
True. But what of the people who felt it necessary to run to the
sysadmin and tell him of the nasty uses to which the account was being
put? It's like running to Mother and tattling on Johnny for stealing
a cookie from the cookie jar... it's a malicious thing to do. Nobody
likes a snitch.
--Jon (still .signatureless, but advocating free speech)
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: Alt.sex, homophobia, and censorship
Message-ID: <199202252318.AA02898@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 13:18:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
From: pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Alt.sex, homophobia, and censorship
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.063634.26699@kumr.lns.com>
Date: 25 Feb 92 06:36:34 GMT
positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>I'm starting this new thread, because I've received a lot of mail
>regarding something I posted here, and I think it would be better
>to discuss it out in the open.
>
>The situation thus far is this. Some guy posted a message to alt.sex,
>in which he seriously flamed the gays, including advocating anti-homosexual
>violence. In his .signature was his email address, and "I like mail."
>Someone did a followup, saying that he had tried to send mail to that
>address and it had bounced. A third person responded, saying that he
>had sent the offensive post to the poster's sysadmin, and got the guy's
>account pulled.
This is not true. Please read my posting again. I forwarded his post
to the postmaster of the system he posted from. I wanted the sysadmin to
know what was going on. I NEVER said that his account should be pulled.
I never suggested it to the sysadmin. I felt it was up to the sysadmin to
do whatever the policy was for the site he administrates. I don't think
it is appropiate for me to tell the sysadm to pull the account.
As it happens, the poster had his account pulled. This was completly
up to the powers that be at his site. Apperently they have a policy
regarding the type of posting that he did and the action that was dictated
by the policy was to pull his account.
AGAIN: I REPEAT. I NEVER SUGGESTED, ASKED, OR DEMANDED THAT THE
POSTER'S ACCOUNT BE PULLED.
>--Jon (still .signatureless, but advocating free speech)
[I would like to point out that I am for free speach as well. I have
been working in radio since 1968, and have started or helped with a number
of shows that provide a forum for free speach for all sides. Those that
know me, know that this is true.]
Tim
--
Internet: pozar@kumr.lns.com FidoNet: Tim Pozar @ 1:125/555
UUCP: ...!uunet!kumr.lns.com!pozar
Snail: Tim Pozar / KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108 / USA
Voice: +1 415 788 2022
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: Alt.sex, homophobia, and censorship
Message-ID: <199202252318.AA02977@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 13:18:59 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex
From: sanio@netmbx.netmbx.de (Erhard Sanio)
Subject: Re: Alt.sex, homophobia, and censorship
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 17:27:00 GMT
Message-ID: <52RZZZF@netmbx.netmbx.de>
In article <5HP+zc@engin.umich.edu> positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>I'm starting this new thread, because I've received a lot of mail
>regarding something I posted here, and I think it would be better
>to discuss it out in the open.
> [ .. homophobe psychopath's account pulled .. ]
>Don't think for a moment that I agree with this guy's views. But whatever
>they are, he has a right to say them, offensive as they may be. If you
>don't like what he says, you can always add him to your kill file and
>never listen to him again. But getting someone's account pulled is
>overkill, and nasty to boot. The fact that this guy was nasty and
>malicious doesn't give anyone else license to be nasty and malicious
>also... aren't we supposed to be better than he is? I'm sure each and
>every person who follows this newsgroup has at least one belief that
>is offensive to at least one other person... don't you think that you
>have a right to air your belief, without fear of having your account
>(which perhaps you need for schoolwork, or to receive mail) pulled?
Well, look .. I get your point, but anyway ..
Freedom of speech includes responsibility for the consequences once
the limits, namely rights of other people, are violated.
I fail to see a right to incite hatred or violence. The latter is a
violation, more accurately, an offence of penal law in Germany. Much
worse, one of the excuses for cutting the whole alt.sex feed on several
German universities were homophobe violent hateposts. Some thousand
students are not receiving this group anymore, therefore.
I want to express that I consider denuciaton disgusting, anyway, and
I would not run neither to the police nor to the postmaster, sure.
On the other hand, I have not to feel scared by those persons and even if
so, I am not sure who would be the one to have reason to be afraid. But you
cannot expect everybody to be willing to defend themselves violently
rather than having the potential assailants under observation.
>Some people pointed out (correctly) that the guy was using someone
>else's system, and the admins had a perfect right to pull his account.
>True. But what of the people who felt it necessary to run to the
>sysadmin and tell him of the nasty uses to which the account was being
>put? It's like running to Mother and tattling on Johnny for stealing
>a cookie from the cookie jar... it's a malicious thing to do. Nobody
>likes a snitch.
Maybe. But if I would have any ties to the universities of Fresno or
Illinois, probably the reputation of the institution could be more
valuable for me than the "right" of some loonie to post hate stuff.
I once ran some mailbox and creeps like him could have been likely
to damage my professional reputation. If one of "my" co-users would
have abused the opportunity to use my machine, I would have been
grateful for some hint before the damage had been done (e.g. somebody
refusing a contract because I'm running "that" system). Maybe that's
just freelancer's paranoia ..
And still I am strongly for free speech and believe that the net is able
to live even with some idiots and bastards without outside interference.
>--Jon (still .signatureless, but advocating free speech)
regards, es
---
too many errors - giving up on .sig
---
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: Alt.sex, homophobia, and censorship
Message-ID: <199202252319.AA03057@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 13:19:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
From: edw@m2xenix.psg.com (Ed Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Alt.sex, homophobia, and censorship
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.183214.1300@m2xenix.psg.com>
Date: 25 Feb 92 18:32:14 GMT
In article <5HP+zc@engin.umich.edu> positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>I'm starting this new thread, because I've received a lot of mail
>regarding something I posted here, and I think it would be better
>to discuss it out in the open.
>
>The situation thus far is this. Some guy posted a message to alt.sex,
>had sent the offensive post to the poster's sysadmin, and got the guy's
>account pulled. I joined at this point, saying that I was a bit disgusted
>that censorship was necessary.
>
>Don't think for a moment that I agree with this guy's views. But whatever
I agree 110% here. I have no agreement with the call to violence
et al, but I believe that he has the right to think and say whatever
insofar as it does not abridge anothers rights.
To that end I suggest that in most cases using a kill file
to eliminate offensive material is best.
If a poster gets not feedback, the fun just goes away
These work for rn, ask your admin how if you have another reader
/: *Re: /:j delete any post with Re in the subject
/: * Re: /:j delete any post with (space)Re in the subject
/: *test/:j delete any post with test in the subject
/From:.*dquayle@whitehouse.topdogs.gov/hk delete any post by dquayle
/Newsgroups:.*rec.hamsters/hk delete any post crossposted to rec.hamsters
I hope that helps people eliminate offensive material.
Getting someone's account pulled is really a bad move unless they are
so far out, and abridging others rights.
Think about losing you own acct, and no matter how much of a jerk you
may thinmk the other person is, ask yourself, can i just do it with
a kill file ?
My $0.04 worth
Ed
--
edw@m2xenix.psg.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<<^^>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>No Voice>>>>>> Amateur Radio KA9AHQ @ 28.340 <<<<<<>> Kshatriya Auscultating 9 Ailurophiles Hypothesizing Quodlibets <<<
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <199202252320.AA03125@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 13:20:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
From: pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <1992Feb22.123716.26665@kumr.lns.com>
Date: 22 Feb 92 12:37:16 GMT
92afk@vax.cc.williams.edu (Frumious Bandersnatch) writes:
>
> Regarding this bigot's recent post-----|
> \/
>
>>>rsolson@caticsuf.csufresno.edu (I like mail)
>
> I responded to him via email at the address given here. It just
> bounced right back... doubt our net-posts will get through his
> thick skull, either...
>
>--afk
As soon as the original post was posted by
rsolson@caticsuf.csufresno.edu, I forwarded the post the the postmaster at
caticsuf.csufresno.edu. They informed me that they pulled his account.
Hence it will go boing, if you send mail to rsolson.
Tim
--
Internet: pozar@kumr.lns.com FidoNet: Tim Pozar @ 1:125/555
UUCP: ...!uunet!kumr.lns.com!pozar
Snail: Tim Pozar / KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108 / USA
Voice: +1 415 788 2022
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <9202252321.AA08427@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 11:21:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex
From: positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 02:10:00 EST
In article <1992Feb22.224536.29343@midway.uchicago.edu> gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article , positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb22.123716.26665@kumr.lns.com> pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar) writes:
>>>92afk@vax.cc.williams.edu (Frumious Bandersnatch) writes:
>>>>
>>>> Regarding this bigot's recent post-----|
>>>> \/
>>>>
>>>>>>rsolson@caticsuf.csufresno.edu (I like mail)
>>>>
>>>> I responded to him via email at the address given here. It just
>>>> bounced right back... doubt our net-posts will get through his
>>>> thick skull, either...
>>>>
>>>>--afk
>>>
>>> As soon as the original post was posted by
>>>rsolson@caticsuf.csufresno.edu, I forwarded the post the the postmaster at
>>>caticsuf.csufresno.edu. They informed me that they pulled his account.
>>>Hence it will go boing, if you send mail to rsolson.
>>>
>>
>>Gee, that's nice. It sure makes me feel all warm inside to know that
>>if someone says something that someone else doesn't like, then someone
>>else will go crying to some sysadmin somewhere and get him censored.
>>What a great world.
>>
>>--J. Haas (still .signatureless, but working on it.)
>
>Incitement to violence is not protected speech. The first amendment
>does not say one can say ANYTHING. It's not a question of someone
>not liking it. It is illegal to advocate random violence.
>
>Leon Gross
>I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Did I say anything about incitement to violence? Did I say anything
about the First Amendment? No, all I said is that it is a really
asshole thing to do to get someone's account pulled because you find
what he says offensive. And it is.
--J. Haas (too lazy to make a .signature)
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <9202252321.AA08438@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 11:21:46 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
From: sanio@netmbx.netmbx.de (Erhard Sanio)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Feb 92 19:05:27 GMT
In article positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>
>Gee, that's nice. It sure makes me feel all warm inside to know that
>if someone says something that someone else doesn't like, then someone
>else will go crying to some sysadmin somewhere and get him censored.
>What a great world.
I disagree, Jonathan. IMHO, the organisation maintaining (and paying) someone's
account has some right to be informed about what people who use their compu-
ters (free of charge, in general) are doing with them, especially when the
activities are likely to damage the reputation of the organization.
If I would run a BBS or a mailbox (I did in the past) recognizing that one
of "my" users is abusing it e.g. spreading Nazi crap, I would pull him out
(probably along with kicking his butt, physically), not in order to "censor"
anything, but because I would feel insulted myself and do not feel compelled
(as long as contractual relations wouldn't tell otherwise) to tolerate that
sort of crap (as well as homophobe hatepostings) on m y computer.
The above does not denote any intention to prevent those opinions (as long
as there are idiots thinking that way) to be uttered elsewhere.
That guy is free to open any sort of mail and news access on his own cost,
nothing and nobody could hinder him to repeat his shit as long as he does
not violate penal or civil law. There is nothing wrong with a university
not wanting that their mishap to have that idiot on their campus becomes
public worldwide again and again.
>--J. Haas (still .signatureless, but working on it.)
regards, es
---
(.sig construction abandoned)
---
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <9202252322.AA08447@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 11:22:34 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex
From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.005856.4088@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 00:58:56 GMT
In article <1992Feb22.215649.9073@husc3.harvard.edu>, silvers3@husc8.harvard.edu (Jolyon Silversmith) writes:
>>>>> Regarding this bigot's recent post-----|
>>>>>
>>>>>>>rsolson@caticsuf.csufresno.edu (I like mail)
>>>>>
>>>> As soon as the original post was posted by
>>>>rsolson@caticsuf.csufresno.edu, I forwarded the post the the postmaster at
>>>>caticsuf.csufresno.edu. They informed me that they pulled his account.
>>>>Hence it will go boing, if you send mail to rsolson.
>>>
>>>Gee, that's nice. It sure makes me feel all warm inside to know that
>>>if someone says something that someone else doesn't like, then someone
>>>else will go crying to some sysadmin somewhere and get him censored.
>>>What a great world.
>>>
>>Incitement to violence is not protected speech. The first amendment
>>does not say one can say ANYTHING. It's not a question of someone
>>not liking it. It is illegal to advocate random violence.
>>
>>I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
>
>You're also not a lawyer. Ignoring for the moment that the internet is NOT an
>open forum in which anyone can say anything they want, the original post was
>provocative and crude, but NOT in any manner illegal. Its called "clear and
>present danger" to be simplistic; there is no immediate threat (ie, fighting
>words) so his speech cannot be restricted on legal grounds.
>
>However, it is distressing that he was pulled from the net for his post.
Are you saying that
#Help a homosexual today! Bash it's sickening face into the dirt until its#
#at the point of death and do it againand again and again #
is protected speech?
No, I'm not a lawyer. But if you are, tell me how far does someone have
to go before what they say is illegal?
Here at the U of Chicago, the same person who
was sending death threats to gays also physically assaulted the same
gay person with a deadly weapon. The assault happened outside the
building I'm in right now, and the death threats were delivered to people's
labs and mailbox's inside this building. The victim and the attacker
were both either students or employees. I'm straight, but knowing that
someone in the building was trying to kill people because they were gay
made a lot of people here scared. In response, security was increased,
so for a while people entering the building were questioned and followed
by police officers, so it was quite uncomfortable.
I think people who make death threats, or advocate random violence should
be watched closely. They are usually the same people who carry out the
violence. Sometimes, we find out that people who commit violent crimes
indicate their intentions in a variety of ways before hand. (We
usually find this out too late).
Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Recent Changes to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.234358.3878@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 23:43:58 GMT
(Some changes were just typo fixes.)
The CAF Archive is an electronic library of information about
computers and academic freedom.
It is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in
directory "pub/academic". It is also available via email. For
information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In
the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index".
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/abstracts
=================
These are abstracts to the Computers and Academic Freedom News
(CAF-news). Referenced issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous
ftp to eff.org in directory "academic/news".
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/dec_29_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_02_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_09_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_16_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_23_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/aaup
=================
excerpts: Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This
is the main statement on student academic freedom.
marc:
am ocm22-935490 db 01/24/91 01/24/91 --/--/-- Lincoln Lincoln
MECN $a $American Association of University Professors.
TILA0 $ac $Policy documents & reports /$American Association of
University Professors.
FOR0S $a $AAUP policy documents & reports.
EDN $a $1990 ed.
IMP $abc $Washington, D.C. :$The Association,$1990.
COL $ac $xii, 205 p. ;$26 cm.
NOG $a $At head of title: AAUP.
NOG $a $Includes index.
NOB $a $Bibliography: p. 191-196.
SUT L $az $College teachers$United States.
SUT L $azx $Universities and colleges$United States$
Administration
SUT L $axz $College teachers$Professional ethics$United States.
SUT L $az $Academic freedom$United States.
GAC $a $n-us---
CAS $acd $CMJ$CMJ$ILY
LON $a $ocm22935490
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX=x ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1990 DATE2= CNTY=dcu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S=d GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/ala.selection
=================
Score: 10 of 10
Full text: is available
marc:
am ocm19-482483 db 02/20/91 02/20/91 --/--/-- Lincoln Lincoln
TILN0 $a $Workbook for selection policy writing.
EDN $a $:Rev.:
IMP $abc $Chicago :$Office for Intellectual Freedom of the
American Library Association,$:1983?:
COL $ac $20, 7 p. ;$28 cm.
NOG $a $Caption title.
SUT L $ax $Libraries$Censorship
SUT L $a $Freedom of information
AECNA $ab $American Library Association.$Office for Intellectual
Freedom.
CAS $acd $DSC$DSC$IEH
LON $a $ocm19482483
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX= ME IN B=
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1983 DATE2= CNTY=ilu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS= MODRC= CAT S=d GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/bittle,_edgar_h
=================
references:
nov_24_1991
Review: Good info on notice and finding of fact. Newer than
some other books.
Score: 8 of 10
excerpts: It says that a formal hearing should make a detailed
"findings of fact" list.
marc:
am ocm17-813490 db 10/19/88 10/19/88 11/30/90 4096 Lincoln
MEPS $a $Bittle, Edgar H.
TILA0 $abc $Due process for school officials :$a guide for the
conduct of administrative proceedings /$Edgar H.
Bittle.
IMP $abc $:Topeka, Kan.: :$NOLPE,$c1986.
COL $abc $54 p. :$port. ;$23 cm.
NOG $a $"The author acknowledges the assistance of Ron Peeler
in the editing and final preparation of this
manuscript"--P. :2: of cover.
SUT L $az $Educational law and legislation$United States
SUT L $az $Due process of law$United States.
AECNA $a $National Organization on Legal Problems of Education.
GAC $a $n-us---
CAS $acdd $NYP$NYP$IBS$IAO
LON $a $ocm17813490
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX= ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1986 DATE2= CNTY=ksu ILLUS=c REPRO=
CONTENTS= MODRC= CAT S=d GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/boucher,_virginia
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/buchanan,_ernest_t
=================
refernces:
nov_24_1991
excerpt: Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing.
marc:
am ocm00-553172 db 07/05/68 07/05/88 --/--/-- Lincoln Lincoln
MEPS $a $Buchanan, Ernest T.
TILA? $a $Procedural due process guidelines for disciplinary
hearings resulting in suspension or expulsion in
higher education.
IMP $abc $Tallahassee, Fla.,$Education/Law Research Associates,$
c1972.
COL $a $95 p.
NOB $a $Bibliography: p.83-95.
SUT L $axz $Universities and colleges$Law and legislation$United
States.
SUT L $az $School discipline$United States.
CAS $cd $WSU$IAD
LON $a $ocl70553172 830606
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX= ME IN B=
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1972 DATE2= CNTY=flu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S=u GOV PUB= CAT FORM=
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/dutile_,fernand_n
=================
Excerpt: The conclusion from the chapter "Sex and School Library" from the book
_Sex, Schools, and the Law_, by Fernand N. Dutile, 1986. It refers to
grade and high schools. It summerizes the inconclusive case law with
regard to library selection and removal of material on the basis of
sexual content.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/fischer,_louis
=================
review: New, in question answer format, For a teacher's point of view.
Score: 9 of 10
excerpt: It reports that the Supreme Court
says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter
is trivial or there is an emergency.
marc:
am ocm21-151815 db 11/07/90 11/07/90 07/11/91 EaVt1220 Lincoln
MEPS $ad $Fischer, Louis,$1924-
TILN0 $ac $Teachers and the law /$Louis Fischer, David Schimmel,
Cynthia Kelly.
EDN $a $3rd ed.
IMP $abc $New York :$Longman,$1990.
COL $ac $xxx, 415 p. ;$23 cm.
NOCC $a $Includes bibliographical references.
SUT L $axzx $Teachers$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States$
States.
SUT L $axz $Students$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States.
SUT L $axz $Teachers$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States.
SUT L $axzx $Students$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States$
States
AEPSA $a $Schimmel, David.
AEPSA $a $Kelly, Cynthia A.
GAC $a $n-us---
SBN $a $0801304822
CAL 0 $ab $KF4175.Z9$F55 1990
DDCF0 $aa2 $344.73/078$347.30478$20
CAS $acd $DLC$DLC$JDS
LON $a $ocm21151815
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX=x ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1990 DATE2= CNTY=nyu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S= GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/french,_larry_l
=================
references:
nov_24_1991
excerpt: Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing.
Review: some good stuff, a little old
Score: 7 of 10
marc:
am ocm04-231926 db 02/25/69 02/25/89 09/08/89 4096 Lincoln
MEPS $a $French, Larry L.
TILA4 $ac $The redefinition of the exclusionary rule as to
student procedural due process in higher education /$
prepared by Larry L. French.
IMP $abc $:Edwardsville, Ill.: :$Office of the General Counsel,
:Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville:,$1977.
COL $ac $12 leaves ;$28 cm.
SERD $a $Monograph - Office of the General Counsel, :Southern
Illinois University at Edwardsville: ; no. 1
NOB $a $Includes bibliographical references.
SUT L $axz $College students$Legal status, laws, etc.$United
States.
SUT L $axz $Student suspension$Law and legislation$United States.
SUT L $az $Educational law and legislation$United States
SACN $abtv $Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.$Office of
the General Counsel.$Monograph - Office of the General
Counsel, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
;$no. 1.
GAC $a $n-us---
CAS $ac $IAT$IAT
LON $a $ocl74231926
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX= ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1977 DATE2= CNTY=ilu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S=d GOV PUB=s CAT FORM=i
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/gora,_joel_m.protest
=================
Title: The ACLU Handbook on _The Right to Protest (1991)
Excerpt: An excerpt from the ACLU Handbook on _The Right to Protest_ (1991)
that says that the distribution of anonymous political leaflets is a
constitutionally protected activity.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/hollander,_patricia_a
=================
review: (She has a newer book on the same topic.)
Has chapter section on student life.
Score: 9 to 10
excerpt: Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
marc:
am ocm03-516995 db 10/31/83 12/05/83 09/08/89 4096 Lincoln
MEPS $a $Hollander, Patricia A.
TILA0 $ac $Legal handbook for educators /$by Patricia Hollander.
IMP $abc $Boulder, Colo. :$Westview Press,$1978.
COL $ac $xviii, 287 p. ;$24 cm.
NOG $a $Includes index.
SUT L $az $Educational law and legislation$United States
GAC $a $n-us---
SBN $a $089158420X
DDC $a $344/.73/07
CAS $acd $DLC$DLC$UIU
LON $a $ocl73516995
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX=x ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1978 DATE2= CNTY=cou ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS= MODRC= CAT S= GOV PUB= CAT FORM=i
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/mccarthy,_martha_m
=================
excerpts: It says, in part, "[a]lthough school boards are not
obligated to support student papers, if a given publication was
originally created as a free speech forum, removal of financial or
other school board support can be construed as an unlawful effort to
stifle free expression." Also, "school authorities cannot withdraw
support from a student publication simply because of displeasure with
the content" and "the content of a school-sponsored paper that is
established as a medium for student expression cannot be regulated
more closely than a nonsponsored paper". Also, it tells what to do
about libel in student publications.
marc:
am8 ocm15-549317 db 07/24/87 07/24/87 09/27/89 4096 Lincoln
MEPS $a $McCarthy, Martha M.
TILA0 $abc $Public school law :$teachers' and students' rights /$
Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe.
EDN $a $2nd ed.
IMP $abc $Boston :$Allyn and Bacon,$c1987.
PPD $a $8704
COL $ac $xiv, 538 p. ;$25 cm.
NOB $a $Includes bibliographies and index.
SUT L $axz $Teachers$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States.
SUT L $axz $Students$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States.
AEPMA $a $Cambron-McCabe, Nelda H.
GAC $a $n-us---
SBN $a $0205104894
CAL $ab $KF4119$.M38 1987
DDCF $aa2 $344.73/078$347.30478$19
CAS $acdd $DLC$DLC$m/c$UIU
LON $a $ocm15549317
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX=x ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1987 DATE2= CNTY=mau ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S= GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/mnookin,_robert_h
=================
excerpt: It reports that the Supreme Court
says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter
is trivial or there is an emergency.
marc:
am8 ocm11-316864 db 08/09/85 08/09/85 10/03/90 4096 Lincoln
LCDN $abcde $2$3$3$3$3
MEPS $a $Mnookin, Robert H.
TILA0 $abc $In the interest of children :$advocacy law reform,
and public policy /$Robert H. Mnookin and contributing
original studies, Robert A. Burt ... :et al.:.
IMP $abc $New York :$W.H. Freeman,$c1985.
PPD $a $8501
COL $ac $xii, 572 p. ;$24 cm.
NOG $a $Includes index.
SUT L $az $Legal assistance to children$United States.
SUT L $az $Public interest law$United States.
SUT L $az $Judicial process$United States.
SUT L $axz $Child welfare$Government policy$United States.
SUT L $axz $Children$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States.
GAC $a $n-us---
SBN $a $0716716798
SBN $a $0716716275 (pbk.)
CAL $ab $KF479$.M55 1985
DDCF $aa2 $346.7301/35$347.306135$19
CAS $acd $DLC$DLC$UIU
LON $a $ocm11316864
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX=x ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1985 DATE2= CNTY=nyu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S= GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/norwick,_kenneth_p
=================
referenced:
jun_09_1991
excerpt: It says that protecting minors was held to be an
inadequate justification for such a severe interference with adults'
marc:
am ocm10-298150 db 08/03/84 07/31/84 12/04/90 4096 Lincoln
MEPS $a $Norwick, Kenneth P.
TILA4 $abc $The rights of authors and artists :$the basic ACLU
guide to the legal rights of authors and artists /$
Kenneth P. Norwick and Jerry Simon Chasen with Henry
R. Kaufman.
IMP $aabc $Toronto ;$New York :$Bantam Books,$1984, c1983.
COL $ac $208 p. ;$18 cm.
SET 0 $a $American Civil Liberties Union handbook
NOB $a $Includes bibliographical references.
SUT L $az $Authorship$United States.
SUT L $az $Copyright$United States
AEPSA $a $Chasen, Jerry Simon.
AEPSA $a $Kaufman, Henry R.
AECNA $a $American Civil Liberties Union.
SBN $a $0553236547
CAS $acd $OKD$OKD$UIU
LON $a $ocm10298150
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX= ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=c
DATE1=1984 DATE2=1983 CNTY=cn ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S=d GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
First Amendment rights.end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/practical_guide
=================
title: Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers
excerpt: Explains that University Code is part of the contract between
the student and school. The University can be liable for a breach of
the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/price,_janet_r.1
=================
excerpts: It says before you can be severely punished, you have a due
process right to know the specific acts you are charged with
committing and the specific rules that those acts violate.
marc:
am ocm15-653926 db 03/10/88 03/10/88 02/12/91 ----- Lincoln
MEPS $a $Price, Janet R.
TILA4 $abc $The rights of students :$the basic ACLU guide to a
student's rights /$Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, Eve
Cary.
EDN $a $3rd ed.
IMP $abc $Carbondale :$Southern Illinois University Press,$
c1988.
PPD $a $8801
COL $a $xv, 181 p. ; 18 cm.
SET 0 $a $American Civil Liberties Union handbook
NOG $a $Rev. ed. of: The rights of students / Alan Levine,
with Eve Cary and Diane Divoky.
NOG $a $Addendum slip inserted.
NOB $a $Bibliography: p. 178-181.
SUT L $axz $Students$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States.
AEPSA $a $Levine, Alan H.
AEPSA $at $Levine, Alan H.$Rights of students.
AEPSA $a $Cary, Eve.
GAC $a $n-us---
SBN $a $0809314231
CAL $ab $KF4150$.P75 1988
CAS $acdd $DLC$DLC$m/c$SOL
LON $a $ocm15653926
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX= ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1988 DATE2= CNTY=ilu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S= GOV PUB=s CAT FORM=a
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/price,_janet_r.2
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition)
by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It says that school
cannot prohibit students from handing literature such as underground
newspapers on school property.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/rubin,_david
=================
referenced:
nov_03_1991
nov_10_1991
nov_10_1991
nov_17_1991
excerpt: p.92. It says that there are legal
limits to what a (public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some
of these same limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to
sign as a condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
It says that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be
limited public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail
system. It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum
Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
marc:
am ocm10-244919 db 08/30/85 07/30/84 12/04/90 4096 Lincoln
LCDN $abcde $2$3$3$3$3
MEPS $ad $Rubin, David,$1932-
TILA4 $abc $The rights of teachers :$the basic ACLU guide to a
teacher's constitutional rights /$David Rubin with
Steven Greenhouse.
EDN $a $Rev. ed.
IMP $aabc $Toronto ;$New York :$Bantam Books,$1984, c1983.
COL $ac $xiii, 351 p. ;$18 cm.
SET 0 $a $American Civil Liberties Union handbook
NOB $a $Bibliography: p. 351.
SUT L $axz $Teachers$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States.
AEPSA $a $Greenhouse, Steven.
GAC $a $n-us---
SBN $ac $0553236555 (pbk.) :$$$4.9
CAL $ab $KF4175.Z9$R8 1984
CAS $acd $DLC$DLC$UIU
LON $a $ocm10244919
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX= ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=c
DATE1=1984 DATE2=1983 CNTY=onc ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S= GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/student_press_law_center
=================
references:
nov_24_1991
nov_24_1991
Review: Talks about law, censorship, Hazelwood, liability. Although
dated 1985, 20 pages were added in 1988.
Score: 10 of 10
excerpts: Says that four-letter words are protected speech, that
public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that
they for which they do not control the contents, and that the
_Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
marc:
am ocm20-345084 db 12/06/89 12/06/89 11/24/90 4096 Lincoln
TILN0 $a $Law of the student press.
IMP $abc $Washington, D.C. :$Student Press Law Center,$c1985.
COL $ac $vi, 101 p. ;$23 cm.
NOG $a $Includes addendum (p. 81-101) discussing the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in the case Hazelwood School
District vs. Kuhlmeier (Jan. 13, 1988).
NOB $a $Includes bibliographical references.
SUT L $axz $Students$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States.
SUT L $axz $College student newspapers and periodicals$Law and
legislation$United States.
AECNA $a $Student Press Law Center.
GAC $a $n-us---
CAS $acd $INT$INT$JBW
LON $a $ocm20345084
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX= ME IN B=
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1985 DATE2= CNTY=dcu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S=d GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/van_tol,_joan_e.records
=================
College and university student records : a legal compendium /
edited by Joan E. Van Tol. Washington, D.C. : National Association of
College and University Attorneys, c1989.
iii, 257 p. ; 28 x 22 cm.
1. Universities and colleges--Law and legislation--United States.
2. Personnel records in education--Law and legislation--United
States. I. Van Tol, Joan E. II. National Association of College and
University Attorneys (U.S.)
ocm20-290250
Review: Everything that is known about student records and the
law. The only stuff that it is missing is stuff that hasn't been
decided yet.
Score: 10 of 10
Excerpts cover provisions on directory information.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/wagman,_robert_j
=================
references:
aug_25_1991
aug_25_1991
nov_17_1991
oct_20_1991
oct_20_1991
excerpts: p. 157. The publisher of a cartoon parody, already found
not to be libelous, could not be punished for the emotional distress
the cartoon may have caused. The Court wrote: "in public debate our
own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in
order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by
the First Amendment."
marc:
am8 ocm22-810598 db 05/02/91 05/02/91 --/--/-- Lincoln Lincoln
MEPS $a $Wagman, Robert J.
TILA4 $ac $The First Amendment book /$Robert J. Wagman.
IMP $abc $New York :$World Almanac,$1991.
COL $abc $xvi, 265 p. :$ill. ;$18 cm.
NOG $a $Includes index.
SUT L $az $Freedom of speech$United States.
SUT L $az $Freedom of religion$United States.
SUT L $az $Assembly, Right of$United States.
SUT L $az $Freedom of the press$United States.
SUG-L $axxx $United States$Constitutional law$Amendments$1st.
GAC $a $n-us---
SBN $ac $088687517X :$$$6.9
CAL 0 $ab $KF4558 1st$.W34 1991
DDCF0 $aa2 $342.73/085$347.30285$20
CAS $acd $DLC$DLC$UIU
LON $a $ocm22810598
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX=x ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1991 DATE2= CNTY=nyu ILLUS= REPRO=
CONTENTS= MODRC= CAT S= GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
end:
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/weckstein,_paul
=================
references:
nov_24_1991
excerpt: Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing.
Review: Enclopedic reference for this issue. A bit out of date
Score: 9 of 10
marc:
am ocm09-733231 db 03/01/68 03/02/88 10/18/90 4096 Lincoln
LCDN $abcde $2$3$3$3$3
MEPS $a $Weckstein, Paul.
TILA0 $abc $School discipline and student rights :$an advocate's
manual /$Paul Weckstein.
EDN $a $Rev. ed.
IMP $abc $Cambridge, MA (6 Appian Way, Cambridge 02138) :$
Center for Law and Education,$1982.
COL $abc $ix, 544 p. :$ill. ;$28 cm.
NOB $a $Includes bibliographical references.
SUT L $axz $Students$Legal status, laws, etc.$United States.
SUT L $az $School discipline$United States.
GAC $a $n-us---
CAL $ab $KF4150$.W4 1982
DDCF $aa2 $344.73/0793$347.304793$19
CAS $acd $DLC$DLC$JDS
LON $a $ocl79733231
FFD CONF= FEST= INDEX= ME IN B=x
INTEL LV= FIC= BIOG= LAN=eng DAT KY=s
DATE1=1982 DATE2= CNTY=mau ILLUS=a REPRO=
CONTENTS=b MODRC= CAT S= GOV PUB= CAT FORM=a
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/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. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/eff.rights
=================
An overview of the electronic frontier and the U.S Bill of Rights
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/archive
=================
q: What files are available from the Computers and Academic Freedom
archive?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.privacy
=================
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
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?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/island_trees_v_pico
=================
The conclusion from the chapter "Sex and School Library" from the book
_Sex, Schools, and the Law_, by Fernand N. Dutile, 1986. It refers to
grade and high schools. It summerizes the inconclusive case law with
regard to library selection and removal of material on the basis of
sexual content.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/other
=================
Information on other on-line collections of legal information. Also
see ftp.eff.org:pub/legal.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/abstracts
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/april_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/august_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n43
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n04
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/july_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/june_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/may_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/november_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/october_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/september_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu
=================
Ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
(Critiqued)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/iastate.edu
=================
The revised Netnews policy for Iowa State University that took effect in
February, 1992.
(Critiqued)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/nsf
=================
The NSFNET backbone services acceptable use policy
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/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")
=================
=================
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: CAF related books
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.235828.4216@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 23:58:28 GMT
Here are some minireviews of some CAF related books.
=================
boucher,_viginia
=================
Review: has both the major US policies
Score: 8 of 10
bib:
Boucher, Virginia, 1929-
Interlibrary loan practices handbook / Virginia Boucher. Chicago :
American Library Association, 1984.
xii, 195 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Includes index.
Bibliography: p. 183-191.
ISBN 0838932983 (pbk. : alk. paper) : $$20.00
1. Inter-library loans--Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. American
Library Association. II. Title.
ocm10-185408
Excerpt:
=================
bracewell,_william_r
=================
Substantial justice on campus: individual rights v. institutional
needs. Edited by William R. Bracewell. Athens, University of Georgia,
Center for Continuing Education :1973:
95 p. 23 cm.
Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Georgia, Nov.
19-21, 1972.
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Students--Legal status, laws, etc.--United States. I.
Bracewell, William R , ed. II. University of Georgia
ocm00-902662
Review: Old (1972), but at least it applies to colleges and not just
high schools. It is the proceedings of a conference that met
just after many schools adopted academic freedom policies
and formal judical system. Gives details of the systems
at U. of Wisconsin at Madison, Michigan State, Louisian State,
and U. of Georgia.
Score: 6 of 10
=================
butler,_henry_e
=================
Butler, Henry E.
LEGAL ASPECTS OF STUDENT RECORDS TOPEKA, 1972.
uc 18-069881
Review: too old, some interesting history
Score: 3 of 10
=================
camp,_william_e
=================
William E. Camp, Julie K. Underwood, Mary Jane Connelly. :Topeka, Kan.:
: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, c1989.
296 p. ; 23 cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Educational law and legislation--United States I. Underwood,
Julie II. Connelly, Mary Jane. III. Camp, William E.
ocm19-796971
Reviews: For grade and high school principles. Section
on student expression is concise and up-to-date.
Score: 6 of 10
=================
conte,_alba
=================
Review: Enclopedic coverage of workplace sexual harassment.
However, it generally doesn't apply students at a university.
Score: 5 of 10
Conte, Alba.
Sexual harassment in the workplace : law and practice / Alba Conte.
New York : Wiley, c1990.
xvii, 556 p. ; 26 cm. (Employment law library.)
Kept up to date by pocket supplements.
Includes index.
ISBN 0471507431
1. Sexual harassment of women--Law and legislation--United
States. I. Title. II. Series.
ocm20-824476
- Carl
=================
dutile_,fernand_n
=================
Excerpt: The conclusion from the chapter "Sex and School Library" from the book
_Sex, Schools, and the Law_, by Fernand N. Dutile, 1986. It refers to
grade and high schools. It summerizes the inconclusive case law with
regard to library selection and removal of material on the basis of
sexual content.
=================
gaddy,_dale
=================
Gaddy, Dale.
Rights and freedoms of public school students: directions from the
1960s. Topeka, Kan., National Organization on Legal Problems of
Education, 1971.
60 p. 23 cm. (ERIC/CEM state-of-the-knowledge series, no. 8 :i.e.
9:) (NOLPE monograph series ; no. 2)
Bibliography: p. 56-60.
1. Students--Legal status, laws, etc.--United States. I. Title.
II. Series. III. Series. IV. Series: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management. ERIC/CEM state-of-the knowledge series ; no. 9.
ocm00-586925
Review: Old (1972) and about high schools
Score: 3 of 10
=================
kiesler,_sara
=================
Computing and change on campus / edited by Sara Kiesler and Lee
Sproull. Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1987.
xiii, 256 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 052134431X
1. Computer-assisted instruction--United States--Case studies.
2. Education, Higher--United States--Data processing--Case studies.
3. Computers--Social aspects--United States--Case studies. I.
Kiesler, Sara B., 1940- II. Sproull, Lee.
ocm16-078590
Review: A collection of papers. Topics include the effect of computer
communications on students and professors. Bulk of the book is about
effects of computers at CMU (till 1986). Academic freedom issues are
not covered. There are a few pages about bboards.
=================
kristof,_nicholas_d
=================
Kristof, Nicholas D., 1959-
Freedom of the high school press / Nicholas D. Kristof. Lanham, MD
: University Press of America, c1983.
x, 108 p. ; 23 cm.
Bibliography: p. 99-108.
ISBN 0819134333 (alk. paper) : $$17.50
ISBN 0819134341 (pbk. : alk. paper) : $$7.25
1. Student newspapers and periodicals--Censorship--United States.
I. Title.
ocm09-731657
Hard to read because it is typed, not typeset. Lots of legal
citations.
Score: 7 of 10
=================
mawdsley,_ralph_d
=================
Mawdsley, Ralph D.
Free expression and censorship : public policy and the law / Ralph
D. Mawdsley, Alice L. Mawdsley. :Topeka, Kan.: : NOLPE, c1988.
58 p. ; 23 cm.
Title from cover.
ISBN $$8.95
1. Student newspapers and periodicals--United States--Censorship.
2. Censorship--United States. 3. Freedom of the press I. Mawdsley,
Alice L. II. National Organization on Legal Problems of Education.
III. Title.
ocm18-287545
Review: Mostly about high school student newspapers. Give history
of _Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood_ but it can't guess at the effects
of that decision.
Score: 6 of 10
=================
mcghehey,_m_a
=================
School law for a new decade / edited by M.A. McGhehey. Topeka, Kan.
: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, 1981.
vi, 310 p. ; 24 cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Educational law and legislation--United States I. McGhehey,
M. A. II. National Organization on Legal Problems of Education.
ocm07-303437
Review: Has a nice chapter, written by Edgar Bittle, on "How
to Conduct an Administrative Hearing".
Score: 8 of 10
=================
moran,_k_d
=================
Moran, K. D.
The legal aspects of school communications / K. D. Moran and M. A.
McGhehey. Topeka, Kan. : National Organization on Legal Problems of
Education, 1980.
105 p. ; 23 cm. (NOLPE monograph series)
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Communication in education--United States. 2. Educational
law and legislation--United States I. McGhehey, M. A. II. National
Organization on Legal Problems of Education. III. Title.
ocm06-248116
Has sections of campus mail, (high school) student newspapers,
and a little bit on school libraries.
Score: 7 of 10
=================
price,_janet_r.2
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition)
by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It says that school
cannot prohibit students from handing literature such as underground
newspapers on school property.
=================
rossow,_lawrence_f
=================
Rossow, Lawrence F.
Search and seizure in the public schools / Lawrence F. Rossow.
Topeka, Kan. : NOLPE, c1987.
40 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
1. Searches and seizures--United States. 2. Students--Legal
status, laws, etc.--United States. 3. Public schools--United States.
I. National Organization on Legal Problems of Education. II. Title.
ocm15-494756
Review: Covers _New Jersey v. T.L.O_. Applies to high schools.
Also see:
2. Fitzgerald, William C. Search and seizure in Illinois public
education / by William C. Fitzgerald. 1988. iv, 201 leaves ;
ocm19-125056
Score: 6 of 10
=================
smith,_robert_ellis
=================
Compilation of state and Federal privacy laws, 1981 / by Robert
Ellis Smith. Washington, D.C. : Privacy Journal, 1981.
v, 80 p. ; 28 cm.
"This edition ... is intended to be used with our 1978-79 edition."
1. Privacy, Right of--Law and legislation--United States. 2.
Privacy, Right of--Law and legislation--United States--States. I.
Smith, Robert Ellis.
ocm08-000987
Review: Intersting but out of date. This edition has sections
of computer crime, mailing lists, state constitutional protections,
For more up-to-date
info look at other books by the same author, including:
16. Compilation of state and federal privacy laws, 1988 / c1988.
vi, 101 p. ocm17-864788
and 22. Smith, Robert Ellis. Report on the collection and use of
social security numbers / c1990. 34 leaves ocm23-154758
Score: 9 of 10
=================
van_tol,_joan_e.harass
=================
Sexual harassment on campus : a legal compendium. Washington, D.C.
: National Association of College and University Attorneys, 1988.
xi, 195 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. (NACUA the publication series)
Contains sample policy statements and grievance procedures.
Joan Van Tol, ed.
Bibliography: p. 191-193.
ISBN $$19.50
1. Sexual harassment of women--Law and legislation--United
States. 2. Women teachers--Legal status, laws, etc.--United States.
3. Grievance procedures--United States. 4. College personnel
management--United States. 5. Sex discrimination against women--Law
and legislation--United States. 6. Women college students--Legal
status, laws, etc.--United States. I. Van Tol, Jan. II. National
Association of College and University Attorneys (U.S.) III. Series.
ocm17-787958
Review: Worthless because it came out before the _Doe v. U. of Michigan_
and _UWM Post v. of U. of Wisconsin_.
There is a newer edition that I am told still doesn't cover
student-student problems.
2. Sexual harassment on campus : a legal compendium / edited by
Elsa Kircher Cole. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C. (1 Dupont Circle,
Suite 620, Washington 20036) : National Association of College
and University Attorneys, 1990. iv, 265 p. ; ocm21-968185
Score: 3 of 10
=================
van_tol,_joan_e.records
=================
College and university student records : a legal compendium /
edited by Joan E. Van Tol. Washington, D.C. : National Association of
College and University Attorneys, c1989.
iii, 257 p. ; 28 x 22 cm.
1. Universities and colleges--Law and legislation--United States.
2. Personnel records in education--Law and legislation--United
States. I. Van Tol, Joan E. II. National Association of College and
University Attorneys (U.S.)
ocm20-290250
Review: Everything that is known about student records and the
law. The only stuff that it is missing is stuff that hasn't been
decided yet.
Score: 10 of 10
Excerpts cover provisions on directory information.
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.233929.18814@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 23:39:29 GMT
sanio@netmbx.netmbx.de (Erhard Sanio) writes:
[...]
>I disagree, Jonathan. IMHO, the organisation maintaining (and paying) someone's
>account has some right to be informed about what people who use their compu-
>ters (free of charge, in general) are doing with them, especially when the
>activities are likely to damage the reputation of the organization.
[...]
The U. of Texas and many other universities used similar reasoning to
ban gay student organizations. They said that official recognition
would hurt the university's reputation. If you think about, almost any
censorship can be justified using this line of reasoning.
An important part of academic freedom is that people speak for
themselves and not for the university. As the "Joint Statement on
Rights and Freedoms of Students" says: "Students and student
organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of
interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. They
should always be free to support causes by orderly means which do not
disrupt the regular and essential operation of the institution. At the
same time, it should be made clear to the academic and the larger
community that in their public expressions or demonstrations students
or student organizations speak only for themselves."
[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]
I'm enclosing a relevant FAQ.
- Carl
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/media.control ===============
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
a: Like any organization, the Government must work within its charter
(the Constitution). The Supreme Court has said that this limits the
Government's authority to control the media that owns and controls.
The rational is that it would be dangerous for a Government that is
elected by the people to have too much control on what the people
can say and read.
The Supreme Court calls created forums, like a student newspaper or
campus mail systems, limited public forums. It says that the
government can limited who may access these forums and/or what topics
may be discussed. But otherwise, "it is bound by the same standards as
apply in a traditional public forum"; "content-based prohibition must
be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." For
example, viewpoint-based discrimination is forbidden.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
law/stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send caf-law stanley-v-magrath
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send caf-law rust-v-sullivan
send caf-law keyishian-v-board-of-regents
send caf-law perry-v-perry
send caf-law constitution.us
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
pub/academic/law/constitution.us
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (The Liberal Democrat)
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 00:25:44 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>sanio@netmbx.netmbx.de (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>[...]
>>I disagree, Jonathan. IMHO, the organisation maintaining (and paying) someone's
>>account has some right to be informed about what people who use their compu-
>>ters (free of charge, in general) are doing with them, especially when the
>>activities are likely to damage the reputation of the organization.
>[...]
>The U. of Texas and many other universities used similar reasoning to
>ban gay student organizations. They said that official recognition
>would hurt the university's reputation. If you think about, almost any
>censorship can be justified using this line of reasoning.
As long as the group doesn't claim to represent the views of anyone but
themselves, they should have freedom of speech. The last statement (any
censorship can be justified...) is quite accurate and true (is that redun-
dant?).
>An important part of academic freedom is that people speak for
>themselves and not for the university. As the "Joint Statement on
>Rights and Freedoms of Students" says: "Students and student
>organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of
>interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. They
>should always be free to support causes by orderly means which do not
>disrupt the regular and essential operation of the institution. At the
>same time, it should be made clear to the academic and the larger
>community that in their public expressions or demonstrations students
>or student organizations speak only for themselves."
>[ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms]
There are several contigencies in the paragraph which are essential.
"...free to support causes by orderly means..." and "...do not disrupt
regular and essential operation..." are especially important.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL CLARKSON '95 FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If [you] don't care enough to vote, why should [you] be represented?"
---SLU student William Paczkowski
"I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right
to say it."
---Voltaire
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
From: bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.015556.10163@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 26 Feb 92 01:55:56 GMT
In article <1992Feb19.183510.7@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>In article <4216@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>> Actually, this still isn't a justification for the existence of an open
>> terminal server. However, let me rephrase the question. What is the
>> justification for having TERMINUS, as an open terminal server, connect to
>> any machine outside of the mit.edu domain?
>
> [text deleted --SJB]
>
>Three possibilities come to mind for having TERMINUS, as an open terminal
>server, connect to any machine outside of mit.edu: minimization of resources
>consumed, ease of use, and ease of administration.
>
The latter two possibilities, I presume, are more examples of the
laziness system administrators have been accused of in previous postings
for suggesting that they may not have the time or resources to make their
systems as secure as SAC headquarters?
>Gee, is anyone else having flashbacks to economics 101 :-)? If you want
>to change MIT's behavior, you have the burden of showing how it benefits
>MIT to make the change.
>
Perhaps a sufficiently successful lawsuit might show MIT how such
a change could benefit them economically?
>So far all the proposals would increase MIT's costs, but gain them nothing.
Except, perhaps, in an actuary's opinion of MIT's liability insurance
premiums...
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
Systems Programming
Computer Center
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois 60115
**********************************************************************
* Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu *
* BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "If it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need them." *
**********************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
From: chogan@maths.tcd.ie (Christine Hogan)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.culture.celtic,talk.abortion,soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.234154.13449@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 24 Feb 92 23:41:54 GMT
In <1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>[Apologies if you've seen this already. It was cancelled at my site over the
>weekend, before most people would have had a chance to read it.]
As the sysadmin at "his site", I object very strongly to this.
The article was NOT cancelled. It was posted before the weekend
in groups that expire after two days. It died a natural death.
>My question is - are they leaving themselves open to prosecution?
How can anyone outside Ireland be expected to know Irish law
(which is vastly different to anyone else's in cases like this)
well eneough to answer that ?
Our machines would be used to distribute illegal information,
like as if someone posted copyrighted material. We would be
liable for not getting rid of it.
--
Christine.
chogan@maths.tcd.ie
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,talk.abortion,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: The Irish Abortion Information Question
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.161603.20674@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 25 Feb 92 16:16:03 GMT
jsc@doc.ic.ac.uk (Stephen Crane) wrote:
> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
|> Hmm. Interesting times are here in Ireland at the moment, and an issue has
|> come up which may well pose a question for those interested in the issues
|> of censorship, and especially where in concerns the Net.
|> As you may know, abortion is illegal in Ireland. The Eighth Amendment to
|> the constitution in 1983 made it even more so, and also led the way to
|> making the distribution of abortion information illegal. The Student Union
|> of this college, Trinity, was brought to court by the Society for the
|> Protection of the Unborn Child and was prevented from distributing such
|> information from its welfare section to women.
| The following information is available by anonymous ftp from
| gummo.doc.ic.ac.uk as misc/advice. I don't think it is sufficient to
| make Union officers liable any more.
| The following is a selective list of "Pregnancy Test Services" in the
| London area. Copied from the Central London Yellow Pages 1990. This
| information is provided as a service to those people deprived of it
| under the Constitution of the Irish Republic as amended 1983.
| Book Advisory Centres, 071-580-2991, 071-272-5599
With a name so close to the well-established Brook clinics, I would suspect
that these are an anti-abortionist front.
| British Pregnancy Advisory Service, 071-222-0985
| Brook Advisory Centres, 071-323-1522, 071-580-2991
| Fairfield Nursing Home, 081-505-4641
| P & G Advisory Service, 071-437-7125
| Pregnancy Advisory Service, 071-637-8962, 081-891-6833
| Life Pregnancy Care, 071-823-8773, 081-688-1985, 081-889-9301
aren't these people a SPUC front organization?
| Preterm, 071-580-9001
| Marie Stopes, 071-388-4843
| Metropolitan Pregnancy Control Clinic, 071-580-4847
| Regents Park Clinic, 071-437-7125
| Walworth Clinic, 071-703-9660
| The yellow pages' heading says it all. Should any of the above
| information be found to be incorrect, please mail jsc@doc.ic.ac.uk.
Here's a similar list from the Glasgow yellow pages:
British Pregnancy Advisory Service, 041-204-1832 (Liverpool: 051-709-1558)
Sister Rose Private Clinic, 041-221-5506 (advice line: 0898 221209)
Leigham Private Clinic (in London), 081-677-1241
--
-- Jack Campin room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9202260225.AA09512@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 14:25:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: stumpf@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Markus Stumpf)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 14:20:18 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.142018.22044@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
In article <1992Feb24.173022.7730@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, trussell@isis.cs.du.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
|> had in mind, I don't think, but nevertheless it's still useful. Many times
|> I have seen channels devoted to actually solving problems and meaningful
|> discussion.
Very true! For e.g. in Germany we have a (hidden) channel, where system staff
folks from all over Germany meet, discuss problems, ask questions and get
answers! As X11R5 came out, various ftp-admins coordinated on that channel,
to bring the whole stuff to Germany! They used different lines to get
different parts. So the "intercontinental" traffic was kept down!
Surely IRC has is negative sides, but I you want to use it for something
useful, you have a very powerful instrument!
As Tim said, "you get out of IRC what you put into it".
\Maex
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Markus Stumpf Markus.Stumpf@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Libraries in the future
Message-ID: <9202261508.AA00649@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 03:08:13 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Libraries in the future
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 09:12:28 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.091228.3953@clarinet.com>
In article <1992Feb25.183212.6899@cunews.carleton.ca> dh195236@alfred.carleton.ca ( dh student 195236) writes:
>Do you also feel that libraries should be abolished? Aren't they
>taking money away from "flourishing entrepreneurs." Universal access
>to information is a must if one wants an truly democratic society.
>People have a need to be informed if they are to participate in any
>meaningful ways to a democratic process. I would rather have less
Actually, the surprising answer to this is that libraries probably will
be abolished, in the sense that they exist now.
When electronic publishing IS publishing, then libraries will only be
justified to hold the antiquarian books that are not available on the net.
They will become rare -- but a far more complete library will be waiting
for anybody with a terminal. At first, when not all have a terminal, there
will be public terminal rooms, but they won't be the libraries, just connected
to them.
However, the chances are that for modern works, you won't be able to access
any copyrighted work without some money going to the author.
HOWEVER that money will probably be on the order of a few pennies in the
case of works that you find in a typical library today. A barrier to no
reader, and certainly not to democracy. For the poor, and students, I am
sure that charitable foundations and endowments will exist to pay these
small fees. Of course the author will get to set the price, and authors
that set prices that are too high will not be as widely available -- but
that is the author's choice -- can you argue with that?
Of course, we can't predict the pricing model. It may be that the common
pricing model may be fixed pricing. Pay $30 a month to read all that you
can read, and a big organization like ASCAP pays authors and measures
readership to tell how much to pay each author. Again, endowments could
pay this $30 for the poor, replacing the "library" as we know it today.
Remember that a large number of the libraries around today were started with
private donations (notably Mr. Carnagie). This model is nothing new.
Commercial authors (my dad is one) *do* mind that a library buys one copy
of their new best-seller and a few dozen people read it there. Multiplied
over thousands of libraries it is a significant hit to them.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: "University of Wisconsin rewirtes 'hate speech' rule
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.165417.12215@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 16:54:17 GMT
[A short item from the Chicago Tribune, Feb 25, 1992, section 1, p. 4]
MADISON - The University of Wisconsin System is resurrecting a "hate
speech" rule that was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal
judge last year. UW-Madison Law Professor Ted Finman said he has
redrafted the rule to sidestep October's court division that it was
unconstitutionally broad. The redraft says students may be punished
for using racial, sexual or age-related epithets -- defined as a word,
phrase or symbol that " would make the educational environment hostile
or threatening" and would "tend to provoke an immediate violent
response when addressed directly to a person of average sensibility."
Before the rule can be adopted, it must gain approval from the various
UW campuses and then win approval of the UW Board of Regents. Law
Prof. Gordon Baldwin, who helped draft the original hate speech rule,
said he isn't sure the rule is needed because students are more
sensitive about racial and sexual remarks. The original rule, drafted
in 1987, followed a "mock slave auction" by a campus fraternity. Its
redraft was requested by the UW-Madison faculty after the court ruling
is U.S. District Court.
--
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 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,talk.abortion,soc.culture.celtic
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: The Irish Abortion Information Question
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.165136.9723@wetware.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 16:51:36 GMT
pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
]
] My question is - are they leaving themselves open to prosecution? It seems to
] me that they cannot be seen to be "distributing" such information _per_ _se_;
] any more than libraries are by having English telephone directories, containing
] the numbers of clinics.
well lets see what they do with international directory assistance calls...
You do know that by dialing northern ireland you can ask for the
much BANNED INFORMATION....
Which would be a most interesting question, would they haul in
the IRISH alternative to the PTT or would they be able to go
for the DEEP POCKETs of say British Telecom, or Ma Bell... for
the one's silly enought to call boston and ask the question...
And to risk all things dark and EVIL, If you get to Fishguard,
across the water, and can not get information about decent
facilities that provide abortons, let me say that you can
find competent medical facilities in Haverfordwest, Dyfed Wales
at withybush hospital... Where I know Members of the USN have
been for such services... the USN presence in wales not being
large enough to afford to bring along all their own medical services.
Its a lovely town, and a pleasant place to spend a few days...
and given as, in the main, the Irish were kind enough to warn
our lads before bombing any pub we were in... I figure its the
least we can do in return...
Its a Shame to See Irish Law doing to fine irish lasses what you'd
have only expected the english to do....
ciao
drieux
--
EOT
No More Written InPut
Why are you Looking Here?
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.politics.correct] sexual harassment
Message-ID: <9202261755.AA01372@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 05:55:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: krueger@galileo.uucp (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: sexual harassment
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.075335.2619@arizona.edu>
Date: 26 Feb 92 14:53:33 GMT
Here it is folks! Real, actual political correctness at the UA...
in my department!
If you haven't heard it yet, just wait, it will be in all over the
national press!!
A worker in the Physics Department Main Office posted a joke
sexual harassment consent form. It said:
----------------------------------------------------------------
I consent to the following forms of sexual harassment:
Salutatory Greetings:
Eye - to - Eye Contact:
Eye - to - Bust Contact:
Eye - to - Below - Waist Contact:
Heavy Breathing on Neck:
Ear:
Other:
Hands on Body:
Shoulder:
Waist:
Gluteus Maximus:
Other
Feelies:
Gropies:
Penetration, However Slight:
Other:
All of the Above:
------------------------------------------------------------------
OK folks! There's the form. Now, by show of hands, how many of
you believe that this is serious?
Well, how many of you would think that it was serious if I told
you that it was posted by a woman, and that everyone who works
in that office is a woman? (True)
Now let me tell you how serious the University of Arizona thinks
it is (from Tuesday, February 25, 1992 Arizona Daily Wildcat -
reproduced without any permission whatsoever - because I don't care)
Front Page - Headline
CONSENT FORM VIOLATES LAW, OFFICIAL SAYS
A sexual harassment consent form posted in the Physics department
last week asking for respondent's sexual preferences violates federal
law and university policy, a UA affirmative action officer said
yesterday.
University of Arizona Affirmative Action Officer Jay H. Stauss said
the form violates policy because it could interfere with academic or
work performance or make an offensive working environment.
The form, which asks if respondents would consent to forms of sexual
harassment ranging from eye contact to penetration, was posted on
a file cabinet in the Physics department office, Stauss said.
The form also asks respondents if they would consent to aiding the
harassment and to choose who they would accept harassment from.
Physics Department Head Peter Carruthers said the form was intended
as a joke.
"The form was a counter-attack on the out-of-control
political correctness movement which has been sweeping this campus.
Carruthers said.
But Stauss said in the four years he has been with the UA, he was
unaware that a political-correctness movement existed on campus.
The UA Affirmative Action Office receive about five calls since
Friday from people concerned about the form, Stauss said.
The form still was posted when Stauss asked for a copy yesterday,
but since has been removed, Stauss said.
Stauss said he asked Provost Jack R. Cole in a letter to look at
and take action on the form.
Though Carruthers said he was aware of the form, he said he did not
know who posted it.
"It was a whimsical thing that should not be
taken seriously," Carruthers said. "I consider it a triviality.
Anyone who would take it as a serious statement against women is
really stupid."
But Stauss said, "I can't believe people still think that we can
joke about something as serious as sexual harassment and I can't
believe there is an administrator on campus who thinks that way.
Penalties for the violation of UA sexual harassment policy range
from written reprimands to firing, Stauss said. The severity of the
penalty would depend on the severity of the act, he said.
The UA policy is modeled after federal law, he said. Carruthers said
he could probably find out who posted the form, buth that he had no
intention of reprimanding anyone.
"If the U of A faculty and students
have no sense of humor, what is the point of having a university, which is
supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas?"
Anna Hasenfratz, one of the two women faculty members listed in the
student directory under the Physics department, said she was told by a
department secretary that the form was on a personal filing cabinet and
was not meant for others to see.
She said if she had seen the form, she probably just would have shrugged.
Cole was unavailable to comment on what types of sanctions, if any, his
office would seek against the department or individuals in the department.
End of article
Now I may agree that the form was in bad taste...but geez! How much
intelligence does it take to see the appropriate response here? You
go up to the person who posted it (again let me emphasize that it was
a woman) and you tell her "That kind of material is inappropriate for
the workplace." and have her take the letter down. You don't call in
the Associate Vice President for Affirmative Action, the Dean of the
Faculty of Science, the University Provost and the President of the
University (all of whom have been involved according to the Wednesday
February 26, Arizona Daily Wildcat - Again Front Page -Headlines).
Just to whet your whistle - Wednesday's headline is:
PROVOST REQUESTS INQUEST OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT FORM
Well, I've blown off enough steam for this morning (NOT!) I guess I'll
let some of you tell me what you think of this.
Ted
.sig under construction
--- krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu ---
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Abstract of CAF-News 01.43
Message-ID: <9202261806.AA01477@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 06:06:12 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: shiva@pro-smof.cts.com (System Smof)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 01.43
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Feb 92 13:03:54 GMT
I'm kind of shocked that the Univerity of Stuttgart banned sci.military as
offensive; being an Army Brat, I've always found that newsgroup to be
pretty interesting. Was it because nasty things about Germany and WWII were
said there? Nasty but true, that is?
____________________________________________________________________
/ | | \
|SMOF-BBS 512-467-7317 PCP=TXAUS |UUCP: crash!pro-smof!shiva | __|__ |
|Proline: shiva@pro-smof |"The World's First Online | \_|_/ |
|Internet: shiva@pro-smof.cts.com| Science Fiction Convention"| | |
\________________________________|____________________________|______/
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Libraries in the future
Message-ID: <9202261806.AA01486@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 06:06:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Libraries in the future
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.153326.6531@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 15:33:26 GMT
In article <1992Feb26.091228.3953@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>When electronic publishing IS publishing, then libraries will only be
>justified to hold the antiquarian books that are not available on the net.
>They will become rare -- but a far more complete library will be waiting
This is extremely unlikely. There is an esthetic, tactile
facet to the reading experience that is difficult to
reproduce electronically. While perhaps the day when we
can curl up in bed with a notebook computer isn't too far
off, studies have shown that part of the pleasure of
reading for many people is handling books.
>Commercial authors (my dad is one) *do* mind that a library buys one copy
>of their new best-seller and a few dozen people read it there. Multiplied
>over thousands of libraries it is a significant hit to them.
In a typical academic library, something on the order of 5%
of the collection circulates each year. Many more books
and periodicals are examined, of course, but the kinds of
materials you use in the library without checking out tend
not to be the stuff you read cover to cover.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <9202261825.AA09779@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 18:25:32 GMT
>>>>> On 24 Feb 92 07:04:26 GMT, pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) said:
> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes: |Why does the
> net suddenly need a guardian? It's never had one before.
> in fact it always has had one and perhaps if this issue becomes
> sufficiently troublesome some action will be taken.
Just a minute. What entity is this guardian?
Are you referring to the Internet Activities Board? If so, you can
join the Internet Society and inject a user's voice into what the
Internet Activiites Board does/decides.
But regardless, the IAB has to my knowledge never determined that all
connections on the Internet must be authenticated at the source (which
is what this discussion is about).
And I don't think that the IAB will *ever* demand that all Internet
connections be authenticated because this will preclude the
possibility of public access Internet nodes. In particular, technical
conferences such as Usenix, Interop, etc would not be able to offer
terminals for attendees to connect back to their home machines.
In fact, I think all the people who are calling for disabling TERMINUS
at MIT are overlooking that public access terminals already exist
today, and the numbers will only grow in the future. Let's face it
people: demanding authentication on public access terminals just
doesn't work because it imposes too high of an administrative
overhead. If you don't believe that, go ask the organizers of
computer conferences why they don't pass out temporary accounts for
all their attendees.
If you want to secure your systems against TERMINUS and similar
systems, go ahead. But be prepared for an angry call from your
employees or faculty members or students the next time they go to
Usenix and suddenly find that they cannot connect back to their home
machines anymore.
If a new security feature annoys or hinders users more than it affords
security, then that "feature" isn't worth it.
Manavendra
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sanio@netmbx.netmbx.de (Erhard Sanio)
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 17:59:31 GMT
Message-ID: <17SZOLO@netmbx.netmbx.de>
In article <1992Feb25.233929.18814@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>sanio@netmbx.netmbx.de (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>
>[...]
>>I disagree, Jonathan. IMHO, the organisation maintaining (and paying) someone's
>>account has some right to be informed about what people who use their compu-
>>ters (free of charge, in general) are doing with them, especially when the
>>activities are likely to damage the reputation of the organization.
>[...]
>
>The U. of Texas and many other universities used similar reasoning to
>ban gay student organizations. They said that official recognition
>would hurt the university's reputation. If you think about, almost any
>censorship can be justified using this line of reasoning.
Bad enough. I agree that always in doubt freedom of speech should
supersede other - even legitimate - concern, especially on universities.
Anyway, I am not so sure whether that should be the case when people are
campaigning for violent crime, especially murder. And in the special case
we were dealing with there was no indication at all that the guy in
question would even have made a tasteless joke.
Clearly, even idiots and psychopaths should have the opportunity to
speak out in the public, the more opportunity is that they may recover
and get real, as public approval/rejection is a powerful force.
But there are limits even for free speech - incitement of murder is one.
If somebody is stealing at the workplace or campus, his butt will be
kicked immediately though that's a comparatively harmless offense
compared to campaigning for violent crime. Pulling an account is
some rather mild measure, IMHO.
>An important part of academic freedom is that people speak for
>themselves and not for the university. As the "Joint Statement on
Right, they do. But for things which are probably a criminal offense,
there is no justification. Though I doubt that the university can
be sued for tolerating them, there is no right to have them tolerated,
anyway. (I do not know whether campaigning for or advocating violence
against others is an offense under the penal law of the USA, it is
in Germany, and that might probably make a difference, does somebody
know?)
>Rights and Freedoms of Students" says: "Students and student
>organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of
>interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. They
>should always be free to support causes by orderly means which do not
>disrupt the regular and essential operation of the institution. At the
>same time, it should be made clear to the academic and the larger
>community thas never completed; final grade, F.
Film 46; 4-6 pager; two weeks late, marked down
English 2a; papers good quality but always marked down for tardiness
History 6; Essay final; didn't finish, ran out of time, marked down
Anthro 3; class repeated, never wrote two 6-pagers; final grade F.
In progress: Women's Studies 20; 8-9 pager; currently two weeks late
In progress: English 3; 3-5 pager; due today, will not be turned in today...
I just registered for Anthro 3 again for next quarter...I'm not only a flake,
I'm a masochist too....OOOOhhhhhh...
--
-ulysses@mcl.univ.of.ca.for.spoiled.brats.edu
The Man Facing Southeast
regards, es
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpevans@isis.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans)
Subject: Sys-admins shooting first
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.192151.6435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 19:21:51 GMT
On Friday (21 Feb 92) afternoon I discovered that all my accounts on the
computer system of University Of Aston in Birmingham, England (aston.ac.uk
domain in internet).
Had been disabled, on inquiring to mu departmental computer officer I was told
that someting I had been running was congesting the network.
In order to even begin sorting things out I need to see the head of dept (
appointment next tuesday, 3 March 1992)
Prior to this I received no complaints in any form, e-mail, memo, phone call,
personal complaint, fax or whatever. Despite the fact that anyone (on the
Internet in fact) could find out these details by running finger.
Looks like a case of paranoid people in charge! (who can't or won't talk to
their users, maybe it's quicker to login and run passwd as root than to
pick up the phone and dial a 4 digit number)
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.195647.15721@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 19:56:47 GMT
sanio@netmbx.netmbx.de (Erhard Sanio) writes:
[...]
> (I do not know whether campaigning for or advocating violence
>against others is an offense under the penal law of the USA, it is
>in Germany, and that might probably make a difference, does somebody
>know?)
[...]
==========ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/brandenberg-v-ohio=====
Is there a right to speech that advocates illegal acts or violence?
(My response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill
of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression.)
In 1919 the Court said no. Indeed, it said that any speech that had a
'tendency' to cause a volation of the law could be punished. This
principle was used to convict a Socialist for mailing antiwar
leaflets.
In 1925 the Court established stronger speech protections, stating
that speech could not be punished unless it presented 'a clear a
present danger' of imminent harm. In 1931, this was used to overturn a
conviction based on a California law. That law make it illegal to
publically salute a red flag -- the symbol of (violent) revolution.
In 1950's during the second Red Scare, the Court backtracked saying
that the clear-and-present-danger principle did not apply to speakers
who advocated overthorwing the government, no matter how remote the
danger of such an occurrence might be. (This paved the way for jailing
policitial activists, loyalty oaths, etc).
In the 1969 case of Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down
the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism
law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or
punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action'
and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First
Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence. The
Brandenberg test is the law today.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
--
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 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Sys-admins shooting first
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.200604.31271@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 20:06:04 GMT
mpevans@isis.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans) writes:
[...]
>In order to even begin sorting things out I need to see the head of dept (
>appointment next tuesday, 3 March 1992)
[...]
The only justification for their action would be if they felt the
situation consitituted an emergency. If it really was an emergency,
they should have met with you immediately.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: jsc@doc.ic.ac.uk (Stephen Crane)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,talk.abortion,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: The Irish Abortion Information Question (repost)
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.131708.28906@doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 26 Feb 92 13:17:08 GMT
[Apologies if you have seen this already. I suspect that our default
distribution is not `world'. I have taken the opportunity of sending
an updated list. jsc.]
In article <1992Feb21.190534.14534@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>Hmm. Interesting times are here in Ireland at the moment, and an issue has
>come up which may well pose a question for those interested in the issues
>of censorship, and especially where in concerns the Net.
>
>As you may know, abortion is illegal in Ireland. The Eighth Amendment to
>the constitution in 1983 made it even more so, and also led the way to
>making the distribution of abortion information illegal. The Student Union
>of this college, Trinity, was brought to court by the Society for the
>Protection of the Unborn Child and was prevented from distributing such
>information from its welfare section to women.
The following information is available by anonymous ftp from
gummo.doc.ic.ac.uk as misc/advice. I don't think it is sufficient to
make Union officers liable any more.
The following is a selective list of "Pregnancy Test Services" in the
London area. Copied from the Central London Yellow Pages 1990. This
information is provided as a service to those people deprived of it
under the Constitution of the Irish Republic as amended 1983.
British Pregnancy Advisory Service, 071-222-0985
Brook Advisory Centres, 071-323-1522, 071-580-2991
Fairfield Nursing Home, 081-505-4641
P & G Advisory Service, 071-437-7125
Pregnancy Advisory Service, 071-637-8962, 081-891-6833
Preterm, 071-580-9001
Marie Stopes, 071-388-4843
Metropolitan Pregnancy Control Clinic, 071-580-4847
Regents Park Clinic, 071-437-7125
Walworth Clinic, 071-703-9660
The yellow pages' heading says it all. Should any of the above
information be found to be incorrect, please mail jsc@doc.ic.ac.uk.
From the Glasgow Yellow Pages:
British Pregnancy Advisory Service, 041-204-1832 (Liverpool: 051-709-1558)
Sister Rose Private Clinic, 041-221-5506 (advice line: 0898 221209)
Leigham Private Clinic (in London), 081-677-1241
Steve
--
Stephen Crane, Dept of Computing, Imperial College of Science, Technology and
Medicine, 180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK:jsc@{doc.ic.ac.uk, icdoc.uucp}
"...I tell you, my man, this is the American Dream in action! We'd be fools
not to ride this strange torpedo all the way out to the end." H.S. Thompson.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.culture.celtic,talk.abortion,soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.161921.19402@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 26 Feb 92 16:19:21 GMT
In article <1992Feb24.234154.13449@maths.tcd.ie>, chogan@maths.tcd.ie (Christine Hogan) wrote:
>Our machines would be used to distribute illegal information,
>like as if someone posted copyrighted material. We would be
>liable for not getting rid of it.
Okay Christine, I'll bite. Since July, 1991 I have counted over twenty material
contraventions of the Incitement to Hatred Act. I brought this point up,
numerous times, to Important People and they DIDNTWANTTOKNOW. Is there a
double standard in action here, or what?
--
Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,##EveryoneHasTheRightToFreedomOfOpinionAndExpressio
TCD,EIRE. ##nThisRightIncludesFreedomToHoldOpinionsWithoutInt
###############################erferenceAndToSeekReceiveAndImpartInformationAndI
deasThroughAnyMediaAndRegardlessOfFrontiers...#10 UN Declaration of Human Rights
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.163014.19672@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 26 Feb 92 16:30:14 GMT
In article <1992Feb24.234154.13449@maths.tcd.ie>, chogan@maths.tcd.ie (Christine Hogan) wrote:
>Our machines would be used to distribute illegal information,
>like as if someone posted copyrighted material. We would be
>liable for not getting rid of it.
Okay Christine, I'll bite. Since May, 1991 (a rather red-letter day as far
as I am concerned) I have counted over twenty material contraventions of
the Incitement to Hatred Act from within tcd.talk. I brought this point up,
numerous times, to Important People and they DIDNTWANTTOKNOW. Is there a
double standard in action here, or what?
FYI, liable is not the same as criminally liable. What I posted, many moons
ago was certainly actionable by *any* aggrieved party, but it was up to them
to establish a tort. However, criminal libel, or indeed, infractions of
the ItH Act are actionable *per se*. You, as an editor, are responsible
for these criminal actions, but you are *not* responsible for civil libel.
Perhaps a short course in jurisprudence is required for Sys Admins?
--
Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,##EveryoneHasTheRightToFreedomOfOpinionAndExpressio
TCD,EIRE. ##nThisRightIncludesFreedomToHoldOpinionsWithoutInt
###############################erferenceAndToSeekReceiveAndImpartInformationAndI
deasThroughAnyMediaAndRegardlessOfFrontiers...#10 UN Declaration of Human Rights
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: jsc@doc.ic.ac.uk (Stephen Crane)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,talk.abortion,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: The Irish Abortion Information Question
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.125535.26504@doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 25 Feb 92 12:55:35 GMT
In article <1992Feb21.190534.14534@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>Hmm. Interesting times are here in Ireland at the moment, and an issue has
>come up which may well pose a question for those interested in the issues
>of censorship, and especially where in concerns the Net.
>
>As you may know, abortion is illegal in Ireland. The Eighth Amendment to
>the constitution in 1983 made it even more so, and also led the way to
>making the distribution of abortion information illegal. The Student Union
>of this college, Trinity, was brought to court by the Society for the
>Protection of the Unborn Child and was prevented from distributing such
>information from its welfare section to women.
The following information is available by anonymous ftp from
gummo.doc.ic.ac.uk as misc/advice. I don't think it is sufficient to
make Union officers liable any more.
The following is a selective list of "Pregnancy Test Services" in the
London area. Copied from the Central London Yellow Pages 1990. This
information is provided as a service to those people deprived of it
under the Constitution of the Irish Republic as amended 1983.
Book Advisory Centres, 071-580-2991, 071-272-5599
British Pregnancy Advisory Service, 071-222-0985
Brook Advisory Centres, 071-323-1522, 071-580-2991
Fairfield Nursing Home, 081-505-4641
P & G Advisory Service, 071-437-7125
Pregnancy Advisory Service, 071-637-8962, 081-891-6833
Life Pregnancy Care, 071-823-8773, 081-688-1985, 081-889-9301
Preterm, 071-580-9001
Marie Stopes, 071-388-4843
Metropolitan Pregnancy Control Clinic, 071-580-4847
Regents Park Clinic, 071-437-7125
Walworth Clinic, 071-703-9660
The yellow pages' heading says it all. Should any of the above
information be found to be incorrect, please mail jsc@doc.ic.ac.uk.
>That's the abortion issue. I'd love to hear comments on any aspect.
Sorry, I can't talk rationally about it at the moment.
Steve
--
Stephen Crane, Dept of Computing, Imperial College of Science, Technology and
Medicine, 180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK:jsc@{doc.ic.ac.uk, icdoc.uucp}
"...I tell you, my man, this is the American Dream in action! We'd be fools
not to ride this strange torpedo all the way out to the end." H.S. Thompson.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <9202262159.AA03720@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 09:59:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin
Subject: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.210337.1666@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
Date: 26 Feb 92 21:03:37 GMT
I would like to point out to the system administrators that the following
mail was posted by Mr. Jose Martinez on SCIA.
This message was in very bad taste and
I am deeply offended with his rude, offensive and demeaning
language. Also I would like to point out his undesirable
and continuing interference on SCIA.
Would someone responsible take appropriate action that he does
post any further personally offensive posts and take his campaign to disband
SCIA elsewhere ?
Sincerely,
Alok Vijayvargia
Forwarded Mail ----------------->
*******************************************************************
From att!SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU!JLM Tue Feb 25 22:24:04 1992
Path: cbnewsi!att!att!linac!unixhub!slacvm!jlm
From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian.american
Subject: ALOK WAS NOT MALICIOUS
Message-ID: <92056.192404JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 26 Feb 92 03:24:04 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Lines: 30
After reading all the nonsense that Alok has
posted in the last two days I have reached the
following conclusion regarding his solicitation
of votes for SCIA in the P2 list:
He did it because he is AN IGNORANT FOOL who
lives in a fantasy world where the only reality
is that which is concocted by his feeble mind.
And in this world there is no room for any other
reality; never mind what the rest of the world
tells him !! If Alok doesn't think of it, it isn't
true !!!
I feel pity for this individual !!
However, I realize that to try to open his eyes to
the realities of Usenet might cause an irreversible
trauma and shatter his limitted mental capacity;
therefore, I will not try to reason with him any further.
Nor will I waste my time reading anything that is posted
by this individual.
I will continue to work with those that are really interested
in fixing the damage done to this group by whatshisname.
Jose L. Martinez
-----------------
Standard disclaimer in effect.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Libraries in the future
Message-ID: <9202262202.AA03741@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 10:02:55 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: stoll@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cliff Stoll)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Libraries in the future
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Feb 92 21:15:52 GMT
Brad Tempelton sez:
> Commercial authors (my dad is one) *do* mind that a library buys one copy
> of their new best-seller and a few dozen people read it there. Multiplied
> over thousands of libraries it is a significant hit to them.
Well, not all authors object to libaries. I'm delighted when
The Cuckoo's Egg is read at a library.
If I wrote for money, maybe I'd object to libraries.
But I write to teach, to express opinions, and
to tell stories. Guess I'm not a commercial author.
Libraries spread the word. They're good.
In the defense of freedom and literacy,
libraries are the most powerful weapons we have.
Use them!
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.215810.6872@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 21:58:10 GMT
bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
> The latter two possibilities, I presume, are more examples of the
>laziness system administrators have been accused of in previous postings
>for suggesting that they may not have the time or resources to make their
>systems as secure as SAC headquarters?
You mean by not connecting to external networks? 8)
> Perhaps a sufficiently successful lawsuit might show MIT how such
>a change could benefit them economically?
> Except, perhaps, in an actuary's opinion of MIT's liability insurance
>premiums...
>* "If it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need them." *
Hmmm...can you say...inconsistent?
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh
He who has self-conceit in his head -
Do not imagine that he will ever hear the truth.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Swiss Censorship
Message-ID: <9202262240.AA04158@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 10:40:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: peter@micromuse.co.uk (Peter Galbavy)
Newsgroups: ch.general,uk.misc,news.admin
Subject: Re: Swiss Censorship
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.135352.1906@micromuse.co.uk>
Date: 26 Feb 92 13:53:52 GMT
In article , mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to
B) writes:
[deleted]
> It's like what UKnet are doing. It has little or no real effect;
> anyone
> who wants the newsgroups can get them if he's prepared to ask around
> enough.
> It's purely posturing.
I know I do have a go now and again, but I have to defend UKnet here.
It is not their choice (not entirely) but those of the strange laws in
the UK. UKnet are covering themselves. I would rather see the service
continue in its current form anbd get the 'grey' groups from
elsewhere, than bring down the big eye of regulators and the gutter
press. This is with particular reference to last years articles on
CIX's adult conferences. Although picking groups by name does seem a
little strange.
> Quite. Is UKnet responsible for the material which goes over the
> network
> or not? If they are, then they'll have to start censoring
> electronic mail.
> If they aren't, there's no reason for them to try and censor news.
This is why you have to join a closed user group. so as to get around
the old (I think now non-existent?) regulations over common carriers.
Someone please clarify this: A common carrier is *not* responsible for
the material transmitted. ???
> mathew
>
I personally disagree with censorship, just in case you wanted to know
:-)
--
Peter Galbavy
Tech Support, Micromuse Ltd
Phone: +44 71 352 7774 E-Mail: P.Galbavy@micromuse.co.uk
Hi! I'm a new generation of the .signature virus. Copy me to join in
the fun!
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Sys-admins shooting first
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.172418.4101@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 22:24:18 GMT
mpevans@isis.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans) writes:
>On Friday (21 Feb 92) afternoon I discovered that all my accounts on the
>computer system of University Of Aston in Birmingham, England (aston.ac.uk
>domain in internet). Had been disabled, on inquiring to mu departmental
>computer officer I was told that someting I had been running was congesting
>the network.
An important question, which you neglected to answer:
What were you running?
If I saw something that was slagging my network, I might very well take
immediate action........
>Looks like a case of paranoid people in charge! (who can't or won't talk to
>their users, maybe it's quicker to login and run passwd as root than to
>pick up the phone and dial a 4 digit number)
Maybe, in the time it took to get hold of you, a router or bridge might
have undergone congestive failure. Did you stop to think of that?
More details, please; a simple "augh! they got me" doesn't give us much
to discuss.
--
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 26 00:00:00 1992
From: swisher@cs.utexas.edu (Janet Marie Swisher)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Sys-admins shooting first
Date: 26 Feb 1992 18:15:26 -0600
Message-ID:
mpevans@isis.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans) writes:
>>On Friday (21 Feb 92) afternoon I discovered that all my accounts ...
>> Had been disabled, on inquiring to mu departmental
>>computer officer I was told that someting I had been running was congesting
>>the network.
In article <1992Feb26.172418.4101@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes
Morgan) writes:
>An important question, which you neglected to answer:
> What were you running?
>If I saw something that was slagging my network, I might very well take
>immediate action........
Yeah, but wouldn't it be sufficient to kill the process and send mail
to the user saying, "Don't do that", rather than cutting off all
accounts owned by the user?
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Sys-admins shooting first
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Feb 92 00:35:52 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>mpevans@isis.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans) writes:
>>I discovered that all my accounts ... had been disabled, on inquiring ...
>>I was told that someting I had been running was congesting
>>the network.
>
>An important question, which you neglected to answer:
>
> What were you running?
>
>If I saw something that was slagging my network, I might very well take
>immediate action........
I, too, am curious about what he was running. Still, it's one thing to
take the "immediate action" of killing the offending process; a different
thing to turn off [apparently] more than one computer account. Surely
the latter wasn't urgent.
This sort of thing happens all the time here at Berkeley, where I teach.
Every so often a system administrator turns off some student's account
in response to a complaint, prior to any due process determination. The
student can generally get the account turned back on by talking with the
administrator in question.
I can see the administrators' point of view. They all have lots to do
besides trying to track down students; turning off the account (with a
login message saying where the student should go to get reinstated)
makes the student find the administrator, which is easier since the
administrator has an office and is usually in it.
And yet it would never occur to the university to, for example, lock a
student out of his/her dorm room without warning. I suppose the difference
is that the university sees housing as a right, but computer accounts as
a privilege -- even though the student needs the account to do the work
in some course.
I suppose I should be trying to get the university to establish a formal
policy about this. (Actually I think there *is* a formal policy that
takes effect at the next step, when the administrators have decided someone
is a Bad Guy and should lose the account permanently. But I'm not sure.)
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.182625.15@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 26 Feb 92 18:26:24 CST
In article <1992Feb26.015556.10163@mp.cs.niu.edu>, bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
> The latter two possibilities, I presume, are more examples of the
> laziness system administrators have been accused of in previous postings
> for suggesting that they may not have the time or resources to make their
> systems as secure as SAC headquarters?
I prefer the saying "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines
From: efg@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Edward Gehringer)
Subject: Use tax (Was: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A)
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.013753.25644@ncsu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 01:37:53 GMT
In article <1992Feb25.011258.15180@erg.sri.com> zwicky@erg.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky) writes:
>Reasonably enough,
>California does not attempt to enforce use tax on anything small, but
>try to register an out-of-state purchased vehicle and they'll get you
>for use tax so fast your head will spin.
North Carolina is now attempting to collect use tax on everything
brought into the state. So did Indiana when I lived there. I don't
see how they can reasonably expect to enforce it, so it really amounts
to a voluntary contribution. It is not clear to me whether one has
even a moral obligation to pay something like this.
>[I]n general it is *not*
>true that tax is owed on out-of-state mail-order sales. Sales tax
>can't be owed, because such a tax would be a restriction on interstate
>commerce and therefore only allowed of the federal government.
There is a case before the U.S. Supreme Court this term that argues
this point. A decision is therefore expected any time between now and
June.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <9202270246.AA05137@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 14:46:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: decot@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <50020070@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com>
Date: 25 Feb 92 04:14:06 GMT
> You're also not a lawyer. Ignoring for the moment that the internet is
> NOT an open forum in which anyone can say anything they want, the
> original post was provocative and crude, but NOT in any manner illegal.
> Its called "clear and present danger" to be simplistic; there is no
> immediate threat (ie, fighting words) so his speech cannot be restricted
> on legal grounds.
>
> However, it is distressing that he was pulled from the net for his post.
Perhaps the educational institution which pays for his account would rather
its money be spent on something more, well, educational.
Dave
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9202270306.AA05250@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 15:06:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: peter@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Peter Hoffman)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.221629.26204@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu>
Date: 26 Feb 1992 22:16:29 GMT
I have been wondering how long the censors think that they can keep
this sort of thing up? The most obvious problem that I can see is
that this encourages people to post out of the correct group. For
example, if I have a post that I know will go to a group that doesn't
get through, all I have to do is post it to a group that I know will
get through with a Subject: line that will flag it for readers who
want it. It is not possible to reign in the anarchy of the 'net and
it is a fatal error to try.
peter@epoch.geol.scarolina.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.030256.19984@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 03:02:56 GMT
decot@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
[...]
>Perhaps the educational institution which pays for his account would rather
>its money be spent on something more, well, educational.
[...]
Providing forums for free expression is well within the mandate of a
university. Punishing students for saying offensive things is not.
(On the other hand, punishing students for violating rules against
using the computer accounts of others is.)
Here are some excerpts from the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms
of Students that seem relevant. The Joint Statement is the main
statement of academic freedom for students in the U.S.
===== excerpts from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms =========
Preamble
Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth.
[...]
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately.
[...]
2. Students should be allowed to invite and to hear any person of
their own choosing. [...] The institutional control of campus
facilities should not be used as a device of censorship.
[...]
D. Student Publications
Student publications and the student press are a valuable aid in
establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible
discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are a
means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the faculty and
the institutional authorities and of formulating student opinion on
various issues on the campus and in the world at large.
[...]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.035129.31941@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 27 Feb 92 03:51:29 GMT
In article <1992Feb24.171839.15358@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>}In article <1992Feb24.94335.14185@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes
>}Morgan) writes:
>}> [text deleted --SJB]
>
>}What you are "suggesting" is more than that. You are proposing a
>}solution which is simply not acceptable to the people it will affect.
>
>Ok, maybe you'll like my "suggestion" better. Everyone who is
>pissed off at MIT does:
>
> foreach x (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1)
> ping terminus.lcs.mit.edu 2000 >& /dev/null &
> end
>
The problem with the above suggestion is that it also places an
uncalled-for, extra load on other network resources. Perhaps a better
alternative for those sites whose administrators feel strongly opposed
to the existence of terminal servers that allow unauthenticated access
to the Internet would be an extension to the recommendation that packet
filtering be used to block access from said terminal servers. The
extension would be simply to block access from *all* addresses at
institutions that are known to have *any* such "open" terminal servers.
Such filtering would accomplish three things: a) it would provide the
at least as much enhancement to security as would blocking packets from
just the terminal servers, b) it would reduce the utility to the offen-
ding institutions of their Internet access to the extent that less of
the Internet would be accessible to their users, thereby communicating
in a very democratic manner the view of the offending institution held
by the offended/defending institution, and c) would largely bypass the
problem of updating the routers' packet filtering commands anytime the
offending institutions happened to change the terminal servers' addresses
within their networks. It also retains the advantage of the earlier
suggestions to use packet filtering in that it would require no network-
wide, official policy decision or enforcement activity, while improving
the likelihood that offending institutions would someday reform their
own policies and behavior.
If such action became sufficiently widespread, then a considerable
amount of pressure would be applied to the offending institutions by
a) users at those institutions desiring access to the sites blocking
the packets, b) users at the blocking sites desiring access to the
offending institutions, and possibly c) system administrators at backup
MX sites tiring of expending resources to forward inordinate amounts
of email between the blocking sites and the offending sites. The Internet
has become, like weather data, air traffic controller communications,
and so forth, a valuable or even critical resource for most participants.
As in the cases of exchange of weather data and air traffic controller
communications, those organizations that refuse to act cooperatively in
a manner beneficial, or at least harmless, to the rest of the community
are simply excluded from the community until they adopt more civilized
policies. Direct attacks, such as ping loops, are obnoxious and also,
in this case, unnecessary. Democratic action, for all its flaws, is
usually nonetheless preferable to military action.
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
Systems Programming
Computer Center
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois 60115
**********************************************************************
* Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu *
* BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "If it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need them." *
**********************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,talk.abortion,soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Feb 92 08:21:39 GMT
In article <1992Feb26.161921.19402@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) writes:
>
>Okay Christine, I'll bite. Since July, 1991 I have counted over twenty material
>contraventions of the Incitement to Hatred Act. I brought this point up,
>numerous times, to Important People and they DIDNTWANTTOKNOW. Is there a
>double standard in action here, or what?
Well, I say GOOD FOR THEM! Any time someone in power tells a would-be
censor to buzz off, it gives me good hopes for the future.
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, falk@sun.com
"Towards the end, the smell of their air began to change"
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <33087@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: 27 Feb 92 01:44:37 GMT
In article <1992Feb25.011258.15180@erg.sri.com> zwicky@erg.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky) writes:
}In article <32961@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
}>In article <18252@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
}
}>}...out-of-state
}>}purchasers don't pay the sales tax either.
}
}>In fact, they're supposed to. ...
}You can tell that Jerry is a Californian. A state can only require
}entities which do business within its boundaries to collect sales tax; ...
[ explanation deleted ]
I bow to superior expertise (and stand corrected).
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@soldev.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (310) 450-9111, x2483 No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from....
Message-ID: <9202271326.AA16175@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 03:26:40 GMT
Mr. Vijayvargia:
In response to your request on news.admin, et.al., to have action taken
against someone who wrote an "inappropriate and rude" posting:
Sorry, but you got flamed. Welcome to the club. If you want, you can flame
your antagonist back. But whining to his sysadmins, on Usenet no less, isn't
going to get you anywhere.
You claimed that you were offended by your antagonist's remarks. Too bad.
There is no right-not-to-be-offended. If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Solon, Jr.
bsolon@dsac.dla.mil
cc: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.83519.1472@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 13:35:19 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>decot@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Perhaps the educational institution which pays for his account would rather
>>its money be spent on something more, well, educational.
>[...]
>
>Providing forums for free expression is well within the mandate of a
>university.
This is true, but the provision of such forums is not necessarily an
obligation of the university. Providing a computer forum is not required.
The vernacular phrase might be something like "we didn't buy a Cray to
run IRC clients or mailing lists." Such restrictions, when applied to
ALL users of a given system, are well within the rights of the owners.
If an individual is given computer access for class/research use only, AND IF
the user is made aware of that limitation, it would seem clear to me that the
computer is not being made available as a "forum for free expression".
Under those circumstances, actions such as this may be justified.
Keep in mind that certain tools may be used for both class/research needs
and "free expression". Let's say, for instance, that I provide email ser-
vices, but not netnews (for whatever reason). If a user starts dumping
articles into Usenet via the mail-to-news gateways, I would feel justified
in asking that user to cease and desist. Using software tools to evade
site policy is a no-no in my book.
>Punishing students for saying offensive things is not.
If the computer system in question is not intended for use as a forum,
punishment for "free expression" may be justified.
>(On the other hand, punishing students for violating rules against
>using the computer accounts of others is.)
Indeed.
--
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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.145740.29466@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 14:57:40 GMT
bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
[...]
> The problem with the above suggestion is that it also places an
>uncalled-for, extra load on other network resources. Perhaps a better
>alternative for those sites whose administrators feel strongly opposed
>to the existence of terminal servers that allow unauthenticated access
>to the Internet would be an extension to the recommendation that packet
>filtering be used to block access from said terminal servers. The
>extension would be simply to block access from *all* addresses at
>institutions that are known to have *any* such "open" terminal servers.
[...]
What's wrong with blocking just terminous? Doesn't that pretty
much solve the problem? (If not, what if NSFNet blocked terminous?)
>Democratic action, for all its flaws, is
>usually nonetheless preferable to military action.
[...]
What you call democratic action is also called mob action. It's flaws
can be worst that "military" action.
- 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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The homo community crap
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.150632.29596@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 15:06:32 GMT
Carl Kadie writes:
>>Providing forums for free expression is well within the mandate of a
>>university.
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>This is true, but the provision of such forums is not necessarily an
>obligation of the university. Providing a computer forum is not required.
>The vernacular phrase might be something like "we didn't buy a Cray to
>run IRC clients or mailing lists." Such restrictions, when applied to
>ALL users of a given system, are well within the rights of the owners.
[...]
As you say, such restrictions are valid only when applied to all users
of a given system. I would add that it is unfair to have a rule that
is enforced only when someone generates a hue and cry of outside
objections.
- 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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Sys-admins shooting first
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.144142.12600@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 14:41:42 GMT
In article <1992Feb26.172418.4101@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>mpevans@isis.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans) writes:
>>On Friday (21 Feb 92) afternoon I discovered that all my accounts on the
>>computer system of University Of Aston in Birmingham, England (aston.ac.uk
>>domain in internet). Had been disabled, on inquiring to mu departmental
>>computer officer I was told that someting I had been running was congesting
>>the network.
>
>An important question, which you neglected to answer:
>
> What were you running?
>
>If I saw something that was slagging my network, I might very well take
>immediate action........
Come on, they didn't just kill all his running processes, they disabled his
accounts without warning or explanation until HE went to THEM, and then
required him to make an appointment with someone almost a week later just to
get an explanation.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: ****University Unveils Electronic Library System 02/26/92
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.152619.128@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 15:26:19 GMT
[A short excerpt from clari.nb.trends & clari.nb.top.]
newsbytes@clarinet.com writes:
>PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, U.S.A., 1992 FEB 26 (NB) -- Carnegie
>Mellon University has unveiled one of the first electronic library
>systems in the United States based on distributed computing.
[...]
>Developed as part of the university's "Project Mercury," the system
>lets students and faculty retrieve electronic documents stored in
>the university library from almost any type of computer, anywhere
>on campus, without leaving their dorm rooms or offices.
[...]
>Mercury runs on the university's "Andrew" campus computer network,
>which is linked to the Internet. The network uses high-resolution
>workstations that can display images of documents, including
>diagrams and graphics that were previously impossible to show.
[...]
--
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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Abstract of CAF-News 01.43
Message-ID: <9202271623.AA01955@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 04:23:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 01.43
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.145639.1468@actrix.gen.nz>
Date: 27 Feb 92 14:56:39 GMT
In article shiva@pro-smof.cts.com (System Smof) writes:
> I'm kind of shocked that the Univerity of Stuttgart banned sci.military as
> offensive; being an Army Brat, I've always found that newsgroup to be
> pretty interesting. Was it because nasty things about Germany and WWII were
> said there? Nasty but true, that is?
> ____________________________________________________________________
> / | | \
> |SMOF-BBS 512-467-7317 PCP=TXAUS |UUCP: crash!pro-smof!shiva | __|__ |
> |Proline: shiva@pro-smof |"The World's First Online | \_|_/ |
> |Internet: shiva@pro-smof.cts.com| Science Fiction Convention"| | |
> \________________________________|____________________________|______/
It probably has more to do with the fact that many Germans now have a very
strong dislike of things military. This isn't just becasue they lost two world
wars, but also because they have lived within 3 minutes of nuclear
annihilation for over 40 years.
Of course, many Germans feel otherwise, but the many I have met here in New
Zealand would see little need or benefit in a newsgroup dedicated to the
science of destruction and murder.
Steve
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz / COMPUSERVE 100032,115
Ph. +64 4 478-4714 / Fax +64 4 471-8404
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] banning sci.military
Message-ID: <9202271624.AA06828@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 04:24:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: banning sci.military
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.232807.4485@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 26 Feb 92 23:28:07 GMT
In article , shiva@pro-smof (System Smof) writes:
>I'm kind of shocked that the Univerity of Stuttgart banned sci.military as
>offensive; being an Army Brat, I've always found that newsgroup to be
>pretty interesting. Was it because nasty things about Germany and WWII were
>said there? Nasty but true, that is?
I've never read sci.military so I can't really say what's being
discussed there but if anything at all on Usenet or human life in
general is offensive and obscene to the human spirit it must be
figuring out new ways of systematically killing people, making people
suffer and promoting the investing of valuable human resources to
planning these destructive acts.
I don't accept censorship on sci.military or any other group, but it truly
shows how sick human culture is that many people think that discussing
ways of finding pleasure as in alt.sex or alt.drugs is offensive while
at the same time they find nothing wrong with planning new and better
ways of deliberately destroying human lifes and causing suffering.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.misc
Subject: Re: History of "alt" groups
Message-ID: <3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 27 Feb 92 04:32:24 GMT
In article <1992Feb24.004705.10339@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
|In article <1992Feb22.214243.14848@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|>The Iowa State University Netnews policy asserts this bit of history:
|>'The use of Usenet to discuss a wide variety of issues has grown over
|>the years. While the "purely technical" newsgroups still exist,
|>Usenet also includes general discussion on almost anything, including
|>such topics as aspects of sexual lifestyles, illegal drugs, and racist
|>humor. The collective group of Usenet "news administrators" early on
|>decided to address this area by creating an "alt" group division for
|>"alternate" selections. This group can be handled as each site
|>chooses.'
|>Was this really the original motivation of the "alt" groups? If so, is
|>this history relevent to today's use of "alt" groups (alt.censorship,
|>alt.civil-liberty, etc.)?
|Not exactly as I understand it. The alt hierarchy was created by a couple
|of users in response to 'censorship' by the now forgotten 'backbone cabal'.
|I'm new to USENET myself, but there are some histories around... you might
|want to browse through news.answers for them. Apparently there was a time
|where practically all news passed through a few large academic sites, which
|were considered the 'backbone'. The administrators of these backbone sites
|thus had the power to control news flow almost entirely, and legend goes
|that it came to a show-down where they (or some of them) refused to
|propagate certain groups (I forget which) despite the fact that they had
|passed accepted USENET group creation guidelines. At that point some
|people took the matter in their own hands and created the alt hierarchy,
|which then was not only an alternate hierarchy, but was also propagated
|via alternate uucp links, bypassing the backbone sites. Later the wide
|use of NNTP and the increasing influence of UUNET caused the 'backbone'
|to fade into history, and while today UUNET _could_ be considered a kind
|of backbone all by itself, if it suddenly went away they USENET would very
|quickly be able to reconfigure and carry on without it (excepting those
|sites for whom a feed from UUNET is the only option for whatever reason).
The showdown you're referring to I think is really the thing that broke
the "backbone cabal" (more accurately, the "backbone" mailing list
subscribers, where "backbone" were those 30 or so sites with very large
impact on connectivity - not just academic). "comp.women" passed a
vote inspite of the fact that many major SA's believed the name to be
a blatant attempt to carry a non-technical and political group in comp
simply because of increased distribution and flatly refused to carry
it. Apparently the arguments got quite violent even within the mailing
list, and the backbone group broke up.
Though, at about that time increased connectivity was making "backbone"
more and more irrelevant.
Earlier, back in the days of the "Great Renaming", the people trying to come up
with the repartitioning of the "mod." and "net." groups into the
"big seven" hierarchies of today had a problem figuring out how to
place "news.flame" and "net.bizarre" and probably a few others. They
were considered to be just plain garbage, and many hoped that they would
simply disappear. Lots of grumbling and some screaming, with the
group designing the partition refusing to place these groups. Then a few
people started complaining about how onerous the new newsgroup voting
procedures were going to be, and they decided to create their own playpen
to mess up as they please.
A mess it certainly is.
The drugs group is a special case. Too many SA's stood up and said
that they wouldn't carry it under any name, no matter what a vote
said. Though I think it predates the current voting procedure.
Ditto, more or less, alt.sex.
Other major kafuffles, eg: comp.protocols.tcp.pc.eniac (or whatever
it was) or sci.aquaria generated much heat, but had relatively
little long-term effect. (Other than you don't see their proponents
around that much anymore.)
It was a long time ago. I've blissfully forgotten most of the details.
The prevalence of such groups as "censorship", "civil-liberty",
"acad-freedom" and the like in alt is because the people who tend to
want to create such groups think that having to vote for a news
group is fascist.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: History of "alt" groups
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.175915.24263@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 17:59:15 GMT
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
[...]
>The prevalence of such groups as "censorship", "civil-liberty",
>"acad-freedom" and the like in alt is because the people who tend to
>want to create such groups think that having to vote for a news
>group is fascist.
[...]
I think a bigger reason that these groups were created as "alt" groups
was impatience. At least with alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, I didn't want to wait two months for
discussion and and election.
- Carl
p.s. Anyone willing to run elections for CAF-talk and CAF-news?
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.193130.13264@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 19:31:30 GMT
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
}What you are "suggesting" is more than that. You are proposing a
}solution which is simply not acceptable to the people it will affect.
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>Ok, maybe you'll like my "suggestion" better. Everyone who is
>pissed off at MIT does:
> foreach x (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1)
> ping terminus.lcs.mit.edu 2000 >& /dev/null &
> end
bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
} The problem with the above suggestion is that it also places an
}uncalled-for, extra load on other network resources. ... ... ...
@
@@
@@
@@
@@
@@@@ @@
@@@@ @@
@@@@ @
@@
@@@@@@@@@ @@ Closed captioned for
@@@@@@@@@ @@ the satire impaired.
@@ ``No kidding???''
@@@@ @
@@@@ @@
@@@@ @@
@@ @@
@@ @@
@ @@
@ @@
@
--
John Hascall Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: oconnorf@unix1.tcd.ie (Frank D. O'Connor)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Feb 92 18:09:12 GMT
>Okay Christine, I'll bite. Since May, 1991 (a rather red-letter day as far
>as I am concerned) I have counted over twenty material contraventions of
Since when has May 1991 been a "day"?
>the Incitement to Hatred Act from within tcd.talk. I brought this point up,
>numerous times, to Important People and they DIDNTWANTTOKNOW. Is there a
>double standard in action here, or what?
No, it was _you_ they DIDNTWANTTOKNOW. You don't exactly seem the right
person to be complaining about net offensiveness.
Frank O'Connor.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.210721.26592@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 27 Feb 92 21:07:21 GMT
bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
>uncalled-for, extra load on other network resources. Perhaps a better
>alternative for those sites whose administrators feel strongly opposed
>to the existence of terminal servers that allow unauthenticated access
>to the Internet would be an extension to the recommendation that packet
>filtering be used to block access from said terminal servers.
Some sites (namely my own) already do this. I think this is a
great idea.
>The extension would be simply to block access from *all* addresses at
>institutions that are known to have *any* such "open" terminal servers.
This is a good idea too...but keep in mind that the sites that would
block access to MIT may cut off their own nose to spite their face.
Lots of stuff comes from there (GNU, X11) and while perhaps other
archive sites would mirror data that comes from MIT, a widespread
practice of that is probably impractical.
Still I like the idea. Why didn't Dan suggest this in the first place?
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh
One day, a Fool was in the village mill, filling his bag with a little
bit of every other person's wheat. "Why are you doing that?" someone
asked. "Because I am a Fool" "Why don't you then fill other people's
bags with your own wheat?"
"Then," the Fool answered, "I would be more of a fool."
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <9202272143.AA14469@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 09:43:28 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: jester@crash.cts.com (Ken Bibb)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.180029.24141@crash.cts.com>
Date: 27 Feb 92 18:00:29 GMT
In <1992Feb26.210337.1666@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>I would like to point out to the system administrators that the following
>mail was posted by Mr. Jose Martinez on SCIA.
>This message was in very bad taste and
>I am deeply offended with his rude, offensive and demeaning
>language. Also I would like to point out his undesirable
>and continuing interference on SCIA.
>Would someone responsible take appropriate action that he does
>post any further personally offensive posts and take his campaign to disband
>SCIA elsewhere ?
>Sincerely,
>Alok Vijayvargia
[see his original post for a copy of the letter]
You obviously have not read the newuser information. Usenet is not a
democracy, nor is it a monarchy. No one (except maybe his system
administrator) can or will take any action towards him.
Especially for that post.
> I am deeply offended with his rude, offensive and demeaning language.
He seemed to be using reasonable language as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure
his system administrator would agree. Just because you don't agree with it
doesn't mean that it's not in good taste.
I also did not vote for or against SCIA, but I oppose the way that you've
been handling this whole situation. I think that Alok's methods should be
reviewed.
Also, I had no idea that this group was for people from India who are in
America. From the group's name, I thought it was about Native Americans
(popularly known as American Indians).
Get a life, alok. Don't you realize that you're giving SCIA a bad name?
--
jester@crash.cts.com
ucsd!crash!jester
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: We need help!
Message-ID: <9202272159.AA30610@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 09:59:42 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: fredj@wang.com (Fred Jewell)
Subject: Re: We need help!
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 20:12:33 GMT
Message-ID:
cvafyhds@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu (We want better computing!) writes:
[snip]
It seems to me that unhappy students, especially the very bright ones, will
come up with ways that will drive home to the faculty just how dissatisfied
they are. Maybe this is where the viruses are coming from....
I did'nt have or didn't take the opportunity to go to college after being
discharged from the NAVY. However if I were in this situation I would approach
it as you are doing, BRAVO!
Unfortunately I'm responsible for one of the corporate machines. Just maybe
a viewpoint, if the machine is a production machine, in that it does real
work like posting bills, accts. payable etc. this machine should be sacred.
However, we have machines that are "loaners", for everyone to borrow. If
people have a problem we try to help them solve it. If they are "brain dead",
which is not the norm, we are less apt to have their monkey placed on our back.
The computer industry as well as other high tech. companies need employees
that are competent in either making computers or using them as a tool.
If what your post indicates, that there are computers not being utilised, and
there is not real competent help. There are 250,000 competent people
in Massachusetts alone would be also friendly and would replace them
willingly!
The thing that bothers me most is the subtle message being sent. You don't
matter, we don't care about the quality of your education.
--
******************************************************************************
Fred Jewell |These opinions are my own. Not necessarily
Wang Labs. |those of WANG LABS. Or any other satient
Lowell Ma. |being(s).
USA
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.214215.2459@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 27 Feb 92 21:42:15 GMT
In article <1992Feb26.015556.10163@mp.cs.niu.edu> bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu
(Scott Bennett) writes:
>
> Perhaps a sufficiently successful lawsuit might show MIT how such a
> change could benefit them economically?
Given that an information carrier is in no way liable for the
information people make available via its service, you would have a
very hard time winning such a lawsuit.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.214846.2720@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 27 Feb 92 21:48:46 GMT
In article <1992Feb27.035129.31941@mp.cs.niu.edu> bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu
(Scott Bennett) writes:
>
> In article <1992Feb24.171839.15358@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu
> (John Hascall) writes:
>>
>> foreach x (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1)
>> ping terminus.lcs.mit.edu 2000 >& /dev/null &
>> end
>
> The extension would be simply to block access from *all* addresses at
> institutions that are known to have *any* such "open" terminal
> servers.
Gee, and who was talking about "denial of services" earlier? Sounds to
me like it's you folks whom the net should be concerned about.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
Date: 28 Feb 92 01:45:52 GMT
Message-ID:
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: History of "alt" groups
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>The prevalence of such groups as "censorship", "civil-liberty",
>"acad-freedom" and the like in alt is because the people who tend to
>want to create such groups think that having to vote for a news
>group is fascist.
Or that the current procedures for having to vote for a newsgroup
are a massive waste of time.
--
Iain Sinclair (axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au) +61 2 2812552
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.015132.25213@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 92 01:51:32 GMT
In article <1992Feb27.214215.2459@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>In article <1992Feb26.015556.10163@mp.cs.niu.edu> bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu
>(Scott Bennett) writes:
>>
>> Perhaps a sufficiently successful lawsuit might show MIT how such a
>> change could benefit them economically?
>
>Given that an information carrier is in no way liable for the
>information people make available via its service, you would have a
>very hard time winning such a lawsuit.
>
Oh! My goodness! Is *that* what MIT is claiming to be these days??
What is the FCC's opinion of MIT as a common carrier? 1/3 :-)
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
Systems Programming
Computer Center
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois 60115
**********************************************************************
* Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu *
* BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "If it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need them." *
**********************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.020144.17315@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 92 02:01:44 GMT
In article <1992Feb27.214846.2720@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>In article <1992Feb27.035129.31941@mp.cs.niu.edu> bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu
>(Scott Bennett) writes:
>>
>> In article <1992Feb24.171839.15358@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu
>> (John Hascall) writes:
>>>
>>> foreach x (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1)
>>> ping terminus.lcs.mit.edu 2000 >& /dev/null &
>>> end
>>
>> The extension would be simply to block access from *all* addresses at
>> institutions that are known to have *any* such "open" terminal
>> servers.
>
>Gee, and who was talking about "denial of services" earlier? Sounds to
>me like it's you folks whom the net should be concerned about.
>
It would only deny services to those organizations who allow
unauthenticated attacks (i.e. abuse) on those services. For example,
if NIU blocked all packets from MIT, our services would still be
available to authorized users. We would simply be saying that NIU
did not authorize any use from MIT due to incompatible usage policies.
In other words, denial of unauthorized use is done by choice, whereas
denial of authorized use is due to human error or deliberate damage
by a human.
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
Systems Programming
Computer Center
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois 60115
**********************************************************************
* Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu *
* BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "If it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need them." *
**********************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines
From: dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt)
Subject: Re: Use tax (Was: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A)
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.181526.19912@ntg.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 18:15:26 GMT
In article <1992Feb25.011258.15180@erg.sri.com> zwicky@erg.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky) writes:
>[I]n general it is *not*
>true that tax is owed on out-of-state mail-order sales. Sales tax
>can't be owed, because such a tax would be a restriction on interstate
>commerce and therefore only allowed of the federal government.
My understanding is that the courts ruled (quite a few years ago) that a
state may place a "use tax" on mail-order purchased made from an
out-of-state vendor, as long as the "use tax" is not greater than the
"sales tax" on an equivalent in-state purchase. If the use tax were to
exceed the sales tax, it would constitute a discriminatory tariff on
interstate trade, which is what the Constitution forbids. As long as
the use tax is the same as the sales tax, it does not discriminate
against out-of-state products and thus is not forbidden.
The courts have also held that a state cannot force an out-of-state
vendor to collect the use tax... the state must do so itself.
In article <1992Feb27.013753.25644@ncsu.edu> efg@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu.UUCP (Edward Gehringer) writes:
>There is a case before the U.S. Supreme Court this term that argues
>this point. A decision is therefore expected any time between now and
>June.
As I understand it, this case (Lands End vs. California??) deals with
the issue of whether a state such as California can expand the legal
definition of "do business". Traditionally, a company is said to "do
business" in a state if it has a business license from that state, or has
an office or other business property in the state. Companies which do
business in California can legally be required to collect California
state sales tax... even on products which are actually ordered through
an out-of-state office and shipped to the purchaser across state lines.
The state of California is attempting to expand the definition of "do
business", to include any company which [1] accepts a credit card issued
by a California bank or [2] offers a toll-free sales phone number which
is accessible from California. These new standards (passed into law by
the California legislature a year or two ago) would redefine most of the
mail-order merchants in the U.S. as "doing business" in California...
and it would give California the legal right to insist that these
companies collect California state sales tax on all sales to California
residents, and forward the tax to the state.
The merchants are NOT happy with this new policy. If it's upheld, and
if other states (and perhaps even counties and cities) pass similar
laws, most mail-order merchants would be faced with a terrible paperwork
load... they'd have to collect tax at a different rate for each state
and county, keep track of the collections, and forward money to dozens
or hundreds of treasurers. It's entirely possible that a significant
number of mail-order merchants would be unable to afford the overhead
and would close down, or would say "No sales to California residents",
or would cease accepting credit cards and providing toll-free ordering
numbers in order to avoid the "do business" rule.
--
Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 813-8917
Domain: dplatt@ntg.com UUCP: ...apple!ntg!dplatt
USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,talk.abortion,soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook)
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 07:44:34 GMT
falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>In article <1992Feb26.161921.19402@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) writes:
>>
>>Okay Christine, I'll bite. Since July, 1991 I have counted over twenty material
>>contraventions of the Incitement to Hatred Act. I brought this point up,
>>numerous times, to Important People and they DIDNTWANTTOKNOW. Is there a
>>double standard in action here, or what?
>Well, I say GOOD FOR THEM! Any time someone in power tells a would-be
>censor to buzz off, it gives me good hopes for the future.
It is not the lack of censorship that he is objecting to, but the
selective enforcement of it. An Irish sysadmin had posted that
since information that would help someone obtain an abortion was
illegal in Ireland, that the organization would be in violation
of the law if such information was carried on their computer
system.
This gentleman pointed out that they carried illegal information
on a regular basis and seemed unconcerned about it, whereas their
stated policy was to delete any abortion information immediately.
> -ed falk, sun microsystems
-rocker
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Sys-admins shooting first
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Feb 92 22:00:58 GMT
In article bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
I, too, am curious about what he was running. Still, it's one thing to
take the "immediate action" of killing the offending process; a different
thing to turn off [apparently] more than one computer account. Surely
the latter wasn't urgent.
We would only do that if it were a crack attempt or other blatantly
illegal program.
We do, however, run "crack" and do immediately disable any account
whose password we guess, with a login message saying what happened.
An important difference, though, is that in this particular case
*any* of the student operators can re-instate the account when
shown a student id. We have ops in on evenings and weekends so it
is hopefully not so big of a deal...
Students don't seem to mind this too much as we got rather dramatic
about 'Nasty things a cracker can do in your name with your account'
It helps that we publicized our last break-in...students are
cool when they know it's important.
Funny part is, most of the passwords we cracked were from math
professors!
I can see the administrators' point of view. They all have lots to do
besides trying to track down students; turning off the account (with a
login message saying where the student should go to get reinstated)
makes the student find the administrator, which is easier since the
It's pretty mean to turn an account off without warning though. I
give people a week or so to respond to email first! If they don't
*answer* me, I feel perfectly justified in turning them off. We
have yet to receive a complaint (knock formica)
--
Betsy Schwartz Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
System Administrator BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
U-Mass Boston Computer Science Dept. Staccato signals
Harbor Campus Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information...
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 15:32:05 GMT
Scott> == Scott Bennett
[...]
>Gee, and who was talking about "denial of services" earlier? Sounds to
>me like it's you folks whom the net should be concerned about.
>
Scott> It would only deny services to those organizations who allow
Scott> unauthenticated attacks (i.e. abuse) on those services. For
Scott> example, if NIU blocked all packets from MIT, our services would
Scott> still be available to authorized users. We would simply be
Scott> saying that NIU did not authorize any use from MIT due to
Scott> incompatible usage policies. In other words, denial of
Scott> unauthorized use is done by choice, whereas denial of authorized
Scott> use is due to human error or deliberate damage by a human.
If terminus is the only site at MIT you have a problem with, why not
contact terminus-admin@lcs.mit.edu and have them restrict access to your
host/domain/net/whatever at their site? We did this at EFF ... now we
don't have any half-baked hackers trying to break into EFF from
terminus. (they have to be more creative. wheee.)
--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose Many thanks to Sun Microsystems
Electronic Frontier Foundation who approved EFF's $75K grant!
Systems and Networks Administration Flames to:
women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] proposal for policy on calculator use during exams
Message-ID: <9202281659.AA09272@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 04:59:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Date: 21 Feb 92 07:01:23 GMT
From: plains!bezenek@uunet.uu.net (Todd M. Bezenek KO0N)
Subject: proposal for policy on calculator use during exams
[This is an article which I recently posted to comp.sys.handhelds and
comp.sys.hp48. It is in response to a discussion regarding the use of
calculators on university exams. I am posting it to comp.risks because it
demonstrates the risk of introducing computing power into the classroom
where it may be misused. TMB]
I have reviewed the responses concerning calculator policies at universities
from all over the world. Thank you to everyone for sending them. The
following is my proposed policy. This policy is intended to eliminate problems
associated with using note-style information, without eliminating the use of
the calculating power of these devices. If you have any comments, please post
them after thinking them through fully.
Proposed Policy Regarding the Use of Portable Calculating
Devices during Closed-Note Examinations
If a student uses a portable calculating device during a closed-note
examination for the purpose of storing notes, that student shall be considered
guilty of an infraction equivalent to using said notes as they would appear on
paper.
In the case that a proctor believes beyond a reasonable doubt that a
student is violating the above policy, that proctor shall immediately remove
the calculating device from the student's possession. The proctor may then
choose whether or not the student should be allowed to complete the
examination. The calculating device shall remain in the possession of the
proctor until the contents of its memory--both vendor supplied and user
programmed--can be examined.
The decision of whether or not the above policy has been violated
should be based upon the judgement of a faculty member who shall examine the
memory of the calculating device before it is returned to the student. In the
case that the memory is found to contain information which, when transferred to
paper, would be considered an unallowable aid, the student shall be considered
guilty of the infraction described above.
In the case that the student is found to not be in violation of the
above infraction, the student should be allowed to rewrite the examination if
the student so chooses. Alternately, if the student is found to be in
violation, the student is subject to the same university policies that govern
the use of unallowed notes equivalent to that which would result from
transferring the memory of the calculating device to paper.
In no case will the student forfeit possession of the calculating device
indefinitely.
Respectfully submitted, Todd M. Bezenek
Todd Michael Bezenek, KO0N Internet: bezenek@plains.nodak.edu
UUCP: uunet!plains!bezenek Bitnet: bezenek@plains
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Re: Proposal for policy on calculator use during exams (Bezenek 13.16)
Message-ID: <9202281659.AA28215@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 04:59:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 9:12:19 EST
From: Brinton Cooper
Subject: Re: Proposal for policy on calculator use during exams (Bezenek 13.16)
Message-ID:
Todd M. Bezenek KO0N communicates his proposed
policy regarding the use of calculators on closed note university exams. In
brief, he would take possession of a device which he (the proctor) believes to
have been used to violate the intent of closed-note examinations. He would
have a faculty member judge whether the calculating machine and its memory
content provided an illegal aid to the test-taking student.
I guess he never heard of "due process." If you try that in universities
supported by public funds, you run the risk of being sued by the student. His
procedure sets up a couple of faculty as a "kangaroo court" (what does that
mean, anyhow?) to judge whether a student cheated.
High-tech times may call for low-tech solutions. I simply do not permit the
use of calculating devices on Computer Science examinations and quizzes. The
reasoning is simple:
Programmers should be proficient, personally, in computation.
a. Having to work out a few numerical examples by hand can help budding
programmers hone their ability to see more than one way to do a
computation.
b. Using this ability can provide "sanity checks" on their software.
c. Programmers should be able to get the answer even when their batteries
have run down.
I fear that at least some of the human-induced software faults discussed so
often in this forum can be traced to the lack of computational skill on the
part of the programmer involved.
_Brinton Cooper abc@brl.mil cooper@udel.edu ab.cooper@compmail.com
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Re: Proposal for policy on calculator use during exams (Bezenek 13.16)
Message-ID: <9202281700.AA20533@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 05:00:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 14:47:31 EST
From: li@cambridge.oracorp.com (Li Gong)
Subject: Re: Proposal for policy on calculator use during exams (Bezenek 13.16)
In RISKS-13.16 Todd M. Bezenek proposed a policy for dealing with "the use of
calculators on university exams." His posting "demonstrates the risk of
introducing computing power into the classroom where it may be misused."
Unfortunately, such a policy, short of banning a student from using his/her
*own* calculator, could not beat technology. For example, it is easy to
imagine a calculator that can be activated only by a (say 10 digit) PIN.
Today's photocopiers can operate in this fashion. The new trick is to require
periodical input (say every 3 minute) of the PIN. If PIN is not typed in in
time, the calculator locks itself, and starts scrambling some parts of the
memory (using the PIN as key). then erase the key from memory afterwards. To
find any evidence of wrong doings, the memory section in question has to be
examined within 3 minutes.
The basic point is that if a student has his/her own Trusted Computing Base, no
one can beat him/her. If this is not true, nobody would work in the field of
computer security today. So ban the calculators, or supply "official" ones
during exams.
Li Gong, ORA Corp, 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA, USA.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Two Cornell Students Arrested for Spreading Virus
Message-ID: <9202281701.AA26166@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 05:01:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 13:12:23 PST
From: "Peter G. Neumann"
Subject: Two Cornell Students Arrested for Spreading Virus
2 Cornell Students Arrested for Spreading Computer Virus
LEE A. DANIELS, N.Y. Times News Service
Two Cornell University undergraduates were arrested Monday night and charged
with developing and spreading a computer virus that disrupted computers as far
away as California and Japan, Cornell officials said. M. Stewart Lynn, vice
president for information technologies at the university in Ithaca, N.Y.,
identified the students as David Blumenthal and Mark Pilgrim. Lynn said that
both Blumenthal, who is in the engineering program, and Pilgrim, in the college
of arts and sciences, were 19-year-old sophomores. They were arrested Monday
night by Cornell and Ithaca police officers. Lynn said the students were
arraigned in Ithaca City Court on charges of second-degree computer tampering,
a misdemeanor, and taken to the county jail. Lynn said authorities believed
that the two were responsible for a computer virus planted in three Macintosh
games on Feb. 14. [...]
He identified the games as Obnoxious Tetris, Tetricycle and Ten Tile Puzzle.
The virus may have first appeared in a Stanford University public computer
archive and spread from there through computer users who loaded the games into
their own computers.
Lynn said officials at Cornell and elsewhere became aware of the virus last
week and quickly developed what he described as ``disinfectant'' software to
eradicate it. He said officials traced the virus to Cornell last week, but he
would not specify how that was done or what led officials to the two students.
Lynn said he did not yet know how much damage the virus had caused. ``At
Cornell we absolutely deplore this kind of behavior,'' he said.
[reference to RTM deleted.]
AP item notes both are being held in the Tompkins County Jail on $10,000 bail.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: History of "alt" groups & mass media discovering nets
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.120454.10144@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 28 Feb 92 12:04:54 GMT
In article <3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret (Chris Lewis) writes:
>The prevalence of such groups as "censorship", "civil-liberty",
>"acad-freedom" and the like in alt is because the people who tend to
>want to create such groups think that having to vote for a news
>group is fascist.
Or partly that they're too lazy to arrange a vote ;-)
On the Finnish part of Usenet, the procedure to create new
country-wide newsgroups is primarily to propose a newsgroup with some
reasoning as to why it should be created - then if there is a
reasonable consensus about the purpose and the name the "newsmasters"
create it. It has been working reasonably well and avoids the
overhead and long delays involved with a voting procedure. Then, if
there's differences of opinions a voting process or an unofficial vote
is employed.
The only major trouble was with a group sfnet.huuhaa (closest
equivalent perhaps talk.bizarre) which the "newsmasters" (affiliated
with the academic network FUNET, which perhaps is not a good thing for
obvious reasons) didn't create via the normal procedure. A public
vote in a newsgroup was held with only one or two votes against the
group and dozens for it and people started saying that if the
newsmasters won't created it, the users will. Then the newsmasters
finally created the group.
We haven't yet had the Great Discovery of the Pornographic Anarchic
Drug-user's Network Funded by Tax-Payers Money here and I don't think
there's much discouragement of any "controversial" groups. Dunno what
happens when The Discovery by the junk press inevitably will happen
sometime in the future.
The junk press by the way had a story about the incident of German
Spies invading the American Computer Network FUNET via Finland a few
years ago. That was the incident when Finland had just been connected
(routing tables were not even in condition for passing all traffic) to
NSFNET and probably some high-up somewhere got terrified of a country
neighbouring The Evil Empire having access to a national computer
network and disconnected Nordunet after which only Finland was
filtered out. To mee it seems probable that some unauthorized access
(or attempts) from Germany to some military sites etc. via MIT got
mixed up with Finnish traffic to the MIT machines.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.111443.16@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 28 Feb 92 17:14:42 GMT
Excessive quoting follows, but I believe you'll need it
In article <1992Feb28.020144.17315@mp.cs.niu.edu>, bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
> In article <1992Feb27.214846.2720@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb27.035129.31941@mp.cs.niu.edu> bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu
>>(Scott Bennett) writes:
>>> In article <1992Feb24.171839.15358@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu
>>> (John Hascall) writes:
>>>>
>>>> foreach x (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1)
>>>> ping terminus.lcs.mit.edu 2000 >& /dev/null &
>>>> end
>>>
>>> The extension would be simply to block access from *all* addresses at
>>> institutions that are known to have *any* such "open" terminal
>>> servers.
>>
>>Gee, and who was talking about "denial of services" earlier? Sounds to
>>me like it's you folks whom the net should be concerned about.
>>
> It would only deny services to those organizations who allow
> unauthenticated attacks (i.e. abuse) on those services. For example,
> if NIU blocked all packets from MIT, our services would still be
> available to authorized users. We would simply be saying that NIU
> did not authorize any use from MIT due to incompatible usage policies.
> In other words, denial of unauthorized use is done by choice, whereas
> denial of authorized use is due to human error or deliberate damage
> by a human.
There seems to be a major fork in the discussion that intersected in that
message. I'll assign a short descriptive phrase for identification, not
as a summary of the proposal.
Hascall: Proposal for excessive "pinging"
Bennett: Proposal to block institutions with "open" access
And again, a short descriptive phrase for the two responses, not summaries.
Hannum: will cause denial of network services
Bennett: its just incompatible usage policies, not denial of use
I hope this is just a case of mixed up responses to different parts of the
message. But, assuming they were serious, here goes...
Fact: Merit has cut off a site from the NSFNET which had a machine generating
"excessive" numbers of packets. These caused the NSS's to crash. Although
the two or more cisco routers they had to go through didn't seem to have
a problem with the packets. From this I would infer that any actions that
cause interruptions, or problems with the network provider's equipment will
result in termination of network services (at least, until you stop doing it).
Proposing actions that could crash the backbone isn't an extension of adding
access control lists to your gateways. While you shouldn't expect your network
provider to protect you from the cold, cruel world, expect them to take action
when it effects their equipment. Its a gamble to predict who they would take
action against.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
For every action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "University of Wisconsin rewrites 'hate speech' rule
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.173058.23990@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 17:30:58 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A short item from the Chicago Tribune, Feb 25, 1992, section 1, p. 4]
>MADISON - The University of Wisconsin System is resurrecting a "hate
>speech" rule that was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal
>judge last year. [...] The redraft says students may be punished
>for using racial, sexual or age-related epithets -- defined as a word,
>phrase or symbol that " would make the educational environment hostile
>or threatening" and would "tend to provoke an immediate violent
>response when addressed directly to a person of average sensibility."
The Tribune article is unclear, but according to Dr. Baldwin (the
author of the original policy), the new policy "only focuses on
one-on-one encounters." Also, "no one can be disciplined unless the
matter is reviewed first by a persons designated by the UW President -
i.e. a lawyer."
Finally, the redraft is has not yet been accepted by the university
system and may not be.
- 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 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <9202281748.AA26155@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 05:48:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.220108.19539@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 22:01:08 GMT
In article <1992Feb26.210337.1666@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>I would like to point out to the system administrators that the following
>mail was posted by Mr. Jose Martinez on SCIA.
[he appends the message he's referring to... I'll move
a section of it up here.]
From article <92056.192404JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> by JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
>> After reading all the nonsense that Alok has
>>posted in the last two days I have reached the
>>following conclusion regarding his solicitation
>>of votes for SCIA in the P2 list:
>>
>> He did it because he is AN IGNORANT FOOL who
>>lives in a fantasy world where the only reality
>>is that which is concocted by his feeble mind.
[back to Alok]
>This message was in very bad taste and
>I am deeply offended with his rude, offensive and demeaning
>language. Also I would like to point out his undesirable
>and continuing interference on SCIA.
Well, it wasn't too nice, but I see worse quite regularly on
USENET...
>Would someone responsible take appropriate action that he does
>post any further personally offensive posts and take his campaign to disband
>SCIA elsewhere ?
Huh!?!?!?!? Someone what?!? Someone RESPONSIBLE?!?!?
Mr. Martinez is responsible for his own posts, and NOONE else is.
What, you're appealing to system administrators to prevent someone
from posting something you don't like on USENET? Well, sorry,
but I must say I guess Jose was right: "you're an ignorant fool
who lives in a fantasy world..."
Look, face it... USENET is an anarchy. The same lack of authority
that let you get away with your dubious tactics during the creation
of SCIA makes it possible for Jose Martinez to flood your group
with insulting messages if he wants to. You took advantage of
that lack of authority, and now you want someone to come rescue
you????
Grow up!
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <9202281748.AA14470@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 05:48:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
From: marms@sandia.UUCP (Mike Arms)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <657@sandia.UUCP>
Date: 28 Feb 92 01:44:09 GMT
Hello, Alok.
I did not vote in the SCIA vote. I cared neither way. But upon reading
the numerous postings from you and concerning your actions, I believe
that your actions were inappropriate. I, as news admin of our site,
will not carry SCIA. I will honor an ethical revote on this newsgroup.
I also read your reposting of Jose Martinez's flame against you.
You wrote:
>This message was in very bad taste and
>I am deeply offended with his rude, offensive and demeaning
>language. Also I would like to point out his undesirable
>and continuing interference on SCIA.
>
>Would someone responsible take appropriate action that he does
>post any further personally offensive posts and take his campaign to disband
>SCIA elsewhere ?
I thought that, given your attitude as presented in your postings,
his flame was on the mark concerning you. Thus, I did not consider it
inappropriate or in bad taste. It was insulting, as it was a flame
and thus intentional. But it does seem entirely appropriate.
At first, I was going to make this reply via e-mail, but I felt that
it was important to show publicly and add my voice to the numerous
other news admins that refute the validity and propriety of your vote.
--
Mike Arms
uucp: ...{ucbvax | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!marms
InterNet: unmvax.unm.edu!sandia!marms
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <9202281750.AA29111@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 05:50:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
From: terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr.)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Inappropriate and Rude Post from Mr. Jose Martinez
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.041330.2405@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 92 04:13:30 GMT
In article <1992Feb26.210337.1666@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>
> I would like to point out to the system administrators that the following
> mail was posted by Mr. Jose Martinez on SCIA.
Ok. You notified the whole world. Now will you *please* go away?
> This message was in very bad taste and
> I am deeply offended with his rude, offensive and demeaning
> language. Also I would like to point out his undesirable
> and continuing interference on SCIA.
If you want to see rude, offensive, and demeaning language there are much
better examples to be found on Usenet. Most of them aren't even directed at
you.
> Would someone responsible take appropriate action that he does
> post any further personally offensive posts and take his campaign to disband
> SCIA elsewhere ?
You can try to get the group moderated, or to change the charter to prohibit
any criticism of the newsgroup or yourself. I suspect that would be an uphill
struggle at this point, though. If you could solicit yes votes on a mailing
list during the voting period and not see that anything was wrong with that,
then perhaps Mr. Martinez doesn't see anything wrong with having a discussion
in your newsgroup. After all, it is related to the topic of the group. If a
majority (or even a large number) of the group's readers feel that his posting
is inappropriate, I'm sure they'll let him know. That is a much better approach
than calling for disciplinary action in news.admin.
Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing
terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
terry@spcvxa.spc.edu +1 201 915 9381
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Mass media discovering nets
Message-ID: <11169@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 92 17:44:18 GMT
From article <1992Feb28.120454.10144@nntp.hut.fi>,
by jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala):
>
> We haven't yet had the Great Discovery of the Pornographic Anarchic
> Drug-user's Network Funded by Tax-Payers Money here and I don't think
> there's much discouragement of any "controversial" groups. Dunno what
> happens when The Discovery by the junk press inevitably will happen
> sometime in the future.
I've been taking "prophylactic" measures about the great discovery for
a few years now. Every time I get a reporter's ear or legislator's ear
and the subject is "what is this network you keep talking about", I make
sure to tell them about the huge variety of newsgroups, typically
starting with a mention of the huge number of scientific and technical
groups, and then going on to mention talk.politics.abortion and
talk.politics.guns as examples of hot discussions of controversial
issues, and finally mentioning alt.sex and such as examples of the
not-unexpected consequences of having such an open forum. So far, I've
given this introduction to people from two local TV stations, one radio
network, one radio station, three newspapers, and a producer for the CBS
evening news. I've also talked to one Congressman and three state
legislators with similar introductions.
I've never had a bad reaction to this presentation, so I recommend this
to anyone who finds themselves talking about the net to the press or to
their legislators.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Re: Calculator Use During Exams
Message-ID: <9202281906.AA06346@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 07:06:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 10:32:11 EST
From: Mark.Kantrowitz@GLINDA.OZ.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Calculator Use During Exams
My mother, a high school mathematics teacher, has a simple solution to the
problem of calculator use during exams -- she maintains lists of the models her
students are and are not allowed to use. At the beginning of the exam, she
walks around the room and erases the memory of the calculators. (Most
calculators have a short sequence of keystrokes which will erase all the
memory.) A calculator which does symbolic integration, of course, is not
allowed on an integration exam. Whenever a manufacturer debuts a new
calculator, she buys or borrows one to evaluate it.
--mark
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,talk.abortion,soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Feb 92 19:55:37 GMT
In article cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) writes:
>falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>
>>Well, I say GOOD FOR THEM! Any time someone in power tells a would-be
>>censor to buzz off, it gives me good hopes for the future.
>
>It is not the lack of censorship that he is objecting to, but the
>selective enforcement of it...
>
>This gentleman pointed out that they carried illegal information
>on a regular basis and seemed unconcerned about it, whereas their
>stated policy was to delete any abortion information immediately.
Oh, in that case BAD FOR THEM! It's about time they realized they
don't have a right to withold knowledge from the people.
One of the things I like best about the computer age is that it makes
information too slippery to hold on to and control. It's wonderful to
know how much "illegal" information is available through the computer
network. The global village is arriving.
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, falk@sun.com
"Towards the end, the smell of their air began to change"
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,talk.abortion,soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Feb 92 17:47:04 GMT
Due to the outcry of the Irish people and Big name stars such as Sinead
O'Connor, the girl will be allowed to travel to England for her abortion.
Tyger
--
Kristen Kohlbecker If I gave you Diamonds and Pearls,
kkohlbec@scueng.scu.edu would you be a happy boy or a girl?
tyger@netcom.com If I could I would give you the world,
but all I can do is just offer you
A Tyger and a Lady my love... _Diamonds and Pearls_
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Student rights in dorms
Message-ID: <4301@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 28 Feb 92 17:42:46 GMT
In article <15160@gollum.UMCS.Maine.EDU> who@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU writes:
|In article <1992Feb26.174041.1056@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, vanichth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mitri Van) writes:
||> Hi ya... I was just curious...
||>
||> What kinda rights do students have when they live in a university dorm?
||> I'm basically referring to searches by the university. My roomie and I
||> both agree that students don't have any rights when they live in a dorm, but
||> that didn't seem quite right. I'm currently under the assumption that
||> housing admin. has the power to do whatever they want as long as
||> "It's in the best interests of all in the dorm." So far, it seems reason-
||> able, but slightly fascist.. can anyone enlighten me?
||>
||> Mitri Van
||> mv45925@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
||> vanichth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
|
|
| Well, when ever I feel my rights have been or are about to be
|violated by either campuss police or resident assistants I threaten to
|take them to court and sue them! And if that doesn't work I threaten to
|call the "real" police (as opposed to campus) and file a complaint.
|I've yet to have to press charges, but I'am not above fileing a breaking
|and entering complaint against university personnel illegaly entering
|my dorm room.
| So, FIGHT for YOUR RIGHTS!
|Don't be pushed around by any two-bit fascist housing admin.
|Go to the local police station and press charges :)
I'm setting the followup to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, as that appears to be
a more appropriate group for this discussion.
Couple of comments though. The above advice should definitely _not_ be
taken as gospel. (Net legal advice is generally worth what you paid for it
:-) ). There are campuses where the campus police _is_ the real police.
The campus police at MIT, when I was there as an undergraduate, had this
status, and generally were a lot more supportive of the students than the
Cambridge police were.
Chances are there is some sort of written housing policy that spells out
the circumstances under which the housing administration has the authority
to enter dorm rooms. Find and read this policy would be the best advice
that I can offer in this regard.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Subject: Re: REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID: <9202282120.AA16359@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 21:20:27 GMT
>>>>> On 28 Feb 92 17:47:04 GMT, tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) said:
> Due to the outcry of the Irish people and Big name stars such as
> Sinead O'Connor, the girl will be allowed to travel to England for
> her abortion.
This is not entirely true. Yes, the girl will be allowed to travel to
England. But the reason for this is that the Irish Supreme Court
ruled that the High Court's travel ban on the girl was not proper.
This is particularly relevant since Ireland is a member of the
European Community, and the protocol establishing the EC includes
freedom of travel within all EC member countries.
Now, I should mention that the Supreme Court's decision was all of one
line long. The decision did not mention the EC, nor did it address
the merit of the issue itself, namely when and whether abortion is
legal in Ireland. The only thing the decision did was remove the
travel ban on the girl.
I should also mention that there *was* a hue and cry among the general
population, as others have described in this forum. But the hue and
cry is not what brought about the reversal of the travel ban. It was
the decision of the Supreme Court that reversed the travel ban on the
14-year-old girl.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
P.S. Yes, I am aware that a phrase in the EC protocols apparently --
that's apparently! -- allows Ireland to impose travel restrictions on
Irish citizens who wish to EC countries for the purpose of obtaining
an abortion. However, this phrase is fairly vague, and it was by no
means cited by the Irish Attorney General as an authorization for his
travel ban. Read the New York Times front-page article in the
Thursday, Feb 27 issue for more information.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.college,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Student rights in dorms
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.213353.28832@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 21:33:53 GMT
(But, wait, I talk about computers, too.)
In article <1992Feb26.174041.1056@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
vanichth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mitri Van) writes:
> What kinda rights do students have when they live in a university dorm?
> I'm basically referring to searches by the university. My roomie and I
> both agree that students don't have any rights when they live in a dorm, but
> that didn't seem quite right. I'm currently under the assumption that
> housing admin. has the power to do whatever they want as long as
> "It's in the best interests of all in the dorm." So far, it seems reason-
> able, but slightly fascist.. can anyone enlighten me?
At your school, the U. of Illinois (which happens to be my school),
here is the policy:
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign's Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations
Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
"IV. Privacy
A. Members of the University community have the same rights of
privacy as other citizens and surrender none of those rights by
becoming members of the academic community. These rights of privacy
extend to residence hall living. Nothing in University regulations or
contracts shall give University officials authority to consent to a
search by police or other government officials of offices assigned or
living quarters leased to individuals except in response to a properly
executed search warrant or search incident to an arrest.
B. When the University seeks access to an office assigned or living
quarters leased to an individual to determine compliance with
provisions of applicable multiple-dwelling unit laws, ordinances, and
regulations, or for improvement or repairs, the occupant shall be
notified of such action not less that twenty-four hours in advance.
There may be entry without notice in emergencies where imminent
danger to life, safety, health, or property is reasonably feared and
for custodial service.
C. The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office
assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in
response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to
an arrest."
I think that this is pretty much typical of all state univerisies
because state universities are constrained by Constitution's
protections against unreasonable searches. ("The right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.")
I think 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). Private communications via computer should have the same
protections as private communications via telephone.
- 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 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 01.45
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.221650.3202@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 22:16:50 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News followings the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n45
--- begin abstract ---
[Month of December, 1991
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
(Some of these paraphrases are based earlier paraphrases and
summaries written by Bob Solon and me.)
Note 1 is a summary of many 1991 cases.
1. Enclosed is an end-of-year update of the Banned Computer Material
list. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U., the U. of
Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of Waterloo,
U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U., Pennsylvania State
U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U., U. of Wisconsin,
and others.
<1991Dec18.181508.10501@eff.org>
Notes 2-4 are about Iowa State University's restrictions on who can
see newsgroups such as alt.sex.
2. [Mike Godwin, staff counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation:]
Although the policy's stated purpose is to avoid violations of law, in
fact, all (or almost all) of the material restricted is legal and
Constitutionally protected.
<1991Dec19.175822.21404@eff.org>
3. "The Iowa State University policy should, in my opinion, be changed
to better respect intellectual freedom by more accurately reflecting
library policy (and the law)." It violates the principles of at least
three American Library Association policy statements. (These are
enclosed.)
<1991Dec16.191620.21567@eff.org>
4. The policy was imposed by the Computation Center over the
objections of the Computer Center Newsgroup committee and University
Computation Center Advisory Sub-Committee.
<1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu>
Note 5 is about a pornography-on-usenet article that appeared in the
German feminist publication EMMA.
5. Contrary to what the EMMA article says, Usenet is not used mainly
for transmission of pornographic material. Less that 7% of Usenet
traffic is even related to sex.
Notes 6-7 try to answer frequently asked questions.
6. Enclosed are answers (with references) to the questions "Should my
university remove Netnews newsgroups because some people find them
offensive?" (No.) and "If it doesn't have the resources to carry all
newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?" (Like it selects books
and magazines.)
<1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org>
7. "q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the
University may *increase* its liability."
<1991Dec20.045445.4243@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about punishment of inflammatory speech
at a private religious university and prohibition of
rude speech at a public state university.
8. Enclosed is a note in which the sys admin of Marquette University
reports that a student has been expelled from the computing facilities
as a result of posting an inflammatory message. I think that
inflammatory speech "should be out competed, not outlawed." Also,
students should not be punished without due process.
<1991Dec18.215846.17384@eff.org>
9. An Iowa State University policy says "[s]ending rude ... material via any electronic mail
or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden." The courts
have said that "[i]t is not the job of the
government to enforce concepts of courtesy, cooperation, and common
sense with respect to expression."
<1991Dec3.045840.18238@eff.org>
Articles 10-11 discuss issues of user privacy vis-a-vis computers.
10. [A sysadmin] The Unix "ps" command has many positive uses. Also, "... if you don't have anything to hide, you have
no reason for privacy" in the context of computer systems. I
advocate educational "cross-pollination" and productivity from
relatively open systems, especially in an educational environment.
<1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu>
11. "[T]he contents of an academic computer, other than
directory information and any publicly posted material, are private
unless their owners or creators choose to make them public."
Such a policy should also pertain to students and staff,
as well as faculty.
<199112050610.AA19751@eff.org>
Note 12 is about the resource use of the MUDs, a type of recreational
programs.
12. I've measured network traffic at my site. During hours when MUDs
are prohibited, they are 6% of network traffic. During hours when they
are allowed they are 30% of traffic. "[W]hile MUD playing here isn't a
problem for our T1 connection, it could be troublesome to a site with
a 56KB connection."
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, or Carl M. Kadie). It
is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial
decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
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 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Abstract of CAF-News 01.43
Message-ID: <9202290705.AA13688@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:05:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 01.43
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.055812.3844@norton.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 05:58:12 GMT
shiva@pro-smof.cts.com (System Smof) writes:
> I'm kind of shocked that the Univerity of Stuttgart banned sci.military as
> offensive; being an Army Brat, I've always found that newsgroup to be
> pretty interesting. Was it because nasty things about Germany and WWII were
> said there? Nasty but true, that is?
No, as I understand it, some people there objected to it because discussions
of war are "politically incorrect" and "obscene". Not to be outdone by religious
censors going after dirty books, the leftists on campus want to get in on the
game by claiming that discussions of war are just as obscene and worthy of
censorship as pornography.
So much for claims that the left is "for free speech"!
--
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Q: What do you get when you cross --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group - Apple & IBM? --
-- Symantec Corporation - A: IBM. --
--
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9202290735.AA13798@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:35:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu")
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.232441.11714@robobar.co.uk>
Date: 27 Feb 92 23:24:41 GMT
In article bryanw@netcom.com (Bryan Woodworth) writes:
: This is a very disturbing event. I hope it does not become a trend. My
: sympathies, I don't know what I'd do with all that censorship if it
: occurred on this continent.
:
We already suffer this in the UK :-(
G
--
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9202290736.AA13824@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:36:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 00:54:16 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Feb29.005416.19540@clarinet.com>
Please people, while I do not approve of what SWITCH is planning, it is
not censorship and they are not censors. What they are doing is dumb and
capricious, but if you've ever seen actual censorship, then you wouldn't
demean the word by using it to refer to a private entitiy's refusal to
transmit material they don't like.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9202290735.AA13814@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:35:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu")
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.233005.11879@robobar.co.uk>
Date: 27 Feb 92 23:30:05 GMT
In article kh@litsun.epfl.ch writes:
> Get those guys on line please. Let us in on the secret: Who Killed Our
> Newsgroups? (And: No, I know it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald)
You won't get an answer, I'll bet. When ukc did this to Britain I asked
them 'who will stand up and say "I, personally, decided to stop these
groups"'. No-one did. I nominated the most likely candidate and said
'OK, unless we're told otherwise, I'll assume it was you' just to flush
them out. I got flamed for my efforts and the guy ducked responsibility.
Graham
--
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config, et al.] Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <9202290737.AA13839@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:37:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
From: pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Falstad)
Newsgroups: alt.config,news.admin
Subject: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <29010@notavax.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 27 Feb 92 21:37:01 GMT
Help me settle an argument here. My local sysadmins are all up in arms
because I created an alt.* group, specifically "alt.folklore.college".
As far as I can tell, it was a valid creation according to the principles
of USENET. It was discussed in alt.config, there were no objections, there
were many voices calling for the group. Though a mere undergrad peon, I
know how to send out newgroup messages, so I created the group with my
name & email address on the control message. The group is now quite active
with seemingly valid discussion. It was not a "joke" group like
alt.mcdonalds.smut which gets one initial message and then dies out after
the fun wears off. Spaf put it on his list. I got a total of _one_ complaint
about it, from a newsadmin at another site, who hadn't read alt.config
lately (I told him about the discussion there, and he was quite
understanding after that). Sounds like a valid group to me.
But no, apparently it was a "forgery". My local newsadmin sent me mail
(I won't quote it as I don't have his permission) claiming that any
group whose control message was forged is bogus, period. My creation
message was forged, so the group is bogus. Doesn't matter how many people
like the group. A forged control message, apparently, is any control message
that wasn't done with inews. Newsgroup creation, by usenet custom and
by software design, is the job of the news administrator. Gene may not
have known that the group was "forged" when he put it on his list.
Basically, he won't carry "alt.folklore.college" here at Princeton, so I'll
have to read the group at other sites. "alt.gorets" and "alt.usenet.recovery"
were added, no questions asked. To me, this seems inconsistent, and
contradictory to the spirit of Usenet. What's the net thinking on this?
--
Paul Falstad, pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu | 10 PRINT "PRINCETON CS"
[Your blood pressure just went up.] | 20 GOTO 10
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <9202290738.AA13848@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:38:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID:
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 27 Feb 92 23:51:46 GMT
In <29010@notavax.Princeton.EDU> pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Falstad) writes:
>Basically, he won't carry "alt.folklore.college" here at Princeton, so I'll
>have to read the group at other sites. "alt.gorets" and "alt.usenet.recovery"
>were added, no questions asked. To me, this seems inconsistent, and
>contradictory to the spirit of Usenet. What's the net thinking on this?
Isn't he also the only newsadmin who doesn't consider the rec.arts.sf
reoranization valid?
--
Arthur L. Rubin
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config, et al.] Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <9202290739.AA13857@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:39:13 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.config,news.admin
From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Subject: Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.100229.27960@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 15:02:29 GMT
pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Falstad) writes:
>My local sysadmins are all up in arms
>because I created an alt.* group, specifically "alt.folklore.college".
>As far as I can tell, it was a valid creation according to the principles
>of USENET.
Just to pick a nit, alt isn't part of usenet, but rather a different
hierarchy which uses the same distribution methods. The group was created
according to the principles of "altnet".
>It was discussed in alt.config, there were no objections, there
>were many voices calling for the group. ...I created the group with my
>name & email address on the control message. The group is now quite
>active with seemingly valid discussion. ...Spaf put it on his list. I
>got a total of _one_ complaint about it, from a newsadmin at another site,
>who hadn't read alt.config lately...
>But no, apparently it was a "forgery". My local newsadmin sent me mail
>(I won't quote it as I don't have his permission) claiming that any
>group whose control message was forged is bogus, period. My creation
>message was forged, so the group is bogus. Doesn't matter how many people
>like the group. A forged control message, apparently, is any control message
>that wasn't done with inews. Newsgroup creation, by usenet custom and
>by software design, is the job of the news administrator. Gene may not
>have known that the group was "forged" when he put it on his list.
Forgery is a legal term with a specific meaning. Since you put your name
on the post it wasn't a forgery, but your news admin is still free to
consider it an improper newgroup. It sounds like he's a bit peeved that
one of his users issued a newgroup without consulting him, but it's up to
him how news runs at your site. There's no stigma attached to carrying
or not carrying a particular alt group, and certainly none of us are
in a position to tell him what to do.
Gene Spafford's list of alt groups should not be considered canon; I believe
it even says so.
>Basically, he won't carry "alt.folklore.college" here at Princeton, so I'll
>have to read the group at other sites. "alt.gorets" and "alt.usenet.recovery"
>were added, no questions asked. To me, this seems inconsistent, and
>contradictory to the spirit of Usenet. What's the net thinking on this?
I sympathize with you, but if he doesn't want to carry the group that's
his business. I imagine some of my users might feel the same about the
groups I've refused to carry (not that I would know about it; none of my
users ever complain about anything. I guess I'm doing something right :-).
Perhaps it would help if you apologized for creating the group without
telling him, and promised not to do it again?
--
Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky +1 606 257 2975
Department of Mathematics
"You don't carve 'ARGH,' you just say it!" "Perhaps he was dictating?"
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config, et al.] Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <9202290739.AA13866@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:39:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
From: news@cs.wayne.edu
Newsgroups: alt.config,news.admin
Subject: Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.152050.18391@cs.wayne.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 92 15:20:50 GMT
As far as this site is concerned, if you Get It Right,
who cares whether you typed your article directly at
port 119, dumped a file into inews, or used a newsreader.
An article is an article, no matter how you get it into
the system. (I confess to some annoyance when the odd
clueless user insists on generating articles "by hand"
with broken headers, but that's a different story. |-P)
If the header on the article correctly represents who
you and your site are, it's not a forgery. Now, if
you put my name or site on it, *that's* forgery.
However, your problem is with your news admin, not the
definition of the word "forgery". If s/he doesn't want
you to send out control messages, there's not much you
can do about it. None of us make the rules at Princeton.
--
-jjb@cs.wayne.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config, et al.] Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <9202290739.AA13875@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:39:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
From: kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I)
Newsgroups: alt.config,news.admin
Subject: Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Feb 92 07:16:35 GMT
pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Falstad) writes:
> Help me settle an argument here. My local sysadmins are all up in arms
> because I created an alt.* group, specifically "alt.folklore.college".
[ tale of woe about sysadmin claiming newgroup control message not sent
with inews is "forged" and therefore invalid ]
> Basically, he won't carry "alt.folklore.college" here at Princeton, so I'll
> have to read the group at other sites. "alt.gorets" and "alt.usenet.recovery
> were added, no questions asked. To me, this seems inconsistent, and
> contradictory to the spirit of Usenet. What's the net thinking on this?
I don't know about the net's thinking (in fact, a reasonably good case
could be made that if the net can think, it's IQ is comparable to that
of a small brick), but my personal opinion is that your admin is being
unnecessarily strict in his interpretation of a "forgery" and should
definitely carry the group.
Making some distinction about control messages sent from inews via some
other method seems a bit dubious to me. I sent out a newgroup for
alt.fan.pratchett, acmebbs runs Waffle on an MS-DOS machine so the only
way I could send that was creating the message in a text editor and then
pass it to Waffle's rnews program for broadcasting to the net. I'm sure
many newgroup control messages are not sent from Unix sites with a news
system using an "inews" shell script.
- k
--
Craig Harding ACME BBS: +64 6 355-1342 email: kilroy@acme.gen.nz
You attempt things that you do not even plan because of your extreme stupidity.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config, et al.] Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <9202290740.AA13898@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:40:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
From: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit)
Newsgroups: alt.config,news.admin
Subject: Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.193245.13755@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 92 19:32:45 GMT
In article <29010@notavax.Princeton.EDU> pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Falstad) writes:
> Though a mere undergrad peon, I
> know how to send out newgroup messages, so I created the group with my
> name & email address on the control message.
> ...
> But no, apparently it was a "forgery"... My creation
> message was forged, so the group is bogus...
> A forged control message, apparently, is any control message
> that wasn't done with inews.
What does "with inews" mean? If you sent out a message, control
message or not, inews was probably involved.
Every cancel message I send out is in a sense "forged," because
some glitch with rrn (probably involving the From: headers I
manually insert in my articles to keep them from looking like
they come from "scs@athena.mit.edu") prevents me from using the
normal cancel command. So I just compose a cancel cmsg by hand,
and send it out through normal channels.
If I ever had occasion to create a newsgroup, I'd probably just
compose and post a newgrp cmsg, because RFC 1036 tells me how.
I gather (but only from Paul's lament) that there is a more
"official" way.
Steve Summit
scs@adam.mit.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config, et al.] Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <9202290740.AA13889@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:40:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.config,news.admin
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.192407.29127@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:24:07 GMT
In article <29010@notavax.Princeton.EDU> pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Falstad) writes:
>Help me settle an argument here. My local sysadmins are all up in arms
>because I created an alt.* group, specifically "alt.folklore.college".
>[discussion of how group was created according to alt guidelines]
>But no, apparently it was a "forgery". My local newsadmin sent me mail
>(I won't quote it as I don't have his permission) claiming that any
>group whose control message was forged is bogus, period. My creation
>message was forged, so the group is bogus. Doesn't matter how many people
>like the group. A forged control message, apparently, is any control message
>that wasn't done with inews.
Huh? Utter hogwash. A "forged" control message is one that claims
to come from someone other than it actually does, has an invalid
message ID, etc. If you used Pnews your control message went through
inews and had it's headers properly created/checked, and is therefor
perfectly valid.
>Newsgroup creation, by usenet custom and
>by software design, is the job of the news administrator.
More hogwash. It certainly isn't by USENET software design... as to
USENET custom... well, we can argue about that all day long, but I
bet that half of the "alt" groups were not created by site admins.
Anyway, the bottom line here is that there isn't any real destinction
between the set of admins and the set of users on USENET. Any moron
with a $1000 PC can be an admin if s/he can find someone willing to
feed hir. And there's a lot of people out there who are admins by
default who have far less of a clue than some of the long-time users
who don't have system privileges at their site.
>Gene may not
>have known that the group was "forged" when he put it on his list.
I'd expect he doesn't care, but maybe we'll get to hear his views.
>Basically, he won't carry "alt.folklore.college" here at Princeton, so I'll
>have to read the group at other sites. "alt.gorets" and "alt.usenet.recovery"
>were added, no questions asked. To me, this seems inconsistent, and
>contradictory to the spirit of Usenet. What's the net thinking on this?
My thinking is that your site admin needs to have his attitude
adjusted in a big way. Clearly an insecure control freak who
gets off on having "special powers", and pees in his pants when
he realizes that an intelligent undergrad can do what he can.
Oh yeah, I'm the news administrator at my site, btw. ... ;-)
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <9202290741.AA13907@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:41:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <10278@ksr.com>
Date: 28 Feb 92 18:02:06 EST
pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Falstad) writes:
>Help me settle an argument here. My local sysadmins are all up in arms
>because I created an alt.* group, specifically "alt.folklore.college".
>As far as I can tell, it was a valid creation according to the principles
>of USENET. It was discussed in alt.config, there were no objections, there
>were many voices calling for the group.
The whole point of "alt" was that the newsgroup validation process consisted
of issuing a newgroup. In the eyes of some, that's still the proper process.
Sounds like your group more than qualified.
> Spaf put it on his list.
How much more official can an alt group get?
>But no, apparently it was a "forgery". My local newsadmin sent me mail
>(I won't quote it as I don't have his permission) claiming that any
>group whose control message was forged is bogus, period.
Fiddlesticks.
>Basically, he won't carry "alt.folklore.college" here at Princeton, so I'll
>have to read the group at other sites.
Unfortunately, here is the dark side of "alt": no news administrator need
feel any obligation to carry any particular "alt" group. Expedited creation,
expedited local deletion.
>To me, this seems inconsistent, and
>contradictory to the spirit of Usenet. What's the net thinking on this?
Sounds like you have an ANSI Standard control freak running loose there, but
the spirit of "alt" says that's perfectly OK. Good thing you have other
accounts.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.config, et al.] Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <9202290741.AA13916@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:41:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.config,news.admin
From: ericm@microunity.com (Eric Murray)
Subject: Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <1992Feb29.001744.9168@microunity.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 00:17:44 GMT
In article <29010@notavax.Princeton.EDU> pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Falstad) writes:
>Help me settle an argument here. My local sysadmins are all up in arms
>because I created an alt.* group, specifically "alt.folklore.college".
[...]
>Basically, he won't carry "alt.folklore.college" here at Princeton, so I'll
>have to read the group at other sites. "alt.gorets" and "alt.usenet.recovery"
>were added, no questions asked. To me, this seems inconsistent, and
>contradictory to the spirit of Usenet. What's the net thinking on this?
My thinking, as an admin, is that your admin is being a dork.
Here's my rules of thumb for creating alt groups:
If it has one of:
1. discussion on alt.config
2. traffic (i.e. shows up in the daily 'unknown newsgroups' report)
3. a name the fits the hierarchy.
4. a local user that requests it.
Then it gets addgrouped..
--
Eric Murray {ericm,usenet,postmaster,root}@microunity.com
"Usenet is a right, a left, a jab, and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
The postman hits! You have new mail."- Edward Vielmetti.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <9202291514.AA14767@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 03:14:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship.
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 02:58:48 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Feb29.025848.20812@anomaly.sbs.com>
bd671@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher P. Harr) writes:
> Recently here at the Universtiy of Cincinnati, my home University
>we have had system administrators kill accounts of people who connected to
>port numbers whether it be IRC, MUD's MUSHES, MUSES etc. There are also people
>who lost their accounts for telnetting to certain foriegn hosts, even though
>they had permission to telnet there.
Good for them! Its about time students realize that the computer system is
for Academics and not for their personal leisure time. Buy an Atari 2600 if
you want leisure material.
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan /
-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID: <9202292122.AA16236@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 09:22:28 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: s8759859@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Tig Stone)
Subject: Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 20:16:49 GMT
In article <1992Feb29.025848.20812@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>bd671@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher P. Harr) writes:
>> Recently here at the Universtiy of Cincinnati, my home University
>>we have had system administrators kill accounts of people who connected to
>>port numbers whether it be IRC, MUD's MUSHES, MUSES etc. There are also people
>>who lost their accounts for telnetting to certain foriegn hosts, even though
>>they had permission to telnet there.
>Good for them! Its about time students realize that the computer system is
>for Academics and not for their personal leisure time. Buy an Atari 2600 if
>you want leisure material.
>MD
>--
>-- Michael P. Deignan /
>-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
>-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
>-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
I pay extra money for my account here at the University of
Massachusetts. I can make an analogy between Mr. Deignan's praise for
system administrators with the attitude "it's my system, I'll do
whatever the hell I want with users" and a car.
Say you have a car. A rental car. Now, the stipulation is
that you have this car for 6 months, and you pay some flat rate for
renting this car. Now, since you have this car for 6 whole months,
you might put your tapes in it to listen to while you drive. You
might even leave your briefcase in it while you're out of the car
briefly. You take pride in "your" car, keeping the windows clean, you
bring it to the car-wash, etc.
You decide to take the car for a ride in the country to relax
yourself. You make sure you take this ride isn't at any time that you
would inconvenience "real" car owners. You make sure you drive on an
out-of-the-way road. You drive home. The next morning, you wake up
and you find a note on your windshield: "Your engine has been taken
out and the locks on the doors have been changed since you went for a
ride in the country that was totally unrelated to the business in
which you rented this car." Or worse yet, the car is just plain gone,
with no clue what happened. You have to schlep down to the car rental
agency and have them tell you that they disapproved of your driving
the car in the country, so they confiscated it.
Couldn't you liken this to some system administrator cracking
down on persons doing activities that s/he disapproves of by
vaporizing the account without any kind of warning?
It just seems to me that nothing good ever comes out of system
administrators being so harsh to their users. Take the difference
between the aforementioned site and MIT for instance.
--
T. Stone
(s8759859@titan.ucc.umass.edu)
From caf-talk Caf Mar 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: What is Usenet?
Message-ID: <9203011926.AA20277@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 07:26:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 1 00:00:00 1992
From: rick@ricksys.LoneStar.org (Richard McCombs)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: What is Usenet?
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 23:38:56 CST
spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes:
>
> There is only one pre-eminent site for UUCP transport of Usenet in the
> U.S., namely UUNET. But UUNET isn't a player in the propagation wars,
> because it never refuses any traffic. UUNET charges by the minute,
> after all; and besides, to refuse based on content might jeopardize
> its legal status as an enhanced service provider.
>
Should the above continue to be included in "What is Usenet?" after the
recent "revelation" that UUNET has indeed refused feeds to some European
sites?
Internet(MX aware mailers): rick@ricksys.lonestar.org
ARPA(non MX aware mailers): rick%ricksys.lonestar.org@utacfd.uta.edu
UUCP: ...!rwsys!ricksys!rick, {backbones}!ricksys.lonestar.org!rick
Fidonet: Richard McCombs on Fidonet 1:385/6
From caf-talk Caf Mar 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Details of old Case Western Reserve University case
Message-ID: <199203012211.AA26247@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 12:11:20 GMT
In an article in CAF-News v. 01 n. 45, I asked for more details about
censorship cases such as
> An article, containing source code for a program, posted to a local
> newsgroup at Case Western -- The computer administrators at Case
> Western deleted the article because they were afraid that someone
> might read the code, learn how to make a program that would disrupt
> their local network, write a program that would disrupt their local
> network, run that program and disrupt their local network.
> (cafv01n08)
In response to my request, here are some more details (posted with the
author's permission):
========================================
My name is Christopher Seline: the student whose program was censored by the
authorities (Raymond Neff at el) at Case Western Reserve University.
The program in question was a mere ethernet chat program and had no security
applications. It did teach how to send/receive ethernet packets; alas such
knowledge seems (post hoc) to be banned at CWRU.
We're all aware of how insecure ethernet is (CWRU was very foolish to
install it); I've never be so crass as to violate security but anyone who
knows how to program ethernet (which means anyone who can buy a book or use
the internet to retrieve applicable source/binary) can violate ethernet
security.
I'm sure the droids in charge at CWRU were afraid that the students would
find out that the ethernet was insecure. Worse yet, upper-managment might
disover that the computer staff had lied when they claimed the system was
secure. Neff and his staff were clearly covering their collective ass(es).
Unfortunately they reacted poorly. I was threatened with punishment if I
didn't sit-down-and-shut-up; I was not allowed to repost my program (the
original posting had been deleted).
Raymond Neff is the Vice-President of the University and was untouchable
according to CWRU-judicial authorities.
cjs
=========================
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=
--
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 Mar 1 00:00:00 1992
From: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: History of "alt" groups
Message-ID: <4140@litchi.bbn.com>
Date: 1 Mar 92 23:36:05 GMT
In <3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>Earlier, back in the days of the "Great Renaming", the people trying to come up
>with the repartitioning of the "mod." and "net." groups into the
Rick Adams started it. It was mostly (70%?) done by the time the "backbone"
list saw it, and about 98% done by the time I saw it (comp.sources.misc was
my contribution).
/r$
From caf-talk Caf Mar 1 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <1992Mar1.224613.5842@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 92 03:46:13 GMT
I don't even think they're the problem. I think the problem is the
usage explosion. What if there was a network, and people actually
wanted to use it?
Networked programs aren't going to go away. You can't put the
technology back into the box. Better learn fast how to sleep with it.
Try this:
Suppose you suspend a student's access for using IRC. Then he makes a
very good case to the Dean (complete with logs) that he is using this
networked teleconferencing tool to exchange ideas with colleagues that
are relevant, say, to his PHI 200 class.
Suddenly, for one of your students this is a very legitimate tool.
Do you do any of the following?
- Wiretap the user so his usage on IRC can be monitored so that he
only discusses "legitimate" topics.
- Require other students to likewise document a need to use IRC.
- Allow IRC, but declare it may only be used for academic
conversations. Wiretap all use for legitimacy.
- Punish users who use IRC for academia, but once in a while have a
completely social conversation.
Suppose a large number of students wanted to use it entirely for
academia and usage was a problem. Would you then disable accounts that
accessed IRC?
How many people have user reviewed policies that can handle what's
happening? If you don't, that would be a good start.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
