From caf-talk Caf Mar 9 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil (BOB STRINGFIELD)
Subject: User Harrassment
Message-ID: <199203091025.AA16486@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 10:25:16 GMT
Someone at this site is using the 'echo' features of unix (/dev/tty)
to send interesting comments to a user. As of now the sender has
gone undetected. If we are successful in finding him, is he liable
for sexual harrassment?
--bob
From caf-talk Caf Mar 9 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar7.114356.16404@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 92 16:43:56 GMT
In article <1992Mar3.051546.16202@yang.earlham.edu>, allens@yang.earlham.edu writes:
> bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
>>mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>>>
>>>bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> In other words, you're going to deny access to everyone at MIT-
> just because someone there does something you don't like. Seems about
> equivalent to non-transmission of mail, news, etc. from anyone at a site-
> a clear form of censorship.
> I pointed out that a usage of anonymous logins was for access to
> things that various agencies don't like access to. For instance,
> information on contraception in countries that don't approve of
> contraception (idiotic if you ask me). That way, even if that country's
> government managed to locate the anonymous login location, the owner could
> honestly say that he/she didn't know who was using the service.
> Jonathan (I've been told; I missed the post) responded that the
> people with the anonymous FTP or whatever could program it not to keep
> track. That doesn't solve the other problem I've pointed out here.
> If, say, some Moral-Majority branch found out about
> alt.binaries.pictures.female/male/whatever, anyone who was regged to those
> groups/transmitted to them on their own account could be in trouble (if
> not legal, reputational). Anonymous login removes that possibility.
I was recently reading something on comp.risks which indicated
that "anonymous" FTP in fact often contains recording mechanisms to record
the E-mail address of someone longer than is neccessary for simple
delivery. This non-anonymity is a further reason for having anonymous
login sites.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Mar 9 00:00:00 1992
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 9 Mar 92 21:33:06 GMT
In <1992Mar7.114356.16404@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu writes:
> I was recently reading something on comp.risks which indicated
>that "anonymous" FTP in fact often contains recording mechanisms to record
>the E-mail address of someone longer than is neccessary for simple
>delivery. This non-anonymity is a further reason for having anonymous
>login sites.
The only email address the ftp server know is the one the user provides.
The user is free to put down whatever he/she wants to. The only thing
the server knows for sure is the host name and the time of the transaction.
I make it clear on my ftp server that transactions are logged. Users are
free to log out and try somewhere else if they don't like this.
I think this fear of logging is a little bit overblown, though. It is
very similiar to a security camera in a store. Every morning I get mailed
the log of the previous days' ftp transactions. If I don't see anything
wrong, I just delete it. If I see someone has uploaded something I want,
I put it in the correct directory. If I see someone has uploaded something
I don't want, I delete it. If I see someone has uploaded something which
could get me in trouble (x-rated images or stories, commercial software,
etc.) then I send that part of the log to the admin of the offending
site. (As I said, it's what could get me in trouble. I don't have anything
against x-rated files, but I don't make the rules.) Aside from that it gets
deleted right away.
This is no more dangerous than a security camera in a store. Sure, you
can have a lot of wild fantasies about what could happen. Oh, maybe the
Moral Majority will get the tape for a porno store and expose all the
customers!! Maybe the insurance companies will get a tape from a liquor
store and increase premiums for those customers!! But is this sort of
abuse likely to happen?
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | "Young enough to wonder/Old enough
(805) 893-4113 | to wander/Fool enough to think he
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | knows the way" - Lilac Time
From caf-talk Caf Mar 9 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 02.07
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.030742.3244@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 03:07:42 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 cafv02n07
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending February 16, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 discuss a student whose computer access was threatened
because an archived copy of a password cracking program was found
among his files.
1. A user on this system was apparently running a password cracking
program. An administer went looking around and found I had a copy of
the newest version of Crack. I have legitimate reasons for having
this program. I have received mail from the Chairman of the
Department "inviting" me to discuss my account privileges. "It really
bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably anyway)
just for the mere possession of a program."
<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
2. Your treatment may violate due process procedures. Supporting
quotes from the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students are
included.
<1992Feb16.202149.17301@eff.org>
Note 3 concerns student protests over the Ohio State _Lantern_'s
coverage of a Revisionist advertisement.
3. The Ohio State University _Lantern_ refused to accept an ad which
claimed that the Holocaust never occurred. Instead, it ran the ad on
the editorial page, as news, along with an anti-Revisionist editorial
cartoon and a seven paragraph explanation. Jewish students are calling
for the resignation of the _Lantern_'s editor-in-chief, advisor, and
business manager. The _Lantern_'s covered was balanced; what is the
effect of the challenge? "When we become afraid to speak our minds,
when we become fearful of expression because of what others might
think, and when we stifle academic pursuit because of what is
currently "correct," then we lose what it means to be fully human."
<9202141919.AA21041@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Note 4 is a list of computer crime statues recently uploaded to the
SULAW archive.
4. "The following files have been uploaded to the SULAW archive
(sulaw.law.su.oz.au). They are presently located in the /upload
directory but will eventually be moved to the /pub/law directory."
<1992Feb16.151824.2536@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Note 5 is an article from _The Jewish Advocate_, a Boston weekly,
concerning anti-Semitism on the Internet.
5. A Berkeley graduate student was "stunned to discover" anti-Semitic
material on the Internet. No specific legal action is planned since
the university's policies on computer expression are general. A
spokesman for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith said, "We
don't advocate censorship. We encourage Internet subscribers to use
their subscription power, their keyboard power, to register their own
objections to this perversion of computer technology."
Note 6 is a discussion of new rules for gaming on machines in a lab at
the University of Illinois.
6. Previously, you could game until someone needed that machine for
academic use. However, people are reluctant to ask a gamer to give up
a machine. "My job is to see that that person gets a computer, not
that another gets to play 6 hours of Civilization."
<1992Feb11.160723.20190@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Notes 7-9 concern the lengths to which a student must protect
information stored on a school computer. Is it a violation of
academic integrity to have a "022" umask?
7. A Cornell student was told by a TA, "by leaving class files
unprotected, allowing anyone to walk in and peruse my solutions to
programming assignments, I could potentially be considered to be
providing solutions to the assignments, particularly since I've done
it "knowingly" by changing the protection myself."
<9202102257.AA20024@crocus.cit.cornell.edu>
8. Under Dartmouth's honor code, the situation would be treated
differently. If someone steals something, they are at fault. If you
left it unprotected so they could copy it, you can be held
responsible.
<1992Feb12.140210.10645@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
9. A user asks, "If you left written things in the unlocked room,
would that be considered the same thing?". "I consider locks (and the
permission bits in UNIX filesystems) to be the thing to use WHEN I DO
NOT TRUST PEOPLE. However I do not think it should be someone else's
place to tell you who to trust and who not to trust."
<1992Feb12.013327.3257pdh@netcom.COM>
Notes 10-11 continue the discuss on speech restrictions CMU's computer
bulletin boards.
10. A prior message claimed that the suppressed speech was
"intimidating, harassing, or sexually harassing", and that "Such
speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, can
be shown to do real harm." This user claims that it is the result of
shouting fire which should be punished, not the shouting. "What
exactly is the difference between offensive, intimidating, and
harassing?"
<1992Feb11.080542.20333@Princeton.EDU>
11. How can you quantify unacceptable speech? If I proposition a
woman, am I guilty of some crime other than rudeness? What if I made
a (crude) statement of fact?
<1992Feb9.213333.3056@hubcap.clemson.edu>
- 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, Adam C. Gross, 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 Mar 9 00:00:00 1992
From: jlarue@teal.csn.org (James LaRue)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.033625.23731@csn.org>
Date: 10 Mar 92 03:36:25 GMT
As a public librarian who has been patiently coping with approximately
3 "challenges" per week to materials held by our four branches, I'd like
to pass along my own definition of censorship as it applies to American
public libraries:
SELECTION is the attempt to build library collections by providing
access to many viewpoints.
CENSORSHIP is the attempt to reduce library collections by restricting
access to any viewpoint but one.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 9 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.041511.8100@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 04:15:11 GMT
In article <1992Mar7.114356.16404@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu writes:
> I was recently reading something on comp.risks which indicated
>that "anonymous" FTP in fact often contains recording mechanisms to record
>the E-mail address of someone longer than is neccessary for simple
>delivery. This non-anonymity is a further reason for having anonymous
>login sites.
> -Allen
Actually, ``out of the box'' ftpd, as provided by most (all?) vendors,
does not do _any_ logging except the usual entry which host a
connection came from in the wtmp file. However, many archive sites
now run enhanced ftpds which do more extensive logging, including
logging the ``password'' for anonymous ftp logins. Note that as
currently implemented ftp (even an enhanced version) has no way of
knowing the username of anyone logging in anonymously, but it is
considered customary to enter one's correct e-mail address as the
password. In short, revealing your identity is currently entirely
voluntary (however reavealing your point or origin can be enforced and
can often be used to trace your identity down, depending on
configuration of the machines at your point of origin and cooperation
of the personell operating them).
Personally, if it were possible, I would implement an ftpd which
logged usernames and encourage its use net-wide. IMHO, there is no
justifiable reason to allow complete anonymity (and incidentally, the
term ``anonymous ftp'' was never meant to imply that the user's
identity should remain hidden, only that users without accounts on
that machine may access it). Are there any good reasons for anyone
remaining completely anonymous when transferring data via the Internet
if they are not doing anything illegal? IMHO, no! If you're
transferring pirated software, that's illegal and there's no reason
for the net to make allowances for it. If you're transferring
pornography, well, if you think it should be your right to do so, then
stand behind it and speak out, don't hide like a sneak! If you're
afraid of losing your job because of your activities... tough. You
have the option of standing behind your principles even in the face of
persecution, or buying your pornography at a store. If you're not
willing to do either, then the only reason you're getting away with it
right now is that the Internet is still an inherently insecure system
which has no universal methods of authentification. But it someday it
will, and *I* for one am looking forward to that day.
I am *very* much against censorship, and I believe in a right to
privacy. I neither condone nor condemn pornography. But when you
anon-ftp to some machine on the Net, you're entering someone's zone of
authority. That person _should_ have a way of verifying your
identity. If you think that this person might use knowledge of your
activities against your, stay our of hir zone of authority! Simple!
On the other hand, communications themselves should be private. If
you ftp directly to your buddy's personal machine, then no third party
should have access to information regarding what you were doing, just
as noone should be able to read your private mail, etc.
--
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 Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil (BOB STRINGFIELD)
Subject: Re: Privacy Alert
Message-ID: <199203101029.AA06819@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 10:29:34 GMT
Forwarded for your general info and reading pleasure....
--bob
************************
>From: "Russell E. Whitaker" <71750.2413@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Privacy Alert: FORWARDED
Please spread this far and wide. Libernet subscribers: responses
to me privately, as I do not subscribe, due to volume.
Russell E. Whitaker 71750.2413@compuserve.com
Communications Editor AMIX: RWHITAKER
EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought
There is a bill before congress drafted by the FBI and Justice Department
that would direct the FCC to specify hardware and software attachments
to all commerical and *private* telephone exchanges to allow easy wire
tapping.
The Bush administration is a proponent of this bill (no surprise). The
bill specifies fines of up to $10k per day to businesses that do not
comply with the FCC rules.
If anyone has a reference to the bill number or if this has been posted
to the net to solicit negative feedback to congresscritters, please
repost here. I have the text of an article in NYT and Marin Independent
Journal (found nothing in the SF Chronical on Sunday) and will quote these
on the net if necessary, but neither article gives the bill number.
As most of you know, we at a junction where privacy can increase if we
defend it now. Not even the ACLU is coming out for increasing privacy
of communication (their position is that the taps must not allow excess
data access). At best, the FCC's easy-wiretapping requirements would
be a hinderance to commerce (e.g., create a packet switched phone
program that uses TCP/IP and run it over the net; *that* would become
illegal, but probably unenforceable.) At worst, roving wiretaps could
become easier (this is where thousands of lines are scanned with
speaker-recognition equipment to catch a particular person using any
phone in a city).
***********************************************************************
Robert (Bob) L. Stringfield Mainz Army Depot
DMIS ATTN: SDSMZ-IS APO NY 09185
COML (No ETS or Autovon available): 06131-696328 (Germany)
FAX: 06131-696467
bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil or bstring%mainz-emh2.army.mil@vm1.nodak.edu
Truth: IGNORANCE hates knowledge....
*************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: RE: BBSes and Telco Rates
Message-ID: <920310213922.20600c2f@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 21:39:22 GMT
>Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 03:21 EST
>From: "Michael E. Marotta"
>Subject: BBSes and Telco Rates
> GRID News. ISSN 1054-9315. vol 3 nu 5 March 7, 1992.
> (54 lines) Say YES! to Business Rates
> (C) 1992 by Michael E. Marotta
>
> BBS sysops in Oregon are fighting a telco policy to charge busi-
> ness rates for any phone with a fax or modem attached. BBS users
> know of similar telco policies from Kansas City, New York,
> Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Texas over the last two years.
> Actually, there are at least two ways to view the situation.
>
> (1) THE HOME DATA CENTER In an information society, every home
> must be an information center. We have telephones and televisions,
> books, newspapers and magazines, computers, copiers, faxen, cable
> TV, VCRs, camcorders and answering machines.
So?
> There is a view,
> wrongly held by sysops, that they "provide a service to many
> users." EVERY BBS USER IS A SYSOP. Whether you goto them or they
> goto you, data travels from home to home.
Yes, but do all users pay for the upfront purchase of the required
hardware/software/lines? Do they pay for maintanence (leaving aside user-pays
BBS's)?
Data travels between User & Machine and vice versa, not "from home [of user
presumably] to home".
> (2) THE HOME TREASURY In a commercial society every home
> must be a business. We all buy and sell. Most of us buy and sell
> labor. (Anyone can build a car; most people choose not to.) In
> addition, people everywhere and Americans especially buy and sell
> housewares, nutritional supplements, baseball cards, comic books,
> automobiles and very many other goods. We routinely trade
> childcare, bookkeeping and computer programming services. Your
> checkbook is your general ledger.
Yes, but to whom do we pass on these costs (as do businesses)? What are the tax
breaks involved (most of these "overheads" constitute tax rebates etc).
>
> In 1892, "no one" had an adding machine or typewriter in their
> home. In 1942, dishwashers were found only in restaurants. Should
> your phone rate depend on whether or not you have a dishwasher or
> adding machine in your home? If yours should not, then why should
> General Motors'?
Because they are able to pass on those costs to the customer! This is not an
option for (ordinary) households. Also, most households do not tie up many
lines at once, have permanent connections between computers (for the cost of a
phone call if local), have multiple faxes etc...
Mark N.
Mark Neely,
Articled Clerk + Tutor, Law School, Northern Territory Uni. Darwin NT Australia
neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.su
Disclaimer:
The views expressed herein are neither a reflection of the views held by
my employer nor those of the NTU. They are not to be taken (unless otherwise
indicated) as a formal legal opinion or advice given in my professional
capacity.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
From: dab@moxie.moxie.oswego.edu (David Alan Bozak)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Mar 92 14:44:48 GMT
In article <1992Mar10.041511.8100@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>
> Actually, ``out of the box'' ftpd, as provided by most (all?) vendors,
> does not do _any_ logging except the usual entry which host a
> connection came from in the wtmp file.
But of course, it seems in principle that the account name is known
even to vanilla ftpd, since whenever I log in somewhere, the default
login name is my actual account, which I have to override with
'anonymous'. So it must be possible to record that data without too
much effort on the part of ftpd.
-dab
--
/\ David Alan Bozak, Computer Science Department
/ \ SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126 (315) 341-2347
_____/____\_____ Internet: dab@moxie.oswego.edu
/ / \ \ or dab%moxie.oswego.edu@nisc.nyser.net
/____/ \____\ UUCP: {cornell!devvax,rutgers!sunybcs}!oswego!moxie!dab
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Mar 92 16:03:07 GMT
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>[...] Are there any good reasons for anyone
>remaining completely anonymous when transferring data via the Internet
>if they are not doing anything illegal? IMHO, no! If you're
>transferring pirated software, that's illegal and there's no reason
>for the net to make allowances for it. If you're transferring
>pornography, well, if you think it should be your right to do so, then
>stand behind it and speak out, don't hide like a sneak! If you're
>afraid of losing your job because of your activities... tough. You
>have the option of standing behind your principles even in the face of
>persecution, or buying your pornography at a store. [...]
There is nothing unique to computers or the Internet in this argument.
It is a very common one between civil libertarians and proponents of
strong government control. In many countries, not even horribly
repressive ones but ones like, for example, France, everyone has to have
a government Identity Card and carry it with them at all times. The
police can card you whenever they want. In the United States we have
traditionally avoided that level of government control. Yes, it would
make it easier to catch criminals if the government knew where we are
and what we're doing all the time. But our tradition is to be more afraid
of the power of a government than of the harm done by private criminals.
Of course this is not all-or-nothing; we *do* have a police force, and we
provide channels for them to gather information about us. But ordinarily
they can't gather private information about anyone in particular without
first convincing a judge that there is a compelling reason.
What changes with computers is that it's incredibly *easy* for authorities
to collect information about everybody's use of the facilities. But this
is a reason for us to be *more* concerned, not less, about such information
collection. Most system administrators do not have evil intent, but
neither do most police officers, I suppose. But the ones who do (the example
of J. Edgar Hoover leaps to mind) are extremely dangerous. And system
administrators, or police officers, can make errors of judgement in which
they confuse their own ideals with their public duties -- this is where the
censorship issues arise, for example.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] alt.* groups removed at the University of Nebraska
Message-ID: <9203101609.AA21805@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 04:09:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: burchell@cse.unl.edu (David Burchell)
Subject: alt.* groups removed at the University of Nebraska
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.043443.8441@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 04:34:43 GMT
Well, we thought that we were immune from the insanity of
censorship at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
NOT! While I was in Kansas City at the 20th Computer
Science Conference, the alt.* hierarcy was eliminated
from our server -- without so much as advance warning.
A message after the fact told us what we already knew,
that the alt groups were gone. What it did not say
was why.
We still are trying to figure out what has gone on here.
But I think we could really use some information and/or
support from the EFF about now. Also, how do I become
a member? :-)
--
Dave Burchell | Review your options.
burchell@cse.unl.edu | Amiga.
ianr056@unlvm.bitnet |
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: alt.* groups removed at the University of Nebraska
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.163527.10966@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 16:35:27 GMT
David,
I'm enclosing an FAQ about newsgroup selection, an FAQ about newsgroup
liability, and the flyer for the Computers and Academic Freedom
discussion list (CAF-talk). Please post additional details about your
situtation to CAF-talk either by crossposting to
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk or by mailing to caf-talk@eff.org. Also, if
you have a general campus newsgroup, you may also want to repost this
note there.
(By way of disclaimer, although I have an account on an EFF machine, I
am not an officer or agent of EFF. I speak for myself.)
- Carl Kadie, CAF archivist
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading ===============
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
a: In 1989, Stanford University banned rec.humor.funny. The ban was
lifted after a university committee recommended that newsgroups be
selected according to library policy. In other words, removing a
newsgroup is equivalent to banning a magazine from an academic
library.
The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries can (and
should, in my opinion) be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
With the permission of the American Library Association, these
documents and others are available on-line. Many of these documents
deal with controversial material and material selection policy. For
example, article 2 of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval". The ALA Statement on Diversity talks about the
importance of "materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues." The ALA Workbook for Selection
Policy Writing tells how to create a formal policy. It also tells
exactly how to respond to challenges to controversial material.
- Carl M. Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
stanford.statements
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
jmcabstract
=================
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he traveled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" and "alt.sex" was banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (In May 1991, an advisory committee said the
ban should be lifted. In October 1991, the ban was lifted.)
(Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. 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.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/selection-workbook.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
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.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freedom stanford.statements
send acad-freedom jmcabstract
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
send library-policies diversity.ala
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
send library-policies README
send caf-faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom banned.1991
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/stanford.statements
pub/academic/jmcabstract
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/README
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/banned.1991
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability ===============
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.
(Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)
According to the book _Law of the Student Press_ (in reference student
newspapers), "Only two court cases have considered the liability
question, and in both cases the courts found that the institution was
free from liability because control was in the hands of the
students.{33,34} ... Thus, despite arguments by administrators that
they need to prevent libel, it appears that just the opposite is true:
Where administrators have not exercised control over the content of
student publications, the courts have refused to hold their schools
responsible for libel appearing in such publication. If, however,
administrators exercise the power of prior review, then the court will
also hold them and their schools liable for the contents of such
publications. Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation
between school administration and editor functions may also result in
the reduction of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize
that substantial funds are beyond their reach. ... {33} _Mazart v.
State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981) {34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d
1300 (La. App. 1983)"
The recent _Cubby v. Compuserve_ decision also suggests that a
no-screening policy may be best. The judge wrote: "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."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners
cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the
stories are false.
=================
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.
=================
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?
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send caf-law cubby-v-compuserv
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-faq netnews.reading
send caf-faq netnews.writing
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
=============================== caf ===================
Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List
Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles
of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,
due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and
networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the
principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be
defended?
Mitch Kapor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has given the
discussion a home on the eff.org machine. As of Sept, 1991, the list
has 375 members in at least five countries. Thousands more read the
list via newsgroups.
There are four versions of the mailing list.
comp-academic-freedom-talk
- you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day.
comp-academic-freedom-batch
- about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes.
comp-academic-freedom-news
- about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
notes of the week. (Helen O'Boyle or I play the editor for
this one).
comp-academic-freeedom-abstracts
- about one a week you'll receive the abstract of the current
comp-academic-freedom-news (CAF-news). You'll also receive
instructions on how to access the current CAF-news.
To join a version of the list, send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line "add ". (Other commands are "delete
" and "help"). If you have problems, send email to
caf-requests@eff.org.
In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the list
by addressing it to caf-talk@eff.org.
Alternatively, if you may be able to read the mailing lists as newsgroups.
Look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
An abstract and archive of comp-academic-freedom-news is available via
anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. See file "pub/academic/abstracts" and
"pub/academic/README". These files are also available via email (Send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and
"index".)
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
The long version:
When my grandmother attended the University of Illinois fifty-five
years ago, academic freedom meant the right to speak up in class, to
created student organizations, to listen to controversial speakers, to
read "dangerous" books in the library, and to be protected from random
searches of your dorm room.
Today these rights are guaranteed by most universities. These days,
however, my academic life very different from my grandmother's. Her
academic life was centered on the classroom and the student union.
Mine centers on the computer and the computer network. In the new
academia, my academic freedom is much less secure.
It is time for a discussion of computers and academic freedom. I've
been in contact with Mitch Kapor. He has given the discussion a home on
the eff.org machine.
The suppression of academic freedom on computers is common. At least
once a month, someone posts on plea on Usenet for help. The most
common complaint is that a newsgroup has been banned because of its
content (usually alt.sex). In January, 1991, a sysadmin at the
University of Wisconsin didn't ban any newsgroups directly. Instead,
he reduced the newsgroup expiration time so that reading groups such
as alt.sex is almost impossible. In April, 1991, a sysadmin at Case
Western reported that he had removed a note that a student had posted
to a local newsgroup. The sysadmin said the information in the note
could be misused. In other cases, university employees may be reading
e-mail or looking through user files. This may happen with or without
some prior notice that e-mail and files are fair game.
In many of these cases the legality of the suppression is unclear. It
may depend on user expectation, prior announcements, and whether the
university is public or private.
The legality is, however, irrelevant. The duty of the University is
not to suppress everything it legally can; rather it is to support the
free and open investigation and expression of ideas. This is the ideal
of academic freedom. In this role, the University acts a model of how
the wider world should be. (In the world of computers, universities are
perhaps the most important model of how things should be).
If you are interested in discussing this issues, or if you have
first-hand experience with academic surpression on computers or
networks, please join the mailing list.
- Carl Kadie
--
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 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.115359.7185@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 16:53:59 GMT
bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>[...] Are there any good reasons for anyone
>>remaining completely anonymous when transferring data via the Internet
>>if they are not doing anything illegal?
>
>What changes with computers is that it's incredibly *easy* for authorities
>to collect information about everybody's use of the facilities. But this
>is a reason for us to be *more* concerned, not less, about such information
>collection. Most system administrators do not have evil intent, but
>neither do most police officers, I suppose. But the ones who do (the example
>of J. Edgar Hoover leaps to mind) are extremely dangerous. And system
>administrators, or police officers, can make errors of judgement in which
>they confuse their own ideals with their public duties -- this is where the
>censorship issues arise, for example.
You didn't answer Jurgen's question. If you are connecting to my system,
why shouldn't I know your id? If you are uploading files to my system,
why shouldn't I know your id?
--
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
"I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.165332.25183@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 16:53:32 GMT
In article dab@moxie.oswego.edu writes:
>But of course, it seems in principle that the account name is known
>even to vanilla ftpd, since whenever I log in somewhere, the default
>login name is my actual account...
That's ftp, not ftpd, on *your* end saying "he's asking for a login name,
should I give him yours?".
--
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
-Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.122144.4911@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 10 Mar 92 17:21:45 GMT
In article bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>In the United States we have
>traditionally avoided that level of government control. Yes, it would
>make it easier to catch criminals if the government knew where we are
>and what we're doing all the time. But our tradition is to be more afraid
>of the power of a government than of the harm done by private criminals.
>Of course this is not all-or-nothing; we *do* have a police force, and we
>provide channels for them to gather information about us. But ordinarily
>they can't gather private information about anyone in particular without
>first convincing a judge that there is a compelling reason.
This is all valid, but does it really have anything to do with the point
under discussion? It was about anonymous ftp sites logging accesses.
If I offer ftp to people, why is it wrong for me to keep records?
I am neither the government nor the police.
If you want to control government and police access to records, then
that is what you should do. But that isn't the same thing as prohibiting
their collection.
--
Brian Thomson, CSRI Univ. of Toronto
utcsri!uthub!thomson, thomson@hub.toronto.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Logging information transcations (was Re: NSFnet rules)
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.180316.12947@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 18:03:16 GMT
Concerning logging "anonymous" ftp transactions,
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
[...]
>This is no more dangerous than a security camera in a store. Sure, you
>can have a lot of wild fantasies about what could happen. Oh, maybe the
>Moral Majority will get the tape for a porno store and expose all the
>customers!! Maybe the insurance companies will get a tape from a liquor
>store and increase premiums for those customers!! But is this sort of
>abuse likely to happen?
[...]
In all these cases, the most important thing is that the server user
knows what is and is not recorded (and how what is recorded might be
used).
Jim Lick's system does this:
============================================================
Welcome to our ftp archives. All the public files are
kept in the directory /pub and below. Please note that
all transactions are logged. Please do not upload anything
which could get me in trouble. This includes illegally
copied software, x-rated image or text files, etc.
============================================================
I am more concerned about downloads that uploads. You ask about what
abuse is likely to happen. The FBI used to search library records
(usually without a warrant) looking for people who read "bad" books.
Those people were then subject of further FBI scrutiny. As you might
imagine this had a chilling effect on what people read. In response to
this abuse, libranians became much more senstive to what transactions
they logged and how long the logs were kept. After you return a book,
for example, the record that you had that book checked out is removed.
I'm enclosing two American Library Association policy statements on
this topic (and the README file for the library policy archive).
========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/confidentiality.1.ala ===
POLICY CONCERNING CONFIDENTIALITY OF PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT LIBRARY USERS
The ethical responsibilities of librarians, as well as statutes
in most states and the District of Columbia, protect the privacy
of library users. Confidentiality extends to "information sought
or received, and materials consulted, borrowed or acquired," and
includes database search records, reference interviews,
circulation records, interlibrary loan records and other
personally identifiable uses of library materials, facilities, or
services.
The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of the
press requires that the corresponding rights to hear what is
spoken and read what is written be preserved, free from fear of
government intrusion, intimidation, or reprisal. The American
Library Association reaffirms its opposition to "any use of
government prerogatives which lead to the intimidation of the
individual or the citizenry from the exercise of free expression
. . . [and] encourages resistance to such abuse of government
power. . . ." (ALA Policy 53.4). In seeking access or in the
pursuit of information, confidentiality is the primary means of
providing the privacy that will free the individual from fear of
intimidation or retaliation.
Libraries are one of the great bulwarks of democracy. They are
living embodiments of the First Amendment because their
collections include voices of dissent as well assent. Libraries
are impartial resources providing information on all points of
view, available to all persons regardless of age, race, religion,
national origin, social or political views, economic status, or
any other characteristic. The role of libraries as such a
resource must not be compromised by an erosion of the privacy
rights of library users.
The American Library Association regularly receives reports of
visits by agents of federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies to libraries, where it is alleged they have asked for
personally identifiable information about library users. These
visits, whether under the rubric of simply informing libraries of
agency concerns or for some other reason, reflect an
insensitivity to the legal and ethical bases for confidentiality,
and the role it plays in the preservation of First Amendment
rights, rights also extended to foreign nationals while in the
United States. The government's interest in library use reflects
a dangerous and fallacious equation of what a person reads with
what that person believes or how that person is likely to behave.
Such a presumption can and does threaten the freedom of access to
information. It also is a threat to a crucial aspect of First
Amendment rights: that freedom of speech and of the press
include the freedom to hold, disseminate and receive unpopular,
minority, "extreme," or even "dangerous" ideas.
The American Library Association recognizes that, under limited
circumstances, access to certain information might be restricted
due to a legitimate "national security" concern. However, there
has been no showing of a plausible probability that national
security will be compromised by any use made of unclassified
information available in libraries. Thus, the right of access to
this information by individuals, including foreign nationals,
must be recognized as part of the librarian's legal and ethical
responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the library
user.
The American Library Association also recognizes that law
enforcement agencies and officers may occasionally believe that
library records contain information which would be helpful to the
investigation of criminal activity. If there is a reasonable
basis to believe such records are necessary to the progress of an
investigation or prosecution, the American judicial system
provides the mechanism for seeking release of such confidential
records: the issuance of a court order, following a showing of
good cause based on specific facts, by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
Adopted July 2, 1991, by the ALA Council
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
==== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/confidentiality.2.ala ===
STATEMENT CONCERNING CONFIDENTIALITY OF PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT LIBRARY USERS
The ethical responsibilities of librarians, and statutes in 44
states and the District of Columbia, protect the privacy of
library users. Confidentiality extends to "information sought or
received, and materials consulted, borrowed or acquired," and
includes database search records, reference interviews,
interlibrary loan records and all other personally identifiable
uses of library materials, facilities or services.
The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of the
press requires that the corresponding rights to hear what is
spoken and read what is written be preserved, free from fear of
government intrusion, intimidation or reprisal. Confidentiality
is essential to protect the exercise of these rights from
governmental invasions of privacy.
Libraries are impartial resources providing information on all
points of view, available to all persons regardless of age, race,
religion, national origin, social or political views, economic
status, or any other characteristic. The role of libraries as
such resources must not be compromised by an erosion of the
privacy rights of library patrons.
The American Library Association has received several reports of
visits by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
libraries, where agents allegedly have asked for personally
identifiable information about library patrons. These visits,
whether within the so-called "Library Awareness Program" or not,
reflect an insensitivity to the role confidentiality plays in the
preservation of First Amendment rights, rights which extend also
to foreign nationals while in the United States. The Bureau's
interest in library records reflects a dangerous and fallacious
equation of what a person reads with what that person believes or
how that person is likely to behave. This presumption is a
threat to the freedom to read. It is also a threat to a crucial
aspect of First Amendment rights: that freedom of speech and of
the press include the freedom to hold, disseminate and receive
unpopular, minority, "extreme" or even "dangerous" ideas.
The Intellectual Freedom Committee recognizes that under limited
circumstances, access to certain information might be restricted
due to a legitimate "national security" concern. However, there
has been no showing of a plausible probability that national
security will be compromised by the uses foreign nationals make
of the unclassified information available in libraries.
The Intellectual Freedom Committee also recognizes that law
enforcement agencies and officers may occasionally believe that
library records contain information which would be helpful to the
investigation of criminal activity. If there is a reasonable
basis to believe such records are necessary to the progress of an
investigation or prosecution, our judicial system provides the
mechanism for seeking release of such confidential records: the
issuance of a court order, following a showing of good cause
based on specific facts, by a court of competent jurisdiction.
January 10, 1989
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
============ ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/README =
=================
README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
access.children.nonprint.ala
=================
"Access for Children and Young People to Videotapes and Other Nonprint
Formats"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.minors.ala
=================
"Free Access to Libraries for Minors"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.policies.ala
=================
"Regulations, policies, and Procedures Affecting Access to Library
Resources and Services"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.restrictions.ala
=================
"Restricted Access to Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
bulletin-boards.ala
=================
"Exhibit Spaces and Bulletin Boards"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
censorship.def.ala
=================
The American Library Association's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
challenged-materials.ala
=================
"Challenged Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
confidentiality.1.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Policy on Confidentiality of
Library Records"
=================
confidentiality.2.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Statement Concerning
Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information about Library
Users"
=================
diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
elec.rights1-4
=================
This is the ASCII version of a printed booklet distributed at the
American Library Association conference in July 1991. The program was
sponsored by the Library and Information Technology Association.
Details follow on ordering the full print monograph.
[From ftp.apple.com:alug/rights/elec.rights1-4]
=================
evaluating-collections.ala
=================
"Evaluating Library Collections"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
expurgation.ala
=================
"Expurgation of Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
free-expression.ala
=================
"The Universal Right to Free Expression"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
freedom-to-read.ala
=================
The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association
and Association of American Publishers.
=================
int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
int-freedom.can
=================
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom
=================
labeling.ala
=================
"Statement on Labeling"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library-programs.ala
=================
"Library Initiated Programs as a Resource"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
meeting-rooms.ala
=================
"Meeting Rooms"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
order.form.ala
=================
Information on how to order intellectual freedom material from the
American Library Association. Much of the material is free.
=================
school-libraries.ala
=================
"Access to Resources And Services in the School Library Media Program"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
selection-workbook.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
=================
Last update
Tue Feb 25 16:04:17 EST 1992
--
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 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.175513.1600@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 17:55:13 GMT
In article dab@moxie.oswego.edu writes:
>But of course, it seems in principle that the account name is known
>even to vanilla ftpd, since whenever I log in somewhere, the default
>login name is my actual account, which I have to override with
>'anonymous'. So it must be possible to record that data without too
>much effort on the part of ftpd.
Not so. The ``default login name'' is supplied by the *client* side
of ftp for your convenience. If you do not accept the default, the
server (ftpd on remote machine) never gets to see it. And if clients
were written so that they provided servers with your local login name
for logging purposes (which they are not!), there still would be
nothing to prevent you from modifying your client not to do this, or
to give a false login name, since there is no authentication mechanism
as part of the protocol.
To generalize, until authentication becomes part of the standard
suite of protocols, including application-level protocols, used on
the Internet, the Internet will remain inherently insecure and it
will remain trivial to hide/falsify your identity. However, secure
authentication protocols exist and have been standardized, and will
surely be incorporated into the Internet protocols over the coming
years.
(As an aside, as I understand it one of the things that are holding
progress in this area back is the fact that the entire class of
public-key algorithms most ideally suited to secure authentication
are patented by some MIT mathematicians. This is one of the things
the LPF uses as an example of why software patents are A Bad Thing,
but I'm way out of my area of expertise here, so somone correct me
if I'm wrong, please.)
I've redirected follow-ups back to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk only,
since this has nothing to do with news administration.
--
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 Mar 10 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: <9203101823.AA22634@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 06:23:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
From: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar9.132357.1193@grunt.ee.und.ac.za>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 13:23:57 GMT
In article <1992Mar02.082931.21643@clarinet.com>,
brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> What SWITCH is planning is bad, but
> it is insignificant, puny, nothing, when compared to censorship.
I am with Brad here. If SWITCH is not preventing its customers/members
from obtaining the material elsewhere, then SWITCH is not censoring the
material.
--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za Bang: m2xenix!quagga!undeed!barrett
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Censorship
Message-ID: <9203101825.AA22653@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 06:25:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
From: iiitac@pyramid.swansea.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Censorship
Message-ID: <16825.9203091724@pyr.swan.ac.uk>
Date: 9 Mar 92 17:24:32 GMT
NOTE: Although this discussion is heading towards censorship rather than
news administration I post it here, since by his own comments the person
whose points I wish to question doesn't read alt.* and it would be unreasonable
to deprive him of a chance to see any further things raised.
Keith@ksmith.UUCP (Keith Smith) writes:
In the article several books are mentioned. One is about HOW TO
sexually molest children (What to do to be a pediophile). All of the
references in the article were similar in emotional index. The summary
was that as a LIBRARIAN you have no right to restrict such literature
from the library.
Why should there be any argument about restricting such material in the first
place. Would you prefer to pretend such things didn't exist. As an equally
extreme counter argument suppose you did censor this book and because of that
a psychologist failed to make a break through and many children were molested
without detection.
This is SWELL for the LIBRARY ITSELF. HOWEVER, as a COMMUNITY we (as in
Hope Mills, NC) have the RIGHT to decide what we want to PAY FOR that
goes into our library AND what we want AVAILABLE there. If we don't
want to pay for it and we don't want to see it, we have the right not
to. THE SAME HOLDS TRUE as the community grows larger as in the STATE
and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The fed certianly has the right to restrict
federal funds that the MAJORITY of people want to restrict. The
SOLUTION is to sway the MAJORITY's opinion to allow it.
Ah yes the great democratic myth that the majority are right and can enforce
their will on the minority. It's fair enough to make everyone drive on the same
side of a public road, but not to control their reading. Maybe you'd like
a system which automatically kills any american who thinks non-christian
thoughts. Switch is like a library, worse than that switch is not only
censoring their library, they also put up roadblocks and refuse people
access to ther libraries - that is totally out of order, you lot shouted
enough about the USSR doing that.
I don't carry alt.* groups here. I can't afford it. I don't want it.
I have a downline site that gets a feed from me. NO ONE can MAKE me
carry them. You want SWITCH to carry/not carry the feeds? Then you need
to make the people pulling the purse strings at SWITCH to do it with
PUBLIC PRESSURE by either refusing to use it and finding alternate
information sources, or if it is publicly funded by instituting
legislation IN YOUR COMMUNITY (no matter what the size of the community)
to prohibit the restriction and get the MAJORITY of people to agree with
your point of view to get it passed. If none of that works then MOVE
to a different community that has more similar viewpoints than yours.
Unlike switch you aren't saying that you will also stop anyone getting alt.*
from elsewhere, or that if they paid you the cost of getting alt.* you might
consider it - Switch are BLOCKING access to other sources too.
Why should it be THEIR problem to prove to the majority - it doesn't affect
the majority, it doesn't even bother the majority: Ask the average person
about usenet and they will go 'What's that'. Most people in the world would
prefer to get on with life and do what they want without harming others. If
anything it should be up to the censors to _PROVE_ beyond reasonable doubt in
a just court that something is harming others (and arguably that they don't
wish to be harmed). Alcohol kills far more people than usenet - believe me.
I object to such statements as 'MOVE to a different community' - I thought
driving people out and burning heretics went out in the 16th century. Why
don't you try moving to a different community - its not easy ask all those
boat people that your country turns away. Ask the Jews about their several
thousand years without a homeland.
--
Keith Smith uunet!ksmith!keith 5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
Alan Cox.
Every view expressed in this article is my own, but thats the whole point Im
trying to make.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 18:31:34 GMT
David> == David Alan Bozak
David> But of course, it seems in principle that the account name is
David> known even to vanilla ftpd, since whenever I log in somewhere,
David> the default login name is my actual account, which I have to
David> override with 'anonymous'. So it must be possible to record
David> that data without too much effort on the part of ftpd.
Only your ftp client knows it at that point, not the ftpd.
However, it is possible for enhanced ftpds that use RFC931
'authentication' to get your real login ID if your system is running an
RFC931 identity server.
Still, I'd argue that, since you're taking advantage of a service being
offered to you at no charge, if you don't like the idea of them
(possibly) knowing who you are, don't use their anonymous ftp site.
--
Christopher Davis | INTERESTING DEFINITIONS DEPARTMENT:
System Manager & Postmaster | "An editor comes with a guarantee and a
Electronic Frontier Foundation | toll free customer service number."
+1 617 864 0665 NIC: [CKD1] | -P. Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.183907.25675@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 18:39:07 GMT
Refering to the intellectual freedom policies of many libraries,
keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) writes:
[...]
>This is SWELL for the LIBRARY ITSELF. HOWEVER, as a COMMUNITY we (as in
>Hope Mills, NC) have the RIGHT to decide what we want to PAY FOR that
>goes into our library AND what we want AVAILABLE there. If we don't
>want to pay for it and we don't want to see it, we have the right not
>to. THE SAME HOLDS TRUE as the community grows larger as in the STATE
>and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The fed certianly has the right to restrict
>federal funds that the MAJORITY of people want to restrict. The
>SOLUTION is to sway the MAJORITY's opinion to allow it.
[...]
(As an aside, I wasn't aware that the Swiss suppression was a majority
decision. It is my impression that it was the decision of a few.)
I'm enclosing the Freedom To Read statement, one of those ALA
intellectual freedom statements. This excerpt addresses the idea that
majority-knows-best.
============= excerpt =================
1. It is in the public interest for publishers and
librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and
expressions, including those which are unorthodox or unpopular
with the majority.
Creative thought is by definition new, and what is new is
different. The bearer of every new thought is a rebel until that
idea is refined and tested. Totalitarian systems attempt to
maintain themselves in power by the ruthless suppression of any
concept which challenges the established orthodoxy. The power of
a democratic system to adapt to change is vastly strengthened by
the freedom of its citizens to choose widely from among
conflicting opinions offered freely to them. To stifle every
nonconformist idea at birth would mark the end of the democratic
process. Furthermore, only through the constant activity of
weighing and selecting can the democratic mind attain the
strength demanded by times like these. We need to know not only
what we believe but why we believe it.
============= end excerpt ==========
=========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala =======
THE FREEDOM TO READ
The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is
continuously under attack. Private groups and public authorities
in various parts of the country are working to remove books from
sale, to censor textbooks, to label "controversial" books, to
distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors, and to
purge libraries. These actions apparently rise from a view that
our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid;
that censorship and suppression are needed to avoid the
subversion of politics and the corruption of morals. We, as
citizens devoted to the use of books and as librarians and
publishers responsible for disseminating them, wish to assert the
public interest in the preservation of the freedom to read.
We are deeply concerned about these attempts at suppression.
Most such attempts rest on a denial of the fundamental premise of
democracy: that the ordinary citizen, by exercising critical
judgment, will accept the good and reject the bad. The censors,
public and private, assume that they should determine what is
good and what is bad for their fellow-citizens.
We trust Americans to recognize propaganda, and to reject
it. We do not believe they need the help of censors to assist
them in this task. We do not believe they are prepared to
sacrifice their heritage of a free press in order to be
"protected" against what others think may be bad for them. We
believe they still favor free enterprise in ideas and expression.
We are aware, of course, that books are not alone in being
subjected to efforts at suppression. We are aware that these
efforts are related to a larger pattern of pressures being
brought against education, the press, films, radio and
television. The problem is not only one of actual censorship.
The shadow of fear cast by these pressures leads, we suspect, to
an even larger voluntary curtailment of expression by those who
seek to avoid controversy.
Such pressure toward conformity is perhaps natural to a time
of uneasy change and pervading fear. Especially when so many of
our apprehensions are directed against an ideology, the
expression of a dissident idea becomes a thing feared in itself,
and we tend to move against it as against a hostile deed, with
suppression.
And yet suppression is never more dangerous than in such a
time of social tension. Freedom has given the United States the
elasticity to endure strain. Freedom keeps open the path of
novel and creative solutions, and enables change to come by
choice. Every silencing of a heresy, every enforcement of an
orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society
and leaves it the less able to deal with stress.
Now as always in our history, books are among our greatest
instruments of freedom. They are almost the only means for
making generally available ideas or manners of expression that
can initially command only a small audience. They are the
natural medium for the new idea and the untried voice from which
come the original contributions to social growth. They are
essential to the extended discussion which serious thought
requires, and to the accumulation of knowledge and ideas into
organized collections.
We believe that free communication is essential to the
preservation of a free society and a creative culture. We
believe that these pressures towards conformity present the
danger of limiting the range and variety of inquiry and
expression on which our democracy and our culture depend. We
believe that every American community must jealously guard the
freedom to publish and to circulate, in order to preserve its own
freedom to read. We believe that publishers and librarians have
a profound responsibility to give validity to that freedom to
read by making it possible for the readers to choose freely from
a variety of offerings.
The freedom to read is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Those with faith in free people will stand firm on these
constitutional guarantees of essential rights and will exercise
the responsibilities that accompany these rights.
We therefore affirm these propositions:
1. It is in the public interest for publishers and
librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and
expressions, including those which are unorthodox or unpopular
with the majority.
Creative thought is by definition new, and what is new is
different. The bearer of every new thought is a rebel until that
idea is refined and tested. Totalitarian systems attempt to
maintain themselves in power by the ruthless suppression of any
concept which challenges the established orthodoxy. The power of
a democratic system to adapt to change is vastly strengthened by
the freedom of its citizens to choose widely from among
conflicting opinions offered freely to them. To stifle every
nonconformist idea at birth would mark the end of the democratic
process. Furthermore, only through the constant activity of
weighing and selecting can the democratic mind attain the
strength demanded by times like these. We need to know not only
what we believe but why we believe it.
2. Publishers, librarians and booksellers do not need to
endorse every idea or presentation contained in the books they
make available. It would conflict with the public interest for
them to establish their own political, moral or aesthetic views
as a standard for determining what books should be published or
circulated.
Publishers and librarians serve the educational process by
helping to make available knowledge and ideas required for the
growth of the mind and the increase of learning. They do not
foster education by imposing as mentors the patterns of their own
thought. The people should have the freedom to read and consider
a broader range of ideas than those that may be held by any
single librarian or publisher or government or church. It is
wrong that what one can read should be confined to what another
thinks proper.
3. It is contrary to the public interest for publishers or
librarians to determine the acceptability of a book on the basis
of the personal history or political affiliations of the author.
A book should be judged as a book. No art or literature can
flourish if it is to be measured by the political views or
private lives of its creators. No society of free people can
flourish which draws up lists of writers to whom it will not
listen, whatever they may have to say.
4. There is no place in our society for efforts to coerce
the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter
deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of
writers to achieve artistic expression.
To some, much of modern literature is shocking. But is not
much of life itself shocking? We cut off literature at the
source if we prevent writers from dealing with the stuff of life.
Parents and teachers have a responsibility to prepare the young
to meet the diversity of experiences in life to which they will
be exposed, as they have a responsibility to help them learn to
think critically for themselves. These are affirmative
responsibilities, not to be discharged simply by preventing them
from reading works for which they are not yet prepared. In these
matters taste differs, and taste cannot be legislated; nor can
machinery be devised which will suit the demands of one group
without limiting the freedom of others.
5. It is not in the public interest to force a reader to
accept with any book the prejudgment of a label characterizing
the book or author as subversive or dangerous.
The ideal of labeling presupposes the existence of
individuals or groups with wisdom to determine by authority what
is good or bad for the citizen. It presupposes that individuals
must be directed in making up their minds about the ideas they
examine. But Americans do not need others to do their thinking
for them.
6. It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians,
as guardians of the people's freedom to read, to contest
encroachments upon that freedom by individuals or groups seeking
to impose their own standards or tastes upon the community at
large.
It is inevitable in the give and take of the democratic
process that the political, the moral, or the aesthetic concepts
of an individual or group will occasionally collide with those of
another individual or group. In a free society individuals are
free to determine for themselves what they wish to read, and each
group is free to determine what it will recommend to its freely
associated members. But no group has the right to take the law
into its own hands, and to impose its own concept of politics or
morality upon other members of a democratic society. Freedom is
no freedom if it is accorded only to the accepted and the
inoffensive.
7. It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians to
give full meaning to the freedom to read by providing books that
enrich the quality and diversity of thought and expression. By
the exercise of this affirmative responsibility, they can
demonstrate that the answer to a bad book is a good one, the
answer to a bad idea is a good one.
The freedom to read is of little consequence when expended
on the trivial; it is frustrated when the reader cannot obtain
matter fit for that reader's purpose. What is needed is not only
the absence of restraint, but the positive provision of
opportunity for the people to read the best that has been thought
and said. Books are the major channel by which the intellectual
inheritance is handed down, and the principal means of its
testing and growth. The defense of their freedom and integrity,
and the enlargement of their service to society, requires of all
publishers and librarians the utmost of their faculties, and
deserves of all citizens the fullest of their support.
We state these propositions neither lightly nor as easy
generalizations. We here stake out a lofty claim for the value
of books. We do so because we believe that they are good,
possessed of enormous variety and usefulness, worthy of
cherishing and keeping free. We realize that the application of
these propositions may mean the dissemination of ideas and
manners of expression that are repugnant to many persons. We do
not state these propositions in the comfortable belief that what
people read is unimportant. We believe rather that what people
read is deeply important; that ideas can be dangerous; but that
the suppression of ideas is fatal to a democratic society.
Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it is ours.
___________________________
This statement was originally issued in May of 1953 by the
Westchester Conference of the American Library Association and
the American Book Publishers Council, which in 1970 consolidated
with the American Educational Publishers Institute to become the
Association of American Publishers.
Adopted June 25, 1953; revised January 28, 1972, January 16,
1991, by the ALA Council and the AAP Freedom to Read Committee.
A Joint Statement by:
American Library Association
Association of American Publishers
Subsequently Endorsed by:
American Booksellers Association
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of Teachers AFL-CIO
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
Association of American University Presses
Children's Book Council
Freedom to Read Foundation
International Reading Association
Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression
National Association of College Stores
National Council of Teachers of English
P.E.N. - American Center
People for the American Way
Periodical and Book Association of America
Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S.
Society of Professional Journalists
Women's National Book Association
YWCA of the U.S.A.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.124235.21@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 10 Mar 92 18:42:35 GMT
In article <1992Mar10.115359.7185@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>[...] Are there any good reasons for anyone
>>remaining completely anonymous when transferring data via the Internet
>>if they are not doing anything illegal?
[...]
>
>You didn't answer Jurgen's question. If you are connecting to my system,
>why shouldn't I know your id? If you are uploading files to my system,
>why shouldn't I know your id?
How did this get into news.admin... [check the followup line].
Anyway to your questions, and then Jurgen's question (since they are different).
Other than complying with a few laws, I think it is your "right" to impose
whatever conditions you (or the legal owner) wants before someone can use
your equipment. If you make an offer to the "public" you obviously need
to comply with more laws. You can also dispose of the information you collect
in any legal manner. For example if you had a free copy of a virus checking
program for anonymous FTP on your machine, you could sell the e-mail address
of everyone who down-loaded it to some company that sells anti-virus software.
As to Jurgen's question about there being any good reasons to remain anonymous
if they aren't doing anything illegal. There are several reasons why the
person may not want their identity known. Sometimes the mere knowledge that
you are interested in something can cause it to change. People use dummy
corporations when they buy real estate, because they fear the seller may raise
the price if they knew the true buyer. A researcher on the Internet may use
a dummy name because they fear a reaction from their peers. Anonymity has
a long history in academia. Most journals use blind review processes, some
even publish papers written by "X".
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Mar 92 19:01:01 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>You didn't answer Jurgen's question. If you are connecting to my system,
>why shouldn't I know your id? If you are uploading files to my system,
>why shouldn't I know your id?
I think I did answer it. I'll try again. Your question is exactly the same
as these questions:
"If you are driving on my highway, why shouldn't I record your license plate?"
"If you are shopping in my store, why shouldn't I check your ID?"
"If you enter the city of which I'm the police chief, why shouldn't I keep
a log of your coming and going?"
The stance behind such questions is not always wrong. If I visit SAC HQ or
someplace like that, I'd certainly expect to be carded and my visit to be
logged. If I go to a bank, I don't expect to be carded, but I do expect to
be recorded on videotape -- although, as someone else remarked a while ago,
I'd also expect those tapes to be recycled if nobody robs the bank that day.
Social norms are sometimes peculiarly inconsistent about these things: if
traveling within one country, you have to give your name for an airplane
ticket, but not for a train ticket. (Although you don't ordinarily have to
show an ID even on the plane.)
Still, in the United States it is a tradition, with some court decisions to
back it up, that we don't card people without a special reason. This tradition,
as I said before, comes from a (very sensible imho) distrust of government
authority. I think it's a valuable tradition; it's one of the reasons why
lots of people from other places want to live here.
Sometimes it's a hard decision whether or not a situation merits tighter
security on entry to something. I used to live next to a little corner
grocery store, in San Francisco, a block away from a high school. The store
owner had a policy that students (i.e., people who look like teenagers) could
only enter the store two at a time. He established that policy because of
shoplifting losses, and it's easy to sympathize. At the same time, one result
of the policy was intense resentment on the part of the kids standing in line,
most of whom, of course, are perfectly honest. I'm sure it wasn't fun for the
proprietor either; he was certainly aware of the resentment, and it must be a
tense situation to depend for your living on people whom you don't trust and
who don't like you. The irony of the situation is that the owner and the
students needed each other; it was the only store in the immediate neighborhood,
and a big share of its business came from those kids.
The point of this anecdote isn't that I'm saying who was right or wrong. I guess
you could say that the point is this: In some other country where people get
carded all the time, the kids might have taken this situation for granted and not
resented it. But we have different expectations here. You could argue that our
expectations aren't rational or efficient, and certainly they aren't the most
secure. But they have compensating advantages.
So, maybe you *do* have a good reason to log access to your system. But maybe
you could live without it, and we'd have a slightly friendlier society. It might
depend on what you keep in /ftp/pub and who you expect to download it. The most
secure thing would be not to have anonymous ftp at all!
But the original question was along the lines of "what do you have to hide? If
you're downloading pornography, do it proudly." And I still say that that
argument is *exactly* the same as the argument people make in other contexts
to prefer regimentation over privacy, and the reasons to oppose it are the
same in the computer context as in the context of cartes d'identite.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.194327.23577@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 19:43:27 GMT
In article bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>There is nothing unique to computers or the Internet in this argument.
>It is a very common one between civil libertarians and proponents of
>strong government control. In many countries, not even horribly
>repressive ones but ones like, for example, France, everyone has to have
>a government Identity Card and carry it with them at all times. The
>police can card you whenever they want.
>[...]
>Of course this is not all-or-nothing; we *do* have a police force, and we
>provide channels for them to gather information about us. But ordinarily
>they can't gather private information about anyone in particular without
>first convincing a judge that there is a compelling reason.
You're misunderstanding my intend entirely. I wasn't talking about
making it easy for government authorities to gather information about
private individuals, I was talking about making it possible for other
private individuals and organizations and government agencies to
verify who you are when you are performing transactions with them.
Kinda like having to show your driver's license when you write a
check, or apply for a library card, etc., you know? That's something
TOTALLY different. Do you think you should have *right* to show
people a fake driver's license? I think not... you have a right
to show them nothing, and they have a right to then refuse dealing
with you. I.e., if you ftp to my machine, I should have a way of
making *sure* I know who you are or not let you in.
I don't want the government to be able to spy on me, and I'd be
adamantly opposed to anything being built into the Internet that would
allow third parties to easily check who is doing what. Currently this
*is* possible for anyone who has access to the routers or physical
cables between your and your destination, and having public key
encryption and secure authentication would help ALLEVIATE this
problem, and not the other way around.
All I'm saying is that currently it is very easy for anyone on the
Internet to hide their identity in all their activities, or, worse,
pretend they are someone other than they are. I.e., I can do stuff to
YOUR computer pretending I'm Joe Smith, or I could do stuff to Joe
Smith's computer pretending I'm you. Now, do you like *that* idea?
>What changes with computers is that it's incredibly *easy* for authorities
>to collect information about everybody's use of the facilities. But this
>is a reason for us to be *more* concerned, not less, about such information
>collection. Most system administrators do not have evil intent, but
>neither do most police officers, I suppose. But the ones who do (the example
>of J. Edgar Hoover leaps to mind) are extremely dangerous. And system
>administrators, or police officers, can make errors of judgement in which
>they confuse their own ideals with their public duties -- this is where the
>censorship issues arise, for example.
System administrators's lapses of good judgement can affect you only
if you use the facilities they administer. Noone is requiring you to
do that. If a system administrator does something to compromise your
privacy OUTSIDE hir zone of authority, that should be considered
criminal. To draw a very simple analogy... if you want to enter my
house, I have the right to refuse you access, or I have the right to
ascertain your identity. From there I have the right tell anyone I
want to that you were at my house. If you think that other people's
knowledge of your entering my house might be harmful to you in some
way, then either trust me to not reveal this information, or stay the
f*ck out of my house!
Follow-ups to a.c.a-f.t only.
--
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 Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
From: jerry@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Jerry Aguirre)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <53358@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>
Date: 10 Mar 92 19:57:23 GMT
In article <1992Mar10.122144.4911@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) writes:
>If I offer ftp to people, why is it wrong for me to keep records?
>I am neither the government nor the police.
>
>If you want to control government and police access to records, then
>that is what you should do. But that isn't the same thing as prohibiting
>their collection.
I don't recall anyone talking about "prohibiting" your trying to collect
such information. There are prohibitions against certain collections of
data by the government but no what you can collect.
I also don't know of any law that says people have to cooperate with
your collecting that data. You may choose to refuse connection to those
that don't.
As to controlling government access to the records that is a blue sky
argument. Right now any judge can write a court order for your records.
If you get one of those orders what would you do? When you start
collecting information about people I think you have a certain
responsibility to control its abuse. But in fact you do not have
control of the information so caution is indicated.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Mar 92 20:20:18 GMT
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>You're misunderstanding my intend entirely. I wasn't talking about
>making it easy for government authorities to gather information about
>private individuals, I was talking about making it possible for other
>private individuals and organizations and government agencies to
>verify who you are when you are performing transactions with them.
>Kinda like having to show your driver's license when you write a
>check, or apply for a library card, etc., you know? That's something
>TOTALLY different. Do you think you should have *right* to show
>people a fake driver's license? I think not... you have a right
>to show them nothing, and they have a right to then refuse dealing
>with you. I.e., if you ftp to my machine, I should have a way of
>making *sure* I know who you are or not let you in.
Well, again, there are two sides to this issue. In modern times it is not
only governments who have too much power. This is why we keep seeing laws
regulating, for example, credit bureaus, or the use of the Social Security
Number by both government *and* private entities. (The latter regulations
aren't, alas, very effective.) It's disingenuous to say that I have the
right not to deal with companies if I don't want to answer their questions.
That's not true, in practice, unless I want to be a hermit. I can choose
a different grocery store, but I can't choose a different phone company.
In the middle ground, I can choose a different bank, but not a *very*
different one; they all have the same kinds of self-interest and so they
all have the same kinds of policies. That's why phone companies and banks
are both more tightly regulated than, say, toy stores--although, in
California at least, even toy stores are bound by privacy regulations.
They can't ask for my phone number when I use a credit card.
That's why there was all the fuss about that Lotus consumer database product
whose name I've forgotten. (Marketplace?) It wasn't breaking any laws; in
that narrow sense the providers of the information had the "right" to sell
the information to Lotus, and Lotus had the "right" to sell it to their
customers. But nobody was very happy about the idea because it seemed like
gratuitous nosy-parkering. I think much the same is true about your
hypothetical example in which you sell my e-mail address to some company
for marketing purposes. It may be legal but it's not the kind of world
I want to live in.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] Obscene Language Survey
Message-ID: <9203102151.AA02228@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 09:51:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex,soc.motss,alt.fan.frank-zappa
From: nguy@sfu.ca (John Angus Webb)
Subject: Obscene Language Survey
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 09:17:53 GMT
*** LANGUAGE SURVEY ***
This is a part of a research project in socio-linguistics I am
conducting at the University of British Columbia, Canada. It
explores the principal obscene word of the English language.
I would greatly appreciate your contribution. Please answer each
question as best you can. If the question offends you, or if you
have no opinion, please leave the response blank.
All results will be held in strictest confidence. Names or return
mail addresses will NOT be saved with the data.
Please mail your responses to the address provided below, preferably
within the next day or two. (sorry about the short timeline but I'm
running late!) Any responses after March 21 will *not* be read, as
I'm borrowing this net.account. So please don't flame the account
owner after that time.
Thanks in advance!
- John Angus Webb c/o nguy@sfu.ca
*** WARNING: This file contains language that may be offensive to some.
*** PART "A" ***
Each question has a number of responses. Please fill in your
response in the box provided.
1) Please type your age group in this box: [ ]
[1] 7-14 [2] 15-21 [3] 22-28 [4] 29-35 [5] 36-42
[6] 43-49 [7] 50-56 [8] 57-63 [9] 63+
2) Sexual Orientation: [ ]
[1] Straight [2] Gay [3] Lesbian [4] Bi
3) Sex: [ ]
[1] Female [2] Male
4) Do you smoke? : [ ]
[1] No [2] Yes
5) Do you drink : [ ]
[1] Heavily [2] Recreationally [3] Socially [4] Not at all
4) Profession (if not a student.)
______________________________________
*** PART "B" ***
1) Please consider the following sentence:
"This blasted thing doesn't work."
and give the two best substitutes you can think of for "blasted:"
[1] ______________________________________
[2] ______________________________________
2a) Singer John Mellencamp has been quoted as saying: "I've been
fucked by a lot of guys."
Please give the two best substitutes you can think of for "fucked:"
[1] ______________________________________
[2] ______________________________________
2b) Please give an expression using "fuck" in a way roughly
equivalent to the Mellencamp example:
[1] ______________________________________
*** PART "C" ***
*** 1) Please consider the following phrase: ***
"Last night he fucked him" or "Last night he fucked her."
> How often would you use this expression? : [ ]
Never --> [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] <-- Frequently
> Who would you expect to use this expression? :
_______________________________________________________________
> Would you use this expression with: (please answer Y or N)
[ ] Friend, same sex [ ] Friend, other sex
[ ] Partner/Lover [ ] Parents/Elders [ ] Siblings
*** 2) Please consider the following phrase: ***
"Last night she fucked him" or "Last night she fucked her."
> How often would you use this expression? : [ ]
Never --> [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] <-- Frequently
> Who would you expect to use this expression? :
_______________________________________________________________
> Would you use this expression with: (please answer Y or N)
[ ] Friend, same sex [ ] Friend, other sex
[ ] Partner/Lover [ ] Parents/Elders [ ] Siblings
*** 3) Please consider the following phrase: ***
"Last night we fucked."
> How often would you use this expression? : [ ]
Never --> [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] <-- Frequently
> Who would you expect to use this expression? :
_______________________________________________________________
> Would you use this expression with: (please answer Y or N)
[ ] Friend, same sex [ ] Friend, other sex
[ ] Partner/Lover [ ] Parents/Elders [ ] Siblings
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.172109.14409@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 22:21:09 GMT
bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>
>"If you are driving on my highway, why shouldn't I record your license plate?"
We did this all the time during hunting season; we recorded the license
plates of those hunters who asked our permission to hunt on our land, and
all others were turned over to the Game Warden.
>The stance behind such questions is not always wrong. If I visit SAC HQ or
>someplace like that, I'd certainly expect to be carded and my visit to be
>logged. If I go to a bank, I don't expect to be carded, but I do expect to
>be recorded on videotape -- although, as someone else remarked a while ago,
>I'd also expect those tapes to be recycled if nobody robs the bank that day.
As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I'd certainly trash the vast majority
of log entries for ftp services. Would you have a problem if we only logged
the ids of those who UPLOADED files? Were I to establish a public upload
area, I'd certainly want to be able to "track down" the submitters of files.
>So, maybe you *do* have a good reason to log access to your system. But maybe
>you could live without it, and we'd have a slightly friendlier society. It
>might depend on what you keep in /ftp/pub and who you expect to download it.
>The most secure thing would be not to have anonymous ftp at all!
What if I have a package (such as, say, NTP) for which I want to keep a list
of all the downloaders? What if I want to use that list for *gasp* updates
and bug fixes? What if I just want to know the more popular files on my
systems?
What if I see a large number of downloads from, say, Finland? If that hap-
pened, I'd certainly try to place my stuff in an archive over there; it would
certainly save bandwidth, wouldn't it?
I agree with some of your points; however, I feel that it boils down to
a per-site policy situation. Personally, I'm going to set up logging when
I set up our anonymous ftp site. If someone has a problem with that, they
can always provide some bogus address when asked. I might even run a
daemon to keep a log of all connections to my ftp port, and users would
never know about it.
>But the original question was along the lines of "what do you have to hide? If
>you're downloading pornography, do it proudly." And I still say that that
>argument is *exactly* the same as the argument people make in other contexts
>to prefer regimentation over privacy, and the reasons to oppose it are the
>same in the computer context as in the context of cartes d'identite.
Those sites which provide anonymous ftp can, and should, make their own
decisions. This is well and good; my comments came as a reaction to the
postings which basically said "you can't do that; it's *wrong*!" To those
people, I say "Feh." If you don't like the policies at a particular ftp
site, don't use that site.
--
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
"I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Logging usage of services (FTP)
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.171003.12156@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 22:10:03 GMT
In article <1992Mar10.124235.21@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>
>How did this get into news.admin... [check the followup line].
Oops! My apologies.
>For example if you had a free copy of a virus checking
>program for anonymous FTP on your machine, you could sell the e-mail address
>of everyone who down-loaded it to some company that sells anti-virus software.
True; then again, the Registrar could sell the entire student database
to the highest bidder. If such records were kept, I would certainly
expect them to be treated with the same caution as any other university
records. In fact, I probably wouldn't even keep them; I'd just use an
awk (or perl) script to create some statistics for later use. I'd keep
the actual lists for about a month; if some uploaded code caused problems,
they'd show up within a month. I might keep a permanent list of upload
contributors; I like the idea of being able to trace FOO.ARC back to
foouser@booga.booga.edu......
>As to Jurgen's question about there being any good reasons to remain anonymous
>if they aren't doing anything illegal. There are several reasons why the
>person may not want their identity known. Sometimes the mere knowledge that
>you are interested in something can cause it to change. People use dummy
>corporations when they buy real estate, because they fear the seller may raise
>the price if they knew the true buyer. A researcher on the Internet may use
>a dummy name because they fear a reaction from their peers. Anonymity has
>a long history in academia. Most journals use blind review processes, some
>even publish papers written by "X".
This is certainly true; a certain level of anonymity has its place. However,
what does that have to do with logging the use of my systems? I don't think
that an FTP download carries the same significance as, say, a work-in-progress
review.
--
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
"I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.misc] Can't Read News--HELP!
Message-ID: <9203102336.AA07510@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 11:36:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
From: rick@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (Winky Magoo)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Can't Read News--HELP!
Message-ID: <9203102253.AA04567@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU>
Date: 10 Mar 92 22:53:39 GMT
PLEASE HELP! (pretty pretty pretty please? with sugar on top?)
Our university apparently has made an arbitrary decision to
not accept certain news, for example, alt groups are apparently
not appropriate. (Which means I don't get the dave barry group--
which is---I'm not making this up---ESSENTIAL!)
To get around this, I did setenv NNTPSERVER to another machine,
which is the source of the censored machine's feed anyway. Now
I get all the groups I want...sort of.
I CAN read alt.fan.dave_barry, but now when I try to read
talk.philosophy.misc, I can't. I get the mess. "skipping unavailable
article....end of group what next blah blah". (This also happens with
all news.* groups, so please e-mail your response to me direct
at address below.) THEN, to add insult to injury, the NEXT time
I invoke news, I get the message "(Revising soft pointers,
please be patient.)" followed at some point by this:
Unread news in news.misc 53 articles
Unread news in news.newusers.questions 81 articles
Unread news in news.software.nntp 25 articles
Unread news in news.software.readers 54 articles
Warning! Somebody reset talk.philosophy.misc--assuming nothing read.
Unread news in talk.philosophy.misc 2146 articles
etc.
If I wait long enough, I get to read all these groups....NOT. I get
the above problem of skipping unavailable articles until end-of-group
again.
This problem does not happen on another account I have on
(say) Machine2, but there I have been unable to do the setenv
such that I can receive the censored groups. On Machine2
I use nn, which I prefer, but nn is not available on Machine1
which is the machine with the problems herein described.
One of the other lovely decisions here was to stop supporting
nn and vn. Our choices now are rn and trn. I'm using trn to read
the alt groups on Machine1; nn to read talk.philosophy.misc on
Machine2. This is a solution for ME, but there are other
philosophy students trying to read talk.philosophy.misc from
Machine1 under trn who don't have access to Machine2. So, for
them, this is not a solution (and they have asked me for help
regarding this). [Also, I don't know how long Machine2 will
support nn---rumor is, it's history.]
Sorry about the lengthy post--I've been working on this problem
for weeks.
Any advice? (Please remember to e-mail to address(es) below, as
all news.* groups are subject to the same problem as
talk.philosophy.misc noted above.)
Thanks in advance (and especially for taking the time to read this
lengthy post!).
||======================================================================||
|| Rick Horowitz || Senior at CSUF || rick@csufres.csufresno.edu OR ||
|| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ || Philosophy || rhorowitz@zimmer.csufresno.edu ||
||----------------------------------------------------------------------||
|| My opinions are strictly my own, unless you want to borrow them. ||
||======================================================================||
|| Yeast is a wonderful little plant or animal that, despite the ||
|| fact that it has only one cell, has figured out how to convert ||
|| sugar to alcohol. This was a far greater accomplishment than ||
|| anything we can attribute to giant complex multicelled organisms ||
|| such as, for example, the Secretary of Transportation. -Dave Barry ||
||======================================================================||
From caf-talk Caf Mar 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: osborne@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Larry N. Osborne)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.233721.16839@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 23:37:21 GMT
In article <1992Mar10.115359.7185@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes
Morgan) writes:
>You didn't answer Jurgen's question. If you are connecting to my system,
>why shouldn't I know your id? If you are uploading files to my system,
>why shouldn't I know your id?
I think the difficulty is that the name "anonymous ftp" implies
anonymity. If the _name_ were "guest ftp" or "outside access ftp"
then the situation would be less ambiguous.
Still, anyone who gives their login as a password and then expects
true anonymity is beyond hope. Especially after the remote system
prompts you with your own address. Sheesh!
Personally I think everybody should be nice, and then we wouldn't have
these problems. [ :-) for the humour challenged.]
--
osborne@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu (preferred) | Larry N Osborne
osborne@uhunix.bitnet | SLIS, 2550 The Mall
fax +1 808 956 5835 | University of Hawaii at Manoa
or via W.A.S.T.E. | Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
From caf-talk Caf Mar 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Mar11.045316.29096@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 04:53:16 GMT
In article bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>[...] I think much the same is true about your
>hypothetical example in which you sell my e-mail address to some company
>for marketing purposes. It may be legal but it's not the kind of world
>I want to live in.
Hey! Watch your attributions! I never made any such example. I
wouldn't mind at all if there were laws against selling mailing lists
without the express permission of the persons in question. Well, I
think you're right... I'd rather live in a world where things like
that weren't done, but what do you know, I live in one where it is!
So let's make some laws against it... I'm all for that. But that
still doesn't mean that I shouldn't have some way of holding people
accountable if they use my equipment for illegal purposes, or
whatever.
As to laws against distributing (especially selling) information about
individuals that I gathered as part of my transactions with them,
well, I come from a country where that sort of thing _is_ mostly
illegal (Germany), and I must say that I prefer it that way. I *hate*
junk mail and uninvited solicitations. And I'm quite aware of the
greater harm that can potentially come from this practice. But let's
separate my collecting information for my own use/purposes/protection
from my redistributing such information for my personal gain or others
harm. The second is (IMHO) unethical and should be illegal/regulated.
The first should be my right.
Lotus should be commended for NOT marketing ``Marketplace.'' But
you should also all remember that in the USA this sort of thing is
widely accepted and protected by the pro-business, anti-regulation
government. If you want to protect your privacy, work on THAT, don't
attack sysadmins for trying to cover their asses and wanting to keep
a handle on who does what with their systems. It's pretty hard to
run a tight ship in today's networking environment, and there are a
lot of people out there who have very little of the sense of ethics
and spirit of cooperation that you some of the voices in this thread
are touting as a reason for not logging usage information on anon-ftp.
--
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 Mar 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..)
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <1992Mar11.172359.1124@math.okstate.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 17:23:59 GMT
In article <1992Mar10.172109.14409@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I'd certainly trash the vast majority
>of log entries for ftp services. Would you have a problem if we only logged
>the ids of those who UPLOADED files? Were I to establish a public upload
>area, I'd certainly want to be able to "track down" the submitters of files.
>
Why? Once you've deleted any "offending" file, what does it matter who gave
it to you. If Johnson&Johnson decides to send you a free sample of (say)
Band-Aids, then you don't have to accept them. If they were sent to you by
me in such a way that you could not have told who sent them (posted in a
different town, no return address, or to be held by the postmaster if
returned, et c...), you could still not accept them and, what's more, you
couldn't possibly track me down. But, what's more important is, why
would you want to? We entered into an implicit contract whereby I offered
certain chattels (the file I uploaded) presumably in recompense for the
use of your system (perhaps the downloading of files). However, if you
do not care to recieve my offering of chattels, that is certainly within
your realm of appropriate behaviour. But, then, why would you want to
track me down. *I* entered our agreement with an open heart and an open
mind. Those who would wish to track me down for the reason that they
disliked my offering of chattel apparently had a hidden motive in their
entering of the agreement. What is your hidden agenda in wanting to track
down those individuals whose views you seem to be at odds with. It would
seem more appropriate that you should _critically_ welcome any upload as
evidence that your ftp services are appreciated and used by the community.
What do you fear so much that you would wish to lash out at those who
are actively supporting your reason to exist as an ftp site - the "free"
transmission of ideas and information between minds.
>>So, maybe you *do* have a good reason to log access to your system. But maybe
>>you could live without it, and we'd have a slightly friendlier society. It
>>might depend on what you keep in /ftp/pub and who you expect to download it.
>>The most secure thing would be not to have anonymous ftp at all!
>
>What if I have a package (such as, say, NTP) for which I want to keep a list
>of all the downloaders? What if I want to use that list for *gasp* updates
>and bug fixes? What if I just want to know the more popular files on my
>systems?
Most software companies generate that information through the submission of
"registration" cards. If person A gets your package and then distributes it
to person B, then how is person B going to get updates if person A doesn't
transmit them (death, change of job, whatever reason...). 'Twould seem that
some sort of user registration would be better. But, then, the registration
could be bundled with the application and then most of the recipients would
probably get a copy of the registration card...
Popularity of files is determinable withut information as to *who* they are
popular with. Your average file system usually contains some utilities for
monitoring use without specifically indicating who is doing what...
>What if I see a large number of downloads from, say, Finland? If that hap-
>pened, I'd certainly try to place my stuff in an archive over there; it would
>certainly save bandwidth, wouldn't it?
>
>I agree with some of your points; however, I feel that it boils down to
>a per-site policy situation. Personally, I'm going to set up logging when
>I set up our anonymous ftp site. If someone has a problem with that, they
>can always provide some bogus address when asked. I might even run a
>daemon to keep a log of all connections to my ftp port, and users would
>never know about it.
>
Gee... Maybe they won't notice that phone tap that almost every college-town
phone has, either, d'ya think...
>
>Those sites which provide anonymous ftp can, and should, make their own
>decisions. This is well and good; my comments came as a reaction to the
>postings which basically said "you can't do that; it's *wrong*!" To those
>people, I say "Feh." If you don't like the policies at a particular ftp
>site, don't use that site.
>
I couldn't agree more, until such policies interfere with my right to private
action and interaction. Interesting semantic point:
I use the system you administer. Does that mean I use *your* system?
It would seem that the system belongs to the organization that owns it.
If that is a government institution (e.g. a University, a Gov't contracted
Company, a Gov't agency (like DARPA)), then all of the laws concerning
rights to privacy are set down in the public forum. Specifically those
informations concerning identity and place of occupation are protected.
However, it would seem that you want to collect such information without
my knowledge and therefore without my consent. If I call from a *.com,
then by collecting my address you have ascertained my place of work. By
law, you MUST ask my permission before a private citizen may collect or
use such information. If I call from a *.edu, then you still get
information about where I live and, in both my case and I assume yours,
where I work. To collect such anformation about me without my knowledge
is *illegal*. "Feh." as you like, but the legality of the matter does not
change.
>
>--
> 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
> "I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
God is an engineer, and his approximation is no better than Plank's Constant.
-'d' Kidd / Eric Idle / ESG / Eric Gindrup
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
`gindrup@hardy.math.okstate.edu (preferred) If at first you don't `
` succeed, deficit spend. It `
`uucp 'a.cs.okstate.edu!/dev/null' (flames) works for the Federal Gov't.`
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
From caf-talk Caf Mar 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer , HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu)
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <9203111808.AA23181@hibiscus.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 08:08:43 GMT
gindrup@hardy.math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
> Why? Once you've deleted any "offending" file, what does it matter who gave
> it to you.
.
.
.
> What do you fear so much that you would wish to lash out at those who
> are actively supporting your reason to exist as an ftp site - the "free"
> transmission of ideas and information between minds.
The system log at the Stanford site was the primary link which allowed the
traceback of the Macintosh MBDF-A virus to the students who released it (who
are now involved in criminal proceedings). According to my sources in CIT,
without the address of the connecting account, it is doubtful that the
trace would have been successful.
I completely agree that if such infantile people didn't exist, we would
have no need for measures of this sort. Unfortunately, they do.
----
Eric Scheirer -- Cornell U. -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu -- (607) 253-2431
"Small change can often be found under sofa cushions." -- Lazarus Long
From caf-talk Caf Mar 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: College newspaper shut down after controversial article
Message-ID: <9203112059.AA29437@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 08:59:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: Re: College newspaper shut down after controversial article
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 15:58:26 GMT
falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>In article farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri) writes:
>>The student newspaper at Russell Sage College in Troy, NY (near Albany)
>>was shut down after a controversial article criticizing the
>>student government. THE QUILL reported that the student government
>>overspent its budget by $5000 last year and as a result, it was facing
>>money problems this year.
>Well! I'm impressed that the Quill was radical enough to print
>something the student government didn't like. Good for them. I'm not
>surprised they got shut down though; if Russel Sage is anything like
>RPI (and it is), the student government has no qualms about shutting
>them down. The main RPI paper, the Poly, has never been shut down in
>my memory, but then they learned many years ago to only print things
>the school and student government like. Other publications,
>(especially the humor magazines) seem to have a mean life expectancy of
>about six years before they piss somebody off and get shut down. The
>last such incident was an *independent* publication which had all of
>its members placed on probation and sent to mandatory "sensitivity"
>training.
Sensitivity training?! Sounds like political correctness if I
ever heard it. Fortunately, the newspaper I work for, the Clarkson
Integrator, has not been in that situation (this year anyways). There
have been some articles critical of CUB, the Union Board, which plans
activities.
Don't you love freedom of press?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL CLARKSON '95 FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble."
---1st Amendment to US Constitution
"Nor shall any state...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of its laws."
---14th Amendment to US Constitution
From caf-talk Caf Mar 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 03:14:45 GMT
In dab@moxie.moxie.oswego.edu (David Alan Bozak) writes:
>But of course, it seems in principle that the account name is known
>even to vanilla ftpd, since whenever I log in somewhere, the default
>login name is my actual account, which I have to override with
>'anonymous'. So it must be possible to record that data without too
>much effort on the part of ftpd.
That is your local ftp client speaking. It never transfers this info
to the remote ftp server (unless you press return, accepting the default
choice). There is no practical way to know for sure who is connecting
to you. Even the authentication schemes proposed by some wouldn't
prevent the authentication server from lying.
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | "Young enough to wonder/Old enough
(805) 893-4113 | to wander/Fool enough to think he
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | knows the way" - Lilac Time
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: mpevans@isis.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.103425.27729@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 10:34:25 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I'd certainly trash the vast majority
>of log entries for ftp services. Would you have a problem if we only logged
>the ids of those who UPLOADED files? Were I to establish a public upload
>area, I'd certainly want to be able to "track down" the submitters of files.
In case of programs containing virus, or other nastys (e.g it would be
quite simple to add code which will send /etc/passwd to a server running
anywhere on the internet, even easier to hide this code if the program uses
IP sockets anyway.)
>What if I have a package (such as, say, NTP) for which I want to keep a list
>of all the downloaders? What if I want to use that list for *gasp* updates
>and bug fixes? What if I just want to know the more popular files on my
>systems?
If I have written A PD package, then I might like to know how well used it is.
E.G if I were to find that a large number of people in a non-english speaking
country ar interested in it, then I might go looking for a programer to
re-write the instructions in the local language.
>What if I see a large number of downloads from, say, Finland? If that hap-
>pened, I'd certainly try to place my stuff in an archive over there; it would
>certainly save bandwidth, wouldn't it?
If people bothered to look at the README file, if you are logging, then you
could always send a reminder.
"I have uploaded a copy of package xxx to server yyy, could you please use
server yyy, which is nearer to you, rather than checking mine first.
I will attempt to put any new versions of this software on a server local to
you.
Please pass this information on to anyone else in your area who may be
interested. "
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U of M students wanted; Speech Code
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.160937.5787@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:09:37 GMT
mcmathew@athena.mit.edu (Mithran C Mathew) writes:
> Apparently Chuck Vest, the current president of MIT, instituted a speech
>code while he was a dean at U of M. Supposedly this was a very harsh speech code,
>and now he is sounding like he wants one administered here at MIT. Any
>information you give me will be much appreciated here at MIT, and you probably
>will be cited in an article in the April issue of our paper on Freedom of Speech
The U. of Michigan speech code (and its decedent) was illegal. I am
distressed that someone wants to use it as a model. Here are some
details. The end of this note tells who to get the full text of the
relevant court decisions from the Computers and Academic Freedom
on-line archive.
The U. of Michigan speech code was struck down by the federal court as
unconstitutional [law/doe-v-u-of-michigan]. In response to this
decision, U. of Wisconsin tried to create a narrower speech code, but
that too was stuck down by the federal court.
[law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin] The court decision concluded:
"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."
A short item from the Chicago Tribune, Feb 25, 1992, section 1, p. 4, reported:
======================
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.
=========================
The Tribune article was unclear, so I sent email to Dr. Baldwin (the
author of the original policy). He says that 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."
In addition, the redraft is has not yet been accepted by the
university system and may not be.
In sum, a federal court determined that the U. of Michigan code was an
unconstitutional restriction of free speech. Another court determined
that the code, as revised by U. of Wisconsin, was still an
unconstitutional restriction of free speech. The author of the U. of
Wisconsin code, according to the Chicago Tribune, isn't sure the rule
is even needed now. As a private institution, MIT is, of course, not
legally bound to respect Constitutional protections of free speech. It
is my hope, however, that as a matter of academic freedom, it will
choose to respect the protections anyway. [student-freedoms]
- Carl Kadie, CAF archivist
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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/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."
=================
batch/mar_01_1992
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-batch mar_01_1992
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/batch/mar_01_1992
pub/academic/student.freedoms
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.173717.10477@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 17:37:17 GMT
In article <1992Mar11.172359.1124@math.okstate.edu> gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
>Why? Once you've deleted any "offending" file, what does it matter who gave
>it to you.
It matters because someone abused my hospitality. If someone vandalizes
your property, do you just clean up and say: ``Oh well, damage repaired...
let the vandals go their way.''..?
>[...] We entered into an implicit contract whereby I offered
>certain chattels (the file I uploaded) presumably in recompense for the
>use of your system (perhaps the downloading of files). However, if you
>do not care to recieve my offering of chattels, that is certainly within
>your realm of appropriate behaviour. But, then, why would you want to
>track me down. *I* entered our agreement with an open heart and an open
>mind. Those who would wish to track me down for the reason that they
>disliked my offering of chattel apparently had a hidden motive in their
>entering of the agreement.
This is a real load of BS, but if there's any contract at all, then it's
one that says that you can use my system within parameters of reason, and
if you abuse my hospitality by filling up my file-system with illegal or
offensive crap, then I want to reserve the right to go after your ass.
After all, you might be doing real damage... even if my ftp root is in
its own filesystem, your filling it up with megabytes of copyrighted
images, or whatever, might prevent someone else who has a more legitimate
purpose from leaving a file for one of my users. I might be on vacation,
and the whole thing could be a real inconvenience, and even cost $$$.
>What is your hidden agenda in wanting to track down those individuals
>whose views you seem to be at odds with. It would seem more
>appropriate that you should _critically_ welcome any upload as
>evidence that your ftp services are appreciated and used by the
>community.
Your totally twisting things here. What is a library's hidden agenda
in asking for identification when you take out a book? Why don't they
just appreciate the fact that people are using their wonderful service?
Sure, it's different because the library is protecting itself from
theft, and you can't ``steal'' things that are on an anon-ftp site, can
you? But as I said, you could vandalize it in a very real sense. You
could get an unweary sysadmin into trouble because his system is being
used to distributed pirated material.
>I couldn't agree more, until such policies interfere with my right to private
>action and interaction. Interesting semantic point:
>I use the system you administer. Does that mean I use *your* system?
Yes.
>It would seem that the system belongs to the organization that owns it.
And I am fully responsible for the property of that organization.
>If that is a government institution (e.g. a University, a Gov't contracted
>Company, a Gov't agency (like DARPA)), then all of the laws concerning
>rights to privacy are set down in the public forum.
Sure. But there are no laws saying that services need to be provided
anonymously. Now, maybe there is/should be a law saying that if any
information about individuals, such as ftp logging is collected, the
individuals need to be informed of this. I have no problem with
announcing that transactions are logged, and will do so once I get
the wuarchive ftp daemon up on my system. Incidentally, my organization
is not a government institutation, and neither are LOTS of other sites
out there.
>Specifically those
>informations concerning identity and place of occupation are protected.
>However, it would seem that you want to collect such information without
>my knowledge and therefore without my consent.
See above. Noone in this thread said anything about collecting information
secretly. I'll do it quite publicly.
>If I call from a *.com,
>then by collecting my address you have ascertained my place of work. By
>law, you MUST ask my permission before a private citizen may collect or
>use such information. If I call from a *.edu, then you still get
>information about where I live and, in both my case and I assume yours,
>where I work. To collect such anformation about me without my knowledge
>is *illegal*. "Feh." as you like, but the legality of the matter does not
>change.
Whose laws are you talking about? From your signature I see you live in
the USA... there are no such laws in the USA as far as I know. Some
European countries may have them, but as I said, I have no problem with
announcing that the information is being collected. You then have the
choice of not using the service.
Anyway, don't talk about ``the law'' on an international computer network.
At the very least specify WHOSE law you're talking about.
--
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 Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Logging usage of services (FTP)
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.125423.26@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 12 Mar 92 12:54:23 CST
In article <1992Mar10.171003.12156@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> True; then again, the Registrar could sell the entire student database
> to the highest bidder. If such records were kept, I would certainly
> expect them to be treated with the same caution as any other university
> records.
You might expect this, but there isn't any reason to assume its true. U.S.
law doesn't prevent the registrar from selling non-student records. That has
been the underlying problem in this entire thread. One side has certain
expectations, the other side has different expectations.
The argument isn't really over the actual facts, but between the different
expectations of the different sides. And how both sides feel that their
"trust" has been abused.
> In fact, I probably wouldn't even keep them; I'd just use an
> awk (or perl) script to create some statistics for later use. I'd keep
> the actual lists for about a month; if some uploaded code caused problems,
> they'd show up within a month. I might keep a permanent list of upload
> contributors; I like the idea of being able to trace FOO.ARC back to
> foouser@booga.booga.edu......
There are Internet archive sites that keep records of every host, every name,
and every file transferred since they began. Likewise there are libraries that
record every search done on their online catalogs. And ATM machines that take
a picture of every person who uses it.
How should a user "reasonably expect" these records to be kept?
Do we need a "Miss Manners" of electronic record keeping?
> This is certainly true; a certain level of anonymity has its place. However,
> what does that have to do with logging the use of my systems? I don't think
> that an FTP download carries the same significance as, say, a work-in-progress
> review.
That's the funny thing about data. The individual pieces may not look
important, but put several pieces of data together in the right order at
the right time and the result becomes extremely valuable.
How much money could you get for selling a list of the top-10 programs
downloaded by researchers at AT&T, IBM, and DEC? Part of the reason companies
set up their own archives and corporate libraries is to control how much
outsiders can learn about the current interests of their researchers.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
From: hull@den.mmc.com (Jeff Hull)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP)
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.201228.4282@den.mmc.com>
Date: 12 Mar 92 20:12:28 GMT
In article <1992Mar11.172359.1124@math.okstate.edu> gindrup@math.okstate.edu
(Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
>But, what's more important is, why
>would you want to? We entered into an implicit contract whereby I offered
>certain chattels (the file I uploaded) ... However, if you
>do not care to recieve my offering of chattels, ... But, then, why would
>you want to track me down.
Perhaps because our courts have held that the owner/sysadmin has a
duty to prevent illegal use of his system, e.g., in the event you
uploaded copyrighted programs you do not own or in the event you
upload a program containing a virus or trojan horse that does damage.
Owners/sysadmins are at risk over an uploader's improper behavior.
>Those who would wish to track me down for the reason that they
>disliked my offering of chattel apparently had a hidden motive in their
>entering of the agreement. What is your hidden agenda in wanting to track
>those individuals whose views you seem to be at odds with.
Not everyone exhibiting such behavior has evil intent.
>It would seem that the system belongs to the organization that owns it.
>If that is a government institution (e.g. a University, a Gov't contracted
>Company, a Gov't agency (like DARPA)), then all of the laws concerning
>rights to privacy are set down in the public forum. Specifically those
>informations concerning identity and place of occupation are protected.
A very interesting point. Is there a lawyer reading this who would be
willing to offer an opinion. I suggest that this is a sufficiently
delicate point of law that only a lawyer (or someone who has been
involved in a specific case relating to this point) would be able to
provide a creditable answer.
>However, it would seem that you want to collect such information without
>my knowledge and therefore without my consent. ... By
>law, you MUST ask my permission before a private citizen may collect or
>use such information. ...
>To collect such anformation about me without my knowledge is *illegal*.
Would you please share with me the title and statute number of a law
that makes it illegal for a private citizen to collect such
information? Would you please provide a list of prohibited uses of
such information? Perhaps I am out of touch with recent statute and
case law on the topic.
And PLEASE, note the Followup-To line!
--
/ _ _
/__ / )/ ) Jeff Hull (hull@tss-soc-1.den.mmc.com)
/ //__)-/--/- No matter where you go...there you are.
(__/ \__ / / #include
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: revell@uunet.uu.net (James R Revell Jr)
Subject: Re: Logging usage of services (FTP)
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.213307.11252@uunet.uu.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 21:33:07 GMT
ftp.uu.net is an example of an archive where the "anonymous" in
anonymous FTP is a myth. UUNET's archive is available *only* to
people we can identify. I recently cracked down on this policy
due to the large number of abuse.
Guest FTP to ftp.uu.net, via the anonymous or ftp logins, requires
that the client:
. originate the FTP from a host with appropriatly configured
reverse server information (ie: a PTR record)
. use a password consisting of their domain style email address
. not originate from a host we have determined to be involved in
security or copyright infringement
We log all file transfers, and the initial login message tells FTP
users to disconnect if they can't live by that. I investigate all
questionable activity and infractions of our archive policy (concerning
incoming files). The policy on incoming files is automatically
displayed to each FTP user when they enter the incoming directory.
As some users and system admins at internet sites may know, I check
incoming files for various security problems or copyright infringement
and report all occurences to CERT and other authorities who may be
involved. FTP access is denied to hosts causing such problems until
the problem has been resolved. The amount of such abuse is simply to
high to allow to continue.
Are these actions too extreme? Some will say yes, but if some hot-shot
prosecutor tries to hold UUNET responsible for some problem with a file
placed in our archive then we have no choice.
--
James Revell sr uunet postmaster /8^{~
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.174331.13186@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 22:43:31 GMT
gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>
>>As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I'd certainly trash the vast majority
>>of log entries for ftp services. Would you have a problem if we only logged
>>the ids of those who UPLOADED files? Were I to establish a public upload
>>area, I'd certainly want to be able to "track down" the submitters of files.
>>
>
>Why? Once you've deleted any "offending" file, what does it matter who gave
>it to you.
I didn't even use the word "offending"; please don't put words in my mouth.
A few situations to consider:
1) Let's suppose that you uploaded a file containing a virus. I would want
to inform you of that fact, so that you would not inadvertently plant in-
fected code on other BBS or archive machines. Is that improper?
2) Suppose you upload a program that happens to be copyrighted. I would want
to inform you of that fact, so that you would not risk legal proceedings by
uploading that file elsewhere. Is that improper?
3) Suppose you upload a program, of your own creation, that just happens to
have a bug which wipes out PC hard disks? I would want to inform you of
that fact, so that you would not ruin other users' systems (and, possibly,
your reputation as a programmer) by uploading buggy code to other systems.
Is that improper?
4) Suppose that I accept uploads in a particular directory and review them
before adding them to my permanent archives. I would want to be able
to contact you if there were any problems/questions about your code.
Is that improper?
5) Suppose that I carry one of your programs on my archive. You are working
on a new version, and you give a beta-test copy to a friend. That friend
uploads it to my archive. If I see that it did not come from you, I would
want to contact you, in order to verify the "legitimacy" of this release
of your program. Is this improper?
(As a side note to this point, consider the faked release
of the McAfee software that occurred last year.)
6) Suppose that I download Version 1.0 of some program, which is dated 1989.
The documentation in Version 1.0 tells me that Version 2.0 should be re-
leased within a year. I cannot find it anywhere, and I really like the
program. If I had an address (even USMail) for the author, I could con-
tact him and find out about newer versions. That would increase your
distribution (and, presumably, your revenue, if it was sharewhare); is
this improper?
>Those who would wish to track me down for the reason that they
>disliked my offering of chattel apparently had a hidden motive in their
>entering of the agreement.
I didn't say a word about my "dislike" of your upload, now, did I? I
believe that I just listed six valid, logical scenarios in which the
archive administrator would NEED to "track you down".
>What is your hidden agenda in wanting to track
>down those individuals whose views you seem to be at odds with.
Why, oh, *why* does every decision or suggestion have to have a (*gasp*)
"hidden agenda"? Can you even consider the possibility that such tools,
when used properly, can result in better, more complete archives?
>It would
>seem more appropriate that you should _critically_ welcome any upload as
>evidence that your ftp services are appreciated and used by the community.
This is certainly true. However, wouldn't the elimination of the situation
I descibed above result in an even *better* archive, which would be used
and appreciated *even more*?
This idea is hardly unknown. You'll notice that every posting to a moderated
sources/binaries newsgroup includes the email address of the author(s). Even
postings to alt.sources (which is unmoderated) includes such information in
almost every posting. In fact, I have never seen an anonymous posting of
source code (or program binaries) in netnews.
If we accept the notion that an ftp archive is "moderated" by its owner,
what is the problem with providing a point of contact with the author(s)
of the software posted there?
I would also point out that your position would require archive administrators
to blindly accept (or reject) every piece of software uploaded to their
archives. If communication were possible outside of ftp (through email,
for example), the admin would be able to accept more software, since he
could contact the authors/uploaders when problems occured.
> What do you fear so much that you would wish to lash out at those who
>are actively supporting your reason to exist as an ftp site - the "free"
>transmission of ideas and information between minds.
Many forms of electronic communications have been compared to libraries;
in some respects, this is a valid comparison. If you obtain a book from
the library, you can almost always locate the following information:
-- The author(s) name
-- The date of publication
-- The edition ("release version") of the book
-- The publisher
-- Other books by the same author (through the catalog or the flyleaf)
Why should a "software library" be castigated for its desire to provide the
same information?
It isn't fear; it could be a very good management technique.
>Popularity of files is determinable withut information as to *who* they are
>popular with. Your average file system usually contains some utilities for
>monitoring use without specifically indicating who is doing what...
Agreed; for instance, the wuarchive.wustl.edu archive distributes a monthly
usage/popularity report which does not consider the location of downloaders
or uploaders. I didn't say that *every* site should use the procedures I
suggest; I do maintain that there are valid reasons for their use.
>Gee... Maybe they won't notice that phone tap that almost every college-town
>phone has, either, d'ya think...
If I was monitoring/logging a conversation between you and a third party,
that would be illegal. However, I'm talking about monitoring/logging a
conversation between to two of us (through my system); that *is* legal.
Some states require that both parties to the conversation be informed of
the logging; in our online scenario, the user would be informed by the
greeting message.
>I couldn't agree more, until such policies interfere with my right to private
>action and interaction.
Your "right" to private action and interactions stops at the digital doorway
of my system, just as your right to peaceably assemble stops at the door of
my house (or the border of my property). You may assemble and interact out-
side of the Administration Building here, but you can't move your group of
100 people into the Chancellor's office.
>Interesting semantic point:
Hardly; this particular point has been thrashed about on a regular basis.
This position is most frequently argued by users who have a gripe with a
particular sysadmin (or collection of admins); the usual pattern is to fol-
low the "it isn't yours, it's the organization's" argument with "I pay my
taxes/tuition/fees to support the organization, so it's *my* machine". This
argument has arisen more times than I can count, and it has been refuted
every time.
>I use the system you administer. Does that mean I use *your* system?
>It would seem that the system belongs to the organization that owns it.
It certainly does; the systems I adminster belong to the University.
However, I am the designated agent of the University in matters regarding
those systems, just as (for example) the University's Registrar is the
designated agent of the University in matters regarding student records.
Here's a semantic point for you to consider:
You (presumably) are using a machine that belongs to your university;
do you forfeit your right to individual privacy when you contract for
the use of that machine? You are using networks that belong to your
university, regional organizations (MIDNET, in your case; SURAnet for
my systems), the Federal Government (NSFnet), and my university; does
your use of their networks diminish your right to privacy? I assume
that your userid on hardy.math.okstate.edu was issued in your name;
was your right to privacy waived, to some degree, in that contract
for services?
>If that is a government institution (e.g. a University, a Gov't contracted
>Company, a Gov't agency (like DARPA)), then all of the laws concerning
>rights to privacy are set down in the public forum.
You are correct. The Supreme Court ruled that the adminstrators and
maintainers of a public forum may, at their discretion, enforce a set
of rules and regulations governing the use of that forum. For instance,
this university maintains a "Free Speech Area"; however, it prohibits
the use of amplifiers in that area (because it lies in close proximity
to classroom buildings). If I, as an agent of the University, create
a forum on a university computer system, I may, within the policies of
the University, enforce a set of rules and regulations governing its
use.
>Specifically those
>informations concerning identity and place of occupation are protected.
Did you ever look at a phone book? Did you ever send a piece of mail
to someone's "last known address", only to have it returned with their
current address listed? Did you ever call a corporation and track
down an employee who had transferred to another location? Did you ever
use Caller-ID to determine the location of a caller?
You mentioned that there was an implied contract between an archive site
and its users. While I do not necessarily agree with that position (an
archive site exists, and continues to exist, solely at the discretion of
its creators/maintainers), doesn't the existence of a contract imply that
there may be associated "terms of use"?
>However, it would seem that you want to collect such information without
>my knowledge and therefore without my consent.
In the scenario I described, I explicitly mentioned that the users would
be notified, in a greeting message, that their connections were being
logged. If they didn't upload/download anything, there would be no log
entry. Therefore, the choice *is* yours, and your uploading/downloading
of files would constitute your implied consent.
>If I call from a *.com,
>then by collecting my address you have ascertained my place of work.
>By
>law, you MUST ask my permission before a private citizen may collect or
>use such information.
A service provider may collect information on those people who contract
for the use of their services. The phone company compiles and distributes
lists of those people who contract for telephone services. Many, if not
most, universities, compile and distribute lists of those people with whom
they have contracts for employment or education. You may, at your request,
be excluded from such a list; that provision is easily implemented in our
online scenario (assuming that the list is distributed at all; I have spoken
against the distribution of such lists).
>To collect such anformation about me without my knowledge
>is *illegal*. "Feh." as you like, but the legality of the matter does not
>change.
While I agree with your arguments against the *covert* gathering of such
information FOR THE PURPOSES OF REDISTRIBUTION, an *overt* gathering of
such information is not improper or unethical, as long as the information
is not distributed. If you are made aware that the collection of the
information is taking place, and if the collection of that information is
a requirement for the use of a system, the owners of that system would be
well within their rights.
What if you saw this message when you connected to an FTP archive:
ftp> user anonymous
Welcome to the foo.bar.edu ftp archive.
If you upload or download a file to/from this archive, a
log entry will be made. This log entry will, at a minimum,
contain the name of the system from which you connected to
this archive and the names of the files you uploaded/downloaded.
You will now be asked for your userid. We ask that you supply
this information; however, it is not a requirement. You may
give an anonymous, or totally meaningless, name. This info-
mation will not be distributed to anyone; it will only be used
to build "usage logs" for our archive. However, we will not
accept uploads from users for whom we do not have a valid elec-
tronic address.
You are connecting to us from hooga.eng.foo.edu.
Your userid:
Would you have problems with this implementation?
--
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
"I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu")
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Logging information transcations (was Re: NSFnet rules)
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.203829.2800@robobar.co.uk>
Date: 12 Mar 92 20:38:29 GMT
In article <1992Mar10.180316.12947@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> I am more concerned about downloads that uploads. You ask about what
> abuse is likely to happen. The FBI used to search library records
> (usually without a warrant) looking for people who read "bad" books.
> Those people were then subject of further FBI scrutiny.
I'm sure this applies to me. When comp.archives once listed "The
Big Book of Mischief" as being available, though rec.pyrotechnics,
I assumed it was about how to make homemade firecrackers and sparklers
and mildly innocuous stuff like that - the sort of mischief that you
used to find in kiddy chemistry books in the thirties but now is
hard to come by (school chemistry must be *so* boring nowadays...)
Anyway, it turned out to be a terrorists handbook. I have *no doubt*
that all downloads were logged by the FBI. If they managed to work
out my name from my address (not hard - just use finger - and I gave
my real name...) that probably means I'll be sent back next time
I land at JacTac :-) [OK, I know it's SeaTac now but I always
preferred the old name...]
Graham
--
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Logging usage of services (FTP)
Message-ID: <1992Mar13.012900.532@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 13 Mar 92 01:29:00 GMT
In article <1992Mar12.213307.11252@uunet.uu.net>, revell@uunet (James R Revell Jr) writes:
>Are these actions too extreme? Some will say yes, but if some hot-shot
>prosecutor tries to hold UUNET responsible for some problem with a file
>placed in our archive then we have no choice.
Ah, the thought of how much easier it is to control a society by
making each and every member of the society to be one to report on
suspicious activity. It would be so much more troublesome to do
surveillance of everyone with just one enforcement force. I guess
that's trickle-down loss of privacy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a condemn UUNET or anyone for
logging of access or such. But here's an interesting quotation of
Milan Kundera which I found very interesting reading and which might
be somewhat relevant also on this issue:
From: pfarrer@isr.harvard.edu (David M. Pfarrer)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Milan Kundera on Cowardice
Message-ID: <1992Mar3.162424.15061@burrhus.harvard.edu>
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
I thought I might enlarge the ongoing discussion of responsibility to
fight for rights with the following lengthy quotation from Milan
Kundera's novel _The Unbearable Lightness of Being_. Kundera is a
Czech emigre who now lives in Paris. Only one of his works, _The
Joke_, was published in his native country, during the Prague Spring
of 1968. His other best known work is _The Book of Laughter and
Forgetting_. He is a very great and facinating writer and I would
recommend his work to anyone.
Here's a little background on what follows: Tomas is a surgeon who in
the "Prague Spring" of 1968 published a letter to an intellectual
weekly comparing those communists who were denying any knowledge of
old atrocities and saying that they had always been sincere true
believers in socialism and the greater good to Oedipus.
Tomas's point is that lack
of knowledge is not an excuse; that Oedipus, who unknowingly slays his
father and marries his mother, still must atone for his sin and does
so by blinding himself and giving up the throne of Thebes. A couple
years later, with the Soviet-backed regime back in power, Tomas is
called on to retract his article. What follows is taken from the
novel:
When Tomas came back to Prague from Zurich, he took up in his hospital
where he had left off. Then one day the chief surgeon called him in.
"You know as well as I do," he said, "that you're no writer or
jounalist or savior of the nation. You're a doctor and a scientist.
I'd be very sad to lose you, and I'll do everything I can to keep you
here. But you've got to retract that article you wrote about Oedipus.
Is it terribly important to you?"
"To tell you the truth," said Tomas, recalling how they had amputated
a good third of the text, "it couldn't be any less important."
"You know what's at stake," said the chief surgeon.
He knew all right. There were two things in the balance: his honor
(which consisted in his refusing to reteract what he had said) and
what he had come to call the meaning of his life (his work in medicine
and research).
The chief surgeon went on: "The pressure to make public retractions of
past statements -- there's something medieval about it. What does it
mean, anyway, to 'retract' what you've said? How can anyone state
categorically that a thought he once had is no longer valid? In
modern times an idea can be refuted, yes, but not retracted. And
since to retract an idea is impossible, merely verbal, formal sorcery,
I see no reason why you shouldn't do as they wish. In a society run
by terror, no statements whatsoever can be taken seriously. They are
all forced, and it is the duty of every honest man to ignore them.
Let me conclude by saying that it is in my interest in your patients'
interest that you stay on here with us."
"You're right, I'm sure," said Tomas, looking very unhappy.
"But?" The chief surgeon was trying to guess his train of thought.
"I'm afraid I'd be ashamed."
"Ashamed! You mean to say you hold your colleagues in such high esteem
that you care what they think?"
"No, I don't hold them in high esteem," said Tomas.
"Oh, by the way," the chief surgeon added, "you won't have to make a
public statement. I have their assurance. They're bureaucrats. All
they need is a note in their files to the effect that you've nothing
against the regime. Then if someone comes and attacks them for
letting you work at the hospital, they're covered. They've given me
their word that anything you say will remain between you and them.
They have no intention of publiching a word of it."
"Give me a week to think it over," said Tomas, and there the matter
rested.
[4]
Tomas was considered the best surgeon in the hopital. Rumor had it
that the chief surgeon, who was getting on towards retirement age,
would soon ask him to take over. When that rumor was supplemented by
the rumor that the authorities had requested a statement of
self-criticism from him, no one doubted he would comply.
That was the first thing that struck him: although he had never given
people cause to doubt his integrity, they were ready to bet on his
dishonesty rather than on his virtue.
The second thing that struck him was their reaction to the position
they attributed to him. I might divide it into two basic types:
The first type of reaction came from people who themselves (they or
their intimates) had retracted something, who had themselves been
forced to make public peace with the occupation regime or were
prepared to do so (unwillingly, of course-- no one wanted to do it).
These people began to smile a curious smile at him, a smile he had
never seen before: the sheepish smile of secret conspiratorial
consent. it was the smile of two men meeting accidentally in a
brothel: both slightly abashed, they are at the same time glad that
the feeling is mutual, and a bond of something akin to brotherhood
develops between them.
Their smiles were all the more complacent because he had never had the
reputation of being a conformist. His supposed acceptance of the
chief surgeon's proposal was therefore further proof that cowardice
was slowly but surely becoming the norm of behavior and would soon
cease being taken for what it actually was. He had never been friends
with these people, and he realized with dismay that if he did in fact
make the statement the chief surgeon had requested of him, they would
start inviting him to parties and he would have to make friends with
them.
The second type of reaction came from people who themselves (they or
their intimates) had been persecuted, who had refused to compromise
with the occupation powers or were convinced they would refuse to
compromise (to sign a statement) even though no one had requested it
of them (for instance, because they were too young to be seriously
involved).
One of the latter, Dr.S., a talented young physician, asked Tomas one
day, "Well, have you written it up for them?"
"What in the world are you talking about?" Tomas asked in return.
"Why, your retraction," he said. There was no malice in his voice.
He even smiled. One more smile from that thick herbal of smiles: the
smile of smug moral superiority.
"Tell me, what do you know about my retraction?" said Tomas. "Have you
read it?"
"No," sad S.
"Then what are you babbling about?"
Still smug, still smiling, S. replied, "Look, we know how it goes.
You incorporate it into a letter to the chief surgeon or to some
minister or somebody, and he promises it won't leak out and humiliate
the author. Isn't that right?"
Tomas shrugged his shoulders and let S. go on.
"But even after the statement is safely filed away, the author knows
that it can be made public at any moment. So from then on he doesn't
open his mouth, never criticizes a thing, never makes the slightest
protest. The first peep out of him and into print it goes, sullying
his good name far and wide. On the whole, it's rather a nice method.
One could imagine worse."
"Yes, it's a very nice method," said Tomas, "but would you mind
telling me who gave you the idea I'd agreed to go along with it?"
S. shrugged his shoulders, but the smile did not disappear from his
face.
And suddenly Tomas grasped a strange fact: everyone was smiling at
him, everyone wanted him to write the retraction; it would make
everyone happy! The people with the first type of reaction would be
happy because by inflating cowardice, he would make their actions seem
commonplace and thereby give them back their lost honor. The people
with the second type of reaction, who had come to consider their honor
a special privilege never to be yielded, nurtured a secret love for
the cowards, for without them their courage would soon erode into a
trivial, monotonous grind admired by no one.
Tomas could not bear the smiles. He thought he saw them everywhere,
even on the faces of strangers in the street. He began losing sleep.
Could it be? Did he really hold those people in such high esteem?
No. he had nothing good to say about them and was angry with himself
for letting their glances upset him so. It was completely illogical.
How could someone who had so little respect for people be so dependent
on what they thought of him?
Perhaps his deep-seated mistrust of people (his doubts as to their
right to decide his destiny and to judge him) had played its part in
his choice of profession, a profession that excluded him from public
display. A man who chooses to be a politician, say, voluntarily makes
the public his judge, with the naive assurance that he will gain
favor. And if the crowd does express its disapproval, it merely goads
him on to bigger and better things, much in the way Tomas was spurred
on by the difficulty of a diagnosis.
A doctor (unlike a politician or an actor) is judged only by his
patients and immediate colleagues, that is, behind closed doors, man
to man. Confronted by the looks of those who judge him, he can
respond at once with his own look, to explain or defend himself. Now
(for the first time in his life) Tomas found himself in a situation
where the looks fixed on him were so numerous that he was unable to
register them. He could answer them neither with his own look nor
with words. He was at everyone's mercy. People talked about him
inside and outside the hospital (it was a time when news about who
betrayed, who denounced, and who collaborated spread through nervous
Prague with the uncanny speed of a bush telegraph); although he knew
about it, he could do nothing to stop it. He was surprised at how
unbearable he found it, how panic-stricken it made him feel. The
interest they showed in him was as unpleasant as an elbowing crowd or
the pawings of the people who tear our clothes off in nightmares.
He went to the chief surgeon and told him he would not write a word.
--------------------------------------------
from _The Unbearable Lightness of Being_ by Milan Kundera, Harper and
Row, 1984, pp. 179 - 184.
****************************************************
| David Pfarrer | "Respect means, put |
| pfarrer@isr.harvard.edu | yourself out" |
| pfarrer@harvunxw.bitnet | - Pascal |
****************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 00:00:00 1992
From: prodriguez@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: RE: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <13MAR92.10302321@vax.clarku.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 92 10:30:23 GMT
I agree.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 00:00:00 1992
From: prodriguez@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: RE: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <13MAR92.10321602@vax.clarku.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 92 10:32:16 GMT
I agree.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..)
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <1992Mar13.163028.3949@math.okstate.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 16:30:28 GMT
In article <1992Mar12.174331.13186@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>Would you have problems with this implementation?
>
1. Free admission of address collection,
2. Requisition of redistribution of use list,
3. Benign intent (This is going to get me in trouble...),
4. Dialog between sysadmin and user only (not user's sysadmin),
5. And anonymous login (logged only on download/upload).
These terms don't inflame my passions nearly as much as the previous postings.
About 1., most U.S. states require this.
About 2., again, most U.S. states require this (part of it is Federal...ho hum).
About 3., there needs to be some trust in the world, somewhere, why not here? :)
About 4.: One posting specifically mentioned writing the user's admin. I
object on several grounds. It's not that admin's job to watch your
site. If you have a problem with a user, I volunteer you to bring
it up with the user and explain your problem. If you have a praise
for the user (as the previous post indicated could happen), I still
volunteer you to inform the user. It's the blind justice handed out
by the untouchable sysadmins that will lead to much net-hate from
users. :-[ But, I think my point is made.
About 5., who really cares about who logs in to just look around? I'm more
interested to know who's leaving pckages and picking them up.
(That's right, I agreed with the idea, in principle, initially, but
other of my principles greatly disagreed with the intents and
techniques that were being advocated. Anonymous usage monitoring
isn't, in itself, bad. Neither is an AK-47 Assault Rifle. One is
just a pile of code, the other is just a pile of metal. It's what
you do with it that counts. (My flameout light just lit...))
The posting by Wes Morgan basically summed up what I had intended Anonymous
FTP Login Monitoring to be. Thanks Wes.
Eric Gindrup ! gindrup@hardy.math.okstate.edu
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi."
--Peter Shickele
From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 12:46:56 -0500
From: "Adam C. Gross"
Subject: Privacy and AppleEvents
With the introduction of System 7, and the formation of Taligent, Apple
system software is approaching the complexity and depth of many varities
of UNIX. As Macintosh users tend to less familiar with computing issues
than UNIX users, this raises new concerns when interapplication
communication across networks was introduced.
At Carnegie Mellon, 99% of the Macintoshes in use, a good majority by
students in their dorm rooms, are connected to the campus network.
Recently, while expirementing with IAC (interapplication communication)
programming, I stumbled across and interesting side effect. If a user
has program linking turned on, and the application(s) they are running
supports program linking, then the programs existance is registered on
the net. By browsing through a choser like interface, I could see,
itemized by computer, what applications were currently running. Is this
a violation of privacy?
I realize that many programs, even before system 7, registered
themselves on the net, but in order to discover their existance you had
to use a semi-complex program such as interpol. Now, when any user
tries to link to an application on another computer (similar to
selecting a LaserWriter), they will get a full list of programs running.
In order to connect to an application, you need to enter a password,
but shouldn't you have to enter a password before you are even allowed
to see whats running?
Adam C. Gross
H&SS - Carnegie Mellon University
"Sunday's on the phone to monday, tuesday's on the phone to me."
From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 00:00:00 1992
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <1992Mar13.181344.27087@talon.ucs.orst.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 92 18:13:44 GMT
In article <1992Mar13.163028.3949@math.okstate.edu>
gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
>About 4.: One posting specifically mentioned writing the user's admin. I
> object on several grounds. It's not that admin's job to watch your
> site.
Your admin was not being contacted in an attempt to watch another site,
he was being contacted so that he would know the usage you are making of
HIS site. He has every right to know if you are using his site for
illegal or unethical activity.
> If you have a problem with a user, I volunteer you to bring
> it up with the user and explain your problem.
You can volunteer anyone you want. How kind of you to ASK before you
volunteered someone else. However, with an anonymous ftp site, you
cannot shut off just the offending user. That can only be done at the
origination site. You cannot even know who the offending user WAS, you
know only the site he came in from. To determine the offender, you MUST
contact the remote admin.
> It's the blind justice handed out
> by the untouchable sysadmins that will lead to much net-hate from
> users. :-[ But, I think my point is made.
You have no point. If you don't know who your admin is, that is your
problem.
>About 5., who really cares about who logs in to just look around?
Obviously, you don't. And you don't care that someone who is responsible
for keeping the system that you are using might want to know who is
using it.
> I'm more
> interested to know who's leaving pckages and picking them up.
Fine. You run your site the way you want. Don't try to impose your
philosophy of system management upon others by making up federal law.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U38373@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Re: Logging FTP
Message-ID: <199203132155.AA21322@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 20:40:15 GMT
Wes Morgan's recent suggestion in these pages (requiring actual user ID's
for uploading, but allowing aliases for all other applications) is an accept-
able compromise. A case can be made against full anonymity when users are
submitting items to an archive--with implications for space consumption, and
the possible presence of bugs in software--but there is no need to know the
true identity of anyone who is simply _reading_ that which is stored at an
archive site (assuming that none of the material being read is protected,
or restricted--which is a different matter altogether, and presumably applies
to few if any of the archives under discussion here). In the best case,
assuming it were technologically feasible (which it probably is not), neither
bona fide nor faux user id would be necessary to simply connect to an ftp
site; it would be demanded only if an uploading application were invoked.
I believe in the general principle that demands for identifying information
should be kept to a bare minimum, and only with compelling justification,
even if the information being demanded is not inherently sensitive.
Mitch Pravatiner
U38373@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <1992Mar14.021325.19783@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 02:13:25 GMT
In article <1992Mar12.174331.13186@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>A service provider may collect information on those people who contract
>for the use of their services. The phone company compiles and distributes
>lists of those people who contract for telephone services.
Hah! Damn right... and not only that, but (in USA) they charge you
_extra_ for them not to distribute that information.
8-)
--
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 Mar 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <1992Mar14.024852.6615@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 02:48:52 GMT
In article <1992Mar13.163028.3949@math.okstate.edu> gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
>
>1. Free admission of address collection,
>2. Requisition of redistribution of use list,
>3. Benign intent (This is going to get me in trouble...),
>4. Dialog between sysadmin and user only (not user's sysadmin),
>5. And anonymous login (logged only on download/upload).
>
>These terms don't inflame my passions nearly as much as the previous postings.
8-) The Interesting thing here is that your point #4 requires
authenticated user verification, which although available, really
isn't used by anybody yet (It'll still take a while too... the major
vendors have barely yet begun to ship network software with
authentication). Right now if there's a problem of some kind I have
no choice but to contact your admin, since I have no way of knowning
for sure who you are. If you enter your real user name as the
password, fine, but I can't be sure it's right. It would seem to
follow that if a login was used for vandalism (virus, disk-choking
amounts of images, whatever) that login would also not be trustworthy
in terms of voluntary identification.
Another reason that a sysadmin has to contact another sysadmin is that
in the case of real vandalism the perpetrator may be coming in indirectly,
through systems that have been compromised, public access sites, etc. Think
Clifford Stoll for a moment... 8-) Planting viruses is at least as criminal
and anti-social as computer espionage.
Otherwise you have some good points... in particular, recording login
information at the point of the first file transfer seems like a good
idea... and trivial to implement.
--
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 Mar 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] re: From Whence Cometh the A. U. P.?
Message-ID: <199203141521.AA01374@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 05:21:16 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: craig@aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge)
Subject: re: From Whence Cometh the A. U. P.?
Message-ID: <9203130420.AA13581@aland.bbn.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 12:20:31 GMT
My recollection (and this is now some time ago so I may be wrong) was that
when the AUP first appeared, it was in part explained as being a result of
an OMB ruling about how NSF money could be spent. If this recollection is
correct, then it is presumably the Executive Branch party line that there
exists a statute to justify the OMB ruling.
I do remember that NSF quietly resisted issuing an AUP and that, in part,
it was the demands of the regional networks for an AUP that caused one
to come about.
Craig
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: jrr@concert.net (Joe Ragland)
Subject: Re: From Whence Cometh the A. U. P.?
Message-ID: <9203130407.AA22732@scamp.concert.net>
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Sender: com-priv8-forw@lists.psi.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Distribution: eff
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 18:07:50 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 6
> ... Steve said that he believed that the NSF
> was required by statute to maintain the acceptable use policy.
What I heard Steve say is that NSF counsel (lawyer) had determined
that the statute required an acceptable use policy. He didn't give
an opinion.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
Subject: From Whence Cometh the A. U. P.?
Message-ID: <9203130452.AA05819@world.std.com>
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Sender: com-priv8-forw@lists.psi.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
References: <9203122221.AA28884@tmn.com>
Distribution: eff
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 18:52:31 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 86
>From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
> An example of the difficulty of the commercial use problem. As Mitch
> pointed out in his short testimony....the commercial use restrictions are
> preventing mny information providers from setting up businesses on the net.
>
> Steve Wolff averred toward the very end that this was just not so....any
> information provided on behalf of research or education would fall within
> acceptable use.
Since a site like World.Std.Com (and, apparently, Dialog.Com for a
brief period tho the cavalry showed up) can't get ROUTING approval to
the internet then how can this possibly be true? It's an answer that
does not hold up to the reality of the situation since one has to get
approval to even connect a network.
Mitch and I chat frequently, and I'll guess World was an example he
had in mind. Specifically, we have a vendor here on World, Quantum
Books, a high-tech bookstore near MIT, who is thus restricted. Now
consider the following quote from his Mitch's testimony:
"Users should be able to order ...
books and journals on-line from publishers and vendors."
Can't get a lot closer to a counter-example (to Steve's comment) than
that.
You can at least in theory order books from Quantum via e-mail (AUP is
not entirely clear on that use), but unless you're on CIX you can't
get to Quantum's on-line catalog and other materials here.
And I know from experience, helping sites get hooked up and get AUP
approval, that the tendency is to not approve commercial-ish use
although in at least one case it was somewhat due to their own
experience and knowledge about how to present themselves.
In that specific case I have in mind, NOT being hooked up to the net
was causing double-billing to the government, essentially, as remote
sites at Universities and other govt services were accessing them
through the public dial network, sites which were certainly on the
NSFnet (MIT was one.)
Now, that was just a plain mistake and I helped fix it, no one was at
fault particularly, they just didn't explain themselves well and I had
to interview them to discover this and help them re-write a proposal.
But it's a great example of the atmosphere involved, they were very
frustrated and were fairly sure they should have been approved. And
they were right, they just didn't know how to draw out the salient
points (I thought the double-billing was a pretty good point.)
Another vendor, who I believe wouldn't want me to go into details, is
right now setting up shop here to provide information services very
relevant to the NSFnet's mission, and will also be restricted by AUP.
Others have called me to talk about possibilities and the
conversations ran to just what Mitch described, they find it
discouraging, from a business perspective, if they consider academia
and research to be a major part of their audience.
As someone who lives with the realities rather than the hypothetical
possibilities I can assure everyone it presents a very real obstacle.
It's not fatal as we're offering more access, via CIX, than anyone has
in history to the general public, but it sure wastes my time just
explaining the situation a few times per day (I'd be glad to start
forwarding the e-mail to this list, I'd bet you'll be begging me to
stop after only a few days.) And I know it has discouraged people, and
limited possibilities.
I'm not certain what the right answer is, don't take this as a
condemnation, I do understand the complexities, very much so.
We've built this highway, but imposed these restrictions on who can
use the highways, only automotive engineers, so the car doesn't look
awfully useful. Imagine if federal highways were "no commercial use"
and you were in the trucking industry...?
The worst part is that we'll never get support from those excluded,
right? Food for thought. Maybe that's why we have a one-lane highway,
no trucking lobby.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
Subject: From Whence Cometh the A. U. P.?
Message-ID: <9203122221.AA28884@tmn.com>
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Sender: com-priv8-forw@lists.psi.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Distribution: eff
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 03:21:23 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 23
<> Gordon Cook 12-MAR-92 22:21
cook@tmn
An example of the difficulty of the commercial use problem. As Mitch
pointed out in his short testimony....the commercial use restrictions are
preventing mny information providers from setting up businesses on the net.
Steve Wolff averred toward the very end that this was just not so....any
information provided on behalf of research or education would fall within
acceptable use.
When querried by the chair why the NSF did not just drop acceptable use
policy and either give every one free use of the backbone or charge
everyone for use of the backbone, Steve said that he believed that the NSF
was required by statute to maintain the acceptable use policy.
I am struck by the fact that he did *NOT CITE* **WHAT** the statute is.
Nor in 18 months of reading this list have I to my knowledge ever seen
anyone site the statute.
If indeed the AUP is based in statute would someone please give us a full
citation? Or is AUP just an administrative requirement of the NSF?
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow)
Subject: Re: Books and journals on-line from publishers and vendors
Message-ID: <9203131443.AA05190@fernwood.mpk.ca.us>
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Sender: com-priv8-forw@lists.psi.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
References: geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow)
Distribution: eff
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 14:42:57 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 7
Steve,
If the AUP were widthdrawn or proved baseless, could the NSFNET become or
be declared to be a Common Carrier? Get is own DNIC and all that?
Geoff
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Subject: Re: Books and journals on-line from publishers and vendors
Message-ID: <9203131731.AA05975@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Sender: com-priv8-forw@lists.psi.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
References: <9203131420.AA17671@ncri>
Distribution: eff
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 17:31:20 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 35
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 92 09:20:09 EST, Stephen Wolff said:
> At the House hearings yesterday, Rep. Boucher questioned the basis
> for the NSFNET BB AUP. We're siccing our crack legal staff on the
> issue, but should the AUP prove to be baseless and be subsequently
> withdrawn (or be annulled by legislation), life could get even more
> interesting hereabouts...
Excuse me?
Are you suggesting that NSF instituted its AUP *without* going through
a thorough and careful analysis of whether an AUP was required? I
can't believe that, but that's the way your comments seem to read.
Presumably, NSF did go through such a thorough review of the
applicable statues/executive orders/regulations back in 1988. Why,
then, were you not able to hand Rep. Boucher a sheet of paper
summarizing the legalese that, in the NSF's opinion, demanded an AUP?
An executive summary of the original legal opinion would have
certainly sufficed.
The only reasonable interpretation of your comment I can think of is
that you meant to say that the legalese changed somehow between 1988
and 1992, and that perhaps an AUP is *no longer* mandated. And that
your "crack legal staff" is investigating whether this is the case.
Could you clarify your comments please?
Thanks very much.
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
From caf-talk Caf Mar 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: steve@cise.cise.nsf.gov (Stephen Wolff)
Subject: NSF Testimony
Message-ID: <9203131833.AA18887@ncri>
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Sender: com-priv8-forw@lists.psi.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Distribution: eff
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 18:33:15 GMT
Approved: usenet@eff.org
Lines: 452
Testimony of
Dr. A. Nico Habermann and Dr. Stephen S. Wolff
Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Subcommittee on Science
March 12, 1992
Part 1: Testimony of Dr. A. Nico Habermann
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee
today to provide information about the exciting program in networking
supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and several other
agencies of the U.S. government. I am privileged to serve as the Assistant
Director of the NSF for the Computer and Information Science and
Engineering Directorate, which has responsibility for broad national
research, infrastructure and facilities programs in computer,
communications, and information sciences and engineering. Included among my
responsibilities is leadership of the overall NSF High Performance
Computing and Communications(HPCC) Program with its important components in
national Supercomputer Centers and the NSFNET, the subject of our
discussion today.
In this latter respect, I am pleased to be accompanied by my colleague Dr.
Stephen S. Wolff, Director of the Division of Networking & Communications
Research & Infrastructure (NCRI). Dr. Wolff has provided leadership for
this division since its inception and in this capacity has lead the
creation and development of the NSFNET and the emerging NREN program.
Before turning to Dr. Wolff, to elaborate on the NSFNET, I would very much
like to place this activity in the larger context that it impacts.
Background
The President's High Performance Computing and Communications Program,
which was announced on February 5, 1991, consists of four components, one
of which is the National Research and Education Network (NREN). The NSFNET
activity is part of the NREN component. The NREN is also a major subject of
the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194) that was signed
by the President this past December. This Act, that your Committee was
instrumental in drafting, provides important impetus to the presidential
HPCC initiative.
Leadership and direction for the HPCC Program is provided by the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, through the FCCSET Committee on Physical,
Mathematical, and Engineering Sciences (PMES). The High Performance
Computing, Communications, and Information Technology (HPCCIT) subcommittee
is chartered under the PMES and is composed of an executive council and
four task groups to coordinate science and engineering computing, computer
research and development, Federal networking and communications, and
education. Since October 1991, I have
served as the Co-Chairman of this Networking activity.
As described in the Supplement to the President's FY 1993 Budget, "Grand
Challenges 1993: High Performance Computing and Communications", NSF is
designated as the coordinating agency for the NREN program. As the NREN
title indicates, to quote from the Grand Challenges report, "The NREN
program is both a goal of the HPCC Program and a key enabling technology
for success in the other components. The NREN is the future realization of
an interconnected gigabit computer network system supporting HPCC." If we
are successful in deploying this technology for the research and education
community, then aside from supporting current science and technology Grand
Challenge Applications that are important to federal mission agencies, it
will broadly influence communications technology development. However, it
is important to bear in mind, that the government program, as its name
implies, primarily supports computer and communications networking for
research and education, not general purpose usage. Nonetheless, the NREN
component incorporates important testbeds and research for new
communications technologies.
The NREN component is dedicated to promoting communications among
researchers, educators, and students in the U.S. The NREN activities
contribute directly to the goals of the High PerformanceComputing and
Communications Program in three ways:
1) by extending U.S. technological leadership in computer communications;
2) by enhancing the dissemination and application of computer and
communications technologies to enable advances on applications such as,
Grand Challenges; and
3) by demonstrating innovative new means of communication to spur gains in
U.S. productivity.
In order to achieve these goals, the NREN program consists of two
sub-components: one that supports the development and enhancement of
network backbone services, which serves the purpose of connecting a large
number of regional research and education networks - the Interagency
Interim NREN; and a second sub-component, which supports basic and
experimental research in the design of large-scale, high-speed networks for
future use (gigabit networks R&D).
The first NREN sub-component, developing connections between existing and
growing regional networks, includes three network backbones supported by
NSF, DOE and NASA. The backbone currently supported by NSF is the NSFNET,
which connects a large number of regional networks at a variety of
educational and research institutions throughout the U.S. The NSFNET
backbone, all of whose services are competitively procured from the private
sector, provides a networking superstructure that enables scientists and
educators to communicate across the boundaries of their regional networks.
The second NREN subcomponent, supporting networking research, includes a
collection of five gigabit testbed networks, connecting experimental sites
across the entire nation.
At each step of the development of the NSF NREN program, we must ask
ourselves why the government should continue to be involved with the
private sector in developing computer network infrastructure to support the
research and education community. Although the private sector plays an
increasingly important role, there are indeed cogent reasons why the
government should stay involved in important aspects of a host of
activities in network development and research. In order to put further
discussion regarding NSF's role in networking in perspective, it seems
proper to list here the main reasons, as we see them, for NSF's continued
involvement in support of technology development and deployment.
The proper and effective use of very high speed computer networks, and
the connection between networks will require innovative research across
various disciplines and technologies that government, industry, and
academia working together are uniquely capable of providing.
It is certain that the capabilities of networks can be increased at least
a hundred-fold to support a mode of interaction we can only dream of today.
(Imagine, for example, the impact of a hundred-fold increase in both
aircraft speed and passenger capacity on travel, military, and on airports,
etc!). To meet these challenges, industrial and academic R&D, coordinated
and focused by the Federal Government, will concentrate on the advanced
generic technologies required to realize a very high speed network.
Since there is practically no limit to further development of networking
technology, the research and education community should be stimulated to
find and explore innovative ways of communicating with each other and with
growing information sources. At this time, we think that the development
will lead to the use of networks for remote, interactive, real-time
computing. However, experience with the ARPANET, designed in the
mid-seventies, has shown that the outcome may well be both broader and
richer than our original expectations.
Networks help broaden the participation for the entire country by
providing equal access to advanced computer facilities, such as, the
supercomputer centers, for remote and relatively isolated parts of the
country and similarly help increase the involvement of minorities and
under-represented groups in the research and education enterprise. This
enables all scientists and students to more fully participate in
leading-edge research and education opportunities that otherwise might not
be affordable.
My final point supporting NSF involvement in this technology development
and deployment relates to the need to encourage all educational
institutions, including K-12, to explore the networking capabilities that
allow them to access and use the tools that researchers develop and utilize
in the work on the Grand Challenges. This can lead to more excitement in
education and may stimulate more students to enter science and engineering.
NSF welcomes the opportunity to work with the private sector on these and
all other aspects of networking to the benefit of our science and education
community in the interest of the Nation's future. And now with your
permission, I would like to turn to my colleague Dr. Stephen Wolff to
provide an overview of the current state of NSF's networking program and
summarize the management and development plan and associated policy issues.
Part 2: Testimony of Dr. Stephen S. Wolff
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to appear today before this
committee to discuss the NSFNET and related activities.
There are three parts to my testimony. I will discuss first the current
state of the NSFNET Backbone project, including its relationships to other
networks that actually, or potentially connect to it, and also the
management controls the NSF has in place with its awardee, Merit, Inc.
Second, I shall report on the progress we have made in implementing the
Project Development Plan for continuation and enhancement of NSFNET
Backbone services which was approved by the National Science Board in
November last. Finally, I shall briefly discuss the relationships between
the NSFNET and NREN programs, including the interagency management
structure now evolving for the NREN as an Administration program with a
legislative authority.
Current State, Other Networks, and Management Controls
a. Current State The five year cooperative agreement between the Foundation
and Merit, Inc. for management and operation of the NSFNET Backbone was
signed in November, 1987, after a five month period of competitive
announcement and merit review of proposals. Merit, and its partners IBM and
MCI, put in place a 1 3-node, 1.5 mb/s (million-bits-per-second), or T1,
network in a very short time. The new Backbone began to carry traffic in
August, 1988. In that month, traffic doubled over the July figure for the
original Backbone network that the new one supplanted.
Since August, 1988, traffic on the Backbone has increased more than
fifty-fold, from 200 million to 11 billion packets per month. This increase
in traffic has been accommodated by hundreds of minor engineering
improvements to the network and two major upgrades. The first upgrade
increased the number of links in the network from 14 to 19. This increased
the robustness of the Backbone by multiply connecting all 13 nodes, and it
increased capacity as well. The second upgrade increased the number of
Backbone nodes from 13 to 16 (the three new nodes were competitively
selected), and raised the transmission speed from T1 to T3 (1.5 to 45
mb/s).
All the engineering improvements and both major upgrades were clearly
foreseen and discussed in Merit's original farsighted proposal to the NSF.
Such are the economies of scale in telecommunications that the upgrades to
accommodate a fifty-fold traffic increase have been achieved with only a
doubling in cost to the Foundation - from the original $14 Million over
five years to the present five-year project cost of $28 Million.
The NSFNET Backbone is the linchpin of the overall NSFNET project, which
includes establishment of and assistance to regional networks that deliver
Backbone service to every state in the union. Other significant measures of
the size and success of the NSFNET project include:
More than 600 of the 3-to-4,000 two-year and four-year colleges and
universities in the nation are interconnected, including all the schools in
the top two categories of the Carnegie Foundation classification of major
research universities.
Several hundred high schools are also connected, but the exact number is
difficult to determine since regional networks have widely leveraged NSF
funds to connect the smaller institutions without NSF's direct involvement.
Many industrial research organizations and commercial establishments that
support the nation's scholarly enterprise are connected; indeed, the
so-called ".COM" domain is the fastest growing segment of the network.
The NSFNET Backbone is the default infrastructure for the nation's
research and education community. It carries, for example, ten times the
traffic of the Department of Energy's ESnet Backbone which interconnects
many NSFNET client sites with national laboratories and other DoE
facilities.
By selecting a proven set of open communication protocols ("TCP/IP") and
mandating their use in the NSFNET, the Foundation catalyzed an entire
industry in which there are now upwards of a half dozen US manufacturers.
US made packet switches and gateways dominate the world market, and a T1
packet switch can now be bought for well under $10,000. (By contrast,
before NSFNET, the most widely used network packet switch operated at a
speed of only 56,000 bits per second and was priced at $120,000. A further
effect has been to substantially increase the connectedness of the
scientific community as several other large networks, e.g., MFENET, the
forerunner to ESnet, and European HEPNET, the European High Energy Physics
network, have switched in recent years from their own proprietary
communication protocols to those (TCP/IP) compatible with the NSFNET.)
NSFNET's selection of TCP/IP has led to it becoming the most widely used
set of open communication protocols in the world. Procedures for
transporting these protocols over emerging telecommunications services,
such as the Switched Multi-megabit Data Services (SMDS) and Frame Relay
have recently advanced to Draft Standard status. Because of this, NSFNET
and the Internet will be able to benefit from whatever economies may be
available fromusing the new offerings of the telecommunications carriers.
Scientists and educators on NSFNET can now collaborate over the network
with their peers in 39 countries on 7 continents, and every month brings
new requests for connection to the US network of which the NSFNET and its
Backbone is the principal component.
b. Other Networks Another measure of the success and influence of the
NSFNET project has been the emergence and rapid growth of private sector
offerors of TCP/IP network services. These include: UUNET Technologies,
which indeed predated the NSFNET, but has grown rapidly in recent years;
Performance Systems International (PSI), a spinoff from the NSF funded
regional network NYSERNET; Advanced Networks and Systems (ANS), who provide
NSFNET Backbone Services under contract to Merit; US Sprint; InfoNet, a
multinational
TCP/IP provider; and CERFnet, which functions as a regional network in
Southern California. Several of these private providers have formed a
cooperative for interchanging traffic known as the Commercial Internet
Exchange, or CIX, of which Mitch Kapor is Chair.
The NSFNET Backbone is limited to uses compatible with the NSF enabling
legislation, as amended. There is an "NSFNET Backbone Services Acceptable
Use Policy" (the "AUP", a copy of which is attached to this testimony)
which was developed in consultation with an NSF Advisory Committee and the
NSF General Counsel and expresses this limitation. The general principle is
worth stating, "NSFNET Backbone services are provided to support open
research and education in and among U.S. research and instructional
institutions, plus research arms of for-profit firms when engaged in open
scholarly communication and research"
By contrast, the private providers, have no such limitations. Although much
of the traffic on their networks need not conform to the AUP, it is NSF
policy to allow the private providers to use NSFNET Backbone services to
exchange AUP-conformant traffic between their customers and NSFNET clients.
However, the NSFNET Backbone may NOT be used by the private providers as a
"transit network" - i.e., to interconnect their fee paying customers.
In this traffic sharing environment, ANS occupies an especially sensitive
position since NSF indirectly, through Merit, is one of its customers.
Accordingly, NSF has made special arrangements with Merit to monitor the
quality of service afforded to NSFNET and to ensure that the traffic of
ANS' private customers does not adversely impact NSFNET Backbone services.
c. Management Controls The NSF participates with Merit, IBM, MCI, the State
of Michigan, and (since its formation in 1990) ANS in three series of
regular meetings which collectively form the primary means of oversight and
control. There is a biweekly "Partner Conference Call" which functions at
the tactical level, a monthly "Engineering Meeting" for technical
desiderata, and a quarterly Executive Committee meeting which considers
strategic issues. During the transition from the T1 Backbone to T3, the
Executive Committee also scheduled weekly conference calls. As provided for
in the Cooperative Agreement with Merit, NSF convened a blue ribbon review
panel of academic and industry experts and conducted a two day long review
of Merit's Backbone performance at the eighteen month anniversary. The
panel rated Merit's performance "excellent".
The Project Development Plan
In November, 1991, the National Science Board (NSB) approved a plan for
continuation and enhancement of NSFNET Backbone Services beyond the
expiration of the current cooperative agreement with Merit in November,
1992. The NSB also approved an extension of the agreement for a period not
to exceed eighteen months in order to allow new providers to be
competitively selected and to provide for an orderly transition. A copy of
the Plan is attached to this testimony.
The Plan was developed after more than a year of external consultation.
During this year of consulting the external community, NSF supported two
workshops at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard - one in March
1990 and the second in November, 1990. These workshops involved university
networkers, economists, specialists in public policy (especially
telecommunications policy), telecommunications carriers, and others. NSF's
sister Federal agencies involved in the NREN were consulted at a meeting
convened for this purpose in July, 1991, since the NSFNET Backbone is the
most heavily used Backbone network among the several agency networks that
are developing the NREN. The Foundation sponsored a workshop in August,
1991, by the Federation of American Research Networks (FARNET), a trade
association that was inaugurated in 1987 to act as the voice of the
regional networks, the "users" of Backbone services. The workshop was also
attended by all the private providers of Backbone services, as well as
telephone company representatives.
In addition, the Networking & Communications Research & Infrastructure
Division Advisory Committee was consulted at its meeting in November 1991.
That Committee includes leading researchers in the communications and
networking field, private network providers, and telephone company
representatives. Moreover, NCRI staff participated at public meetings of
the networking community, such as meetings of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (sponsored by industry), Net '90 and Net '91 (sponsored by the
academic and user community), and others. The Plan has a schedule that
includes release of a draft Solicitation in February 1992, a three month
period for public comment, followed by release of the final solicitation in
May.
Owing to unexpected delays in releasing a separate but related
solicitation, and the technical complexity of the proposed new NSFNET
Backbone architecture, it has not been possible to adhere to the original
schedule. The other solicitation has been released, NSF's engineering
experts have been consulted, and it now appears the draft solicitation will
be ready at the end of March, so the schedule has slipped by about eight
weeks. We believe there is still adequate time to accomplish the
solicitation-review-award-transition process within the eighteen month
extension authorized by the NSB. The technology permits a planned, gradual,
and orderly transition of traffic from one provider's facilities to
another's.
The transition, now in progress, of moving traffic from the T1 Backbone to
T3 provides practical experience for the future. The Plan provides for a
degree of continuing competition among two or more TCP/IP service providers
in furnishing NSFNET Backbone Services. There will however be no
significant changes in the rules for access to NSFNET Backbone Services by
commercial service providers. The Acceptable Use Policy, developed in
consultation with the NCRI Division Advisory Committee and the NSF General
Counsel represents, in the opinion of Counsel, the most liberal
interpretation possible under the NSF enabling legislation, as amended.
This current policy allows access to commercial services for the support of
open scholarly research and education under the General AUP Principle
stated above.
NSF believes the next award will clarify the issues in free and open
competition for the provision of Backbone services, and will conclude with
at least two fully qualified and experienced providers of bulk services. It
is likely, therefore, that NSFNET Backbone funds may - after the end of the
next award (i.e., by FY 1996) - be distributed competitively to those
organizations (currently the regional networks) who require Backbone
services so that they may procure them competitively on the open market and
free of Federal intervention. NSF had wished to employ this model at the
expiration of the Merit award, but was advised at the FARNET workshop that
the regional networks (the "users") were unprepared for that degree of
operational complexity on their part. Moreover, sister Federal agencies
felt in addition that such a procedure would, at the current state of
technology, result in serious routing instability in the network,
prejudicial to the accomplishment of their missions, since they depend
heavily on the NSFNET to reach many of their grantees and contractors. NSF
will continue working with the regional networks and the sister Federal
agencies to overcome these obstacles.
In a separate, but closely related activity, the NSF has just released a
competitive solicitation for Network Information and Registration Services.
These are services which have traditionally been provided for the worldwide
Internet by Network Information Centers (NlCs) associated with the major US
Backbone networks (i.e., ARPANET, NSFNET, ESnet, and the NASA Science
Internet) as well as by Centers operated by NSF regional networks, by
campus network organizations, and by the private TCP/IP network providers.
The principal NIC, however, was for many years operated by SRI
International under contract to the Defense Communications Agency (now the
Defense Information Systems Agency, DISA). In a recent re-competition held
by DISA, SRI lost the contract to another firm. DISA is funding the new
contractor, GSI, to serve only the Defense Data Network; accordingly, NSF
is funding GSI on a month-to-month basis for service to the rest of the
Internet (including, of course, its largest component, the NSFNET) until
NSF's recently released solicitation can result in a new Network
Information Center. During the month-to-month funding, NSF is closely
monitoring GSl's operation. It is interesting to note that the commercial
users of the Internet, many of whom are clients of the private TCP/IP
providers, form the largest single user class of GSl's services.
Relation to NREN
Finally, I would like to turn briefly to the relation of the NSFNET to the
overall NREN program that is part of the HPCC Program described earlier by
Dr. Habermann. The planning process for the HPCC Program is coordinated by
the HPCCIT Subcommittee. This subcommittee meets regularly to coordinate
agencies' HPCC programs through information exchange, common development of
interagency initiatives, and review of individual agency HPCC proposals and
budgets. This process provides for agency participation through agency
proposal development and review, budget crosscut development and review,
and interagency program coordination. Agency programs are reviewed against
a set of evaluation criteria for merit, contribution, readiness, linkages
to industry, and other factors.
During 1990, in order to provide for broader and more inclusive
coordination of research and education communities, the NSF, as part of its
HPCCIT network task group activities, created the Federal Networking
Council (FNC) and initiated the creation of an FNC Advisory Committee
(FNCAC) as an NSF advisory committee.
The FNC consists of representatives from Federal agencies that have
requirements for operating and using networking facilities, mainly in
support of research and education, and for advancing the evolution of the
Federal portion of the Internet. Membership lists of the FNC and FNCAC are
attached to this testimony. Achieving the goals of the NREN will require
close coordination of the NSFNET, NASA Science Internet (NSI) and Energy
Sciences Network (ESNet) programs to meet the expectations of scientists
working on the Grand Challenge problems. At the same time, however, the
NSFNET program will vigorously pursue wider NREN goals of developing the
technologies that will enable access by libraries, use for lifelong
education, and connection to health care systems, etc. The NSF will
continue to involve the private sector to the greatest extent possible for
meeting the goals of public policy in this arena in the most cost-effective
and technically responsive way. NSF is participating with the other
agencies in the FNC in the drafting of the NREN report required of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy by the High Performance Computing
Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194.)
----------END OF FORWARDED MESSAGE(S)
--
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 14 00:000 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: <9203141526.AA13645@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 03:26:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: bishop@netcom.com (Mike Sherwood)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <_85hmchbishop@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 12:44:57 GMT
peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>I'm afraid you have jumped to a conclusion that isn't warranted based
>on a single sentence in my message. I don't hate IRC. I don't hate people
>who use IRC a lot. I'm just concerned about people who spend *too* much time
>in IRC (or rogue, or netnews, or any other neat new toy) and burn out. I've
>seen it happen too many times.
Well, I think that many of us on the net use computers to excess, yet I don't
think anyone would argue against it, because for them to do so, they would
not only have to be reading this particular newsgroup, but also have to be
using a computer. To me, it seems that there is an implication that
spending too much time with any "toy" will burn you out. This of course is
not the case because the people who play around with unix way too much aren't
referred to as burnouts, but rather wizards, gurus, and hackers (by the true
definition, not the one the uninformed media uses). I guess what I'm trying
to say here is that if someone burns out on something, it's not the thing
they burn out on that's at fault, but rather the person for not knowing when
to slow down if necessary.
>--
>-- Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation
>-- Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; +1 713 274 5180
>-- "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
--
Mike Sherwood
bishop@netcom.com
From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 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: <9203141526.AA13636@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 03:26:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 22:16:22 GMT
In article <9203052325@gandalf.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> u31b3hs@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Michael Haardt) writes:
> "To catch the real IRC fanatics..." It seems to me, that you don't like
> people who spend much of their time there. Your opinion may be based on
> personal experience or other things, I don't know. But I really hate
> such sentences. They are full of hidden meanings, all negative.
The hidden meanings aren't in the sentence. They're in your expectations.
I'm afraid you have jumped to a conclusion that isn't warranted based
on a single sentence in my message. I don't hate IRC. I don't hate people
who use IRC a lot. I'm just concerned about people who spend *too* much time
in IRC (or rogue, or netnews, or any other neat new toy) and burn out. I've
seen it happen too many times.
Like I said, IRC as a problem solves itself... you just need to watch the
folks who might get burned out while it's doing so. And don't read things
into Usenet messages that weren't put there.
--
-- Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation
-- Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; +1 713 274 5180
-- "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Liabilities of providing access
Message-ID: <9203141705.AA14055@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 05:05:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 00:00:00 1992
From: rob@mother.bates.edu (Rob Spellman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Liabilities of providing access
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.211657.3511@mother.bates.edu>
Date: 12 Mar 92 21:16:57 GMT
I am interested in providing a local k-12 school district with IP
access to our network, and therefore to the Internet. In speaking
with our network provider, they brought up the issue of liability. In
particular, they are concerned about what is going to happen when a
parent sees their child bring home a story from some newsgroup like
alt.sex, and the adult screams that we are providing their child with
access to pornography. Would the parent have any legal recourse against
us, or our network provider? Even if they didn't have a case, I don't
think that my college would like the publicity.
What other problems (other then hardware) am I going to have in
providing this type of access?
--
Rob Spellman
rob@mother.bates.edu
Computing Support Services
Bates College
From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: alt.* groups removed at the University of Nebraska
Message-ID: <9203141706.AA14064@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 05:06:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 00:00:00 1992
From: random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: alt.* groups removed at the University of Nebraska
Message-ID: <5UWIq*HB0@presto.UUCP>
Date: 12 Mar 92 22:45:09 GMT
In article <1992Mar10.043443.8441@unlinfo.unl.edu>, David Burchell writes:
> Well, we thought that we were immune from the insanity of
> censorship at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
> NOT! While I was in Kansas City at the 20th Computer
> Science Conference, the alt.* hierarcy was eliminated
Are you sure this is a censorship issue? They just might have
removed the alt hierarcy to save on system resources, ie
diskspace, and cash. A full newsfeed with alt can be expensive.
Before you start talking censorship, you might want to find out
why.
--
"If winning is not // Jeff Hyche
important, then \\ // UUCP: ...!uunet!sci34hub!presto!merlin
why keep score?" Lt. Worf \X/ GEnie: J.HYCHE
From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: This year(?!): Email access to Congress
Message-ID: <9203152220.AA08602@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 10:20:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 00:00:00 1992
From: max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: This year(?!): Email access to Congress
Message-ID: <2LkoHB1w164w@underg.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 08:57:12 EST
tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel) writes:
> Of course, if my paper-letter offends my senator, he's not very likely to
> send my local postmaster around to rip my mailbox out of the wall. If my
> my e-mail upsets him, what admin would ignore a request from big.wig@senate.g
> to kill my account?
Just about any sysadmin worth his salt would.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-= Max Cray =-
Net: underg%max@uunet.uu.net Support
UUCP: ...!uunet!idsvax!underg!max Free
Data: The Underground Computing Foundation BBS Software
401-847-2603 -=- 9600 baud (v.32) (w/src)
CI$: 76334,2203
From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.network, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up stronge in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9203152242.AA09653@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 10:42:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 00:00:00 1992
From: sysop@alphanet.imp.com (Marc SCHAEFER)
Newsgroups: ch.network,ch.general,eunet.news,news.admin,de.admin.news,alphanet.general
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up stronge in Switzerland
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Mar 92 20:37:48 GMT
In article <3818@ixgch.uucp> chris@ixgch.uucp (Christoph Eckert) writes:
> sorry, but you're definitely WRONG. you people always forget that
> SWITCH is funded as a foundation by the swiss universities and therefore
> financed (!!!) by the federation, the cantons and the universities.
> SWITCH is really NO PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. i hope this is finally clear.
SWITCH seems to fear a scandal like the one that came out in Germany. They
probably think it's better to ban the involved newsgroups as a preventive
measure.
The way they did it (ie removing all groups containing "sex", even serious
discussion newsgroups) shows well that this was an administrative decision
made by people not really knowing the contents of the newsgroups.
> now this means:
> SWITCH has to carry what their sponsors tell them to carry and NOT what
> SWITCH thinks is good for its "customers". the whole mess is the result
> of SWITCH's perverted organization!
The "sponsors", as you wrote, receive money from the state, but decisions
are taken by politicians, who could be influenced by a large press campaign.
A sex-scandal would perhaps lead them to cut on research and education budgets.
Don't forget that our government already started to diminish credits in view
of the "record" deficits of 92-93.
Infact, I think that SWITCH decision was made too quickly, and without any
connection to the real problem : it is definitely not a good idea to banish
newsgroups without first asking for a general debate, particularly if there
is no sufficient legal basis.
We'll have to vote this year about legalizing soft pornography, won't we ?
Bye Ms...
--
+------------------_+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Marc SCHAEFER _ //| sysop@alphanet.imp.com FIDO: Marc Schaefer@2:302/562 |
| Battieux 6c \X/ | alphanet@kosta.vseth.ethz.ch FTP: 130.60.80.80 |
| 2013 COLOMBIER CH| For fast response (week only): alphanet@impch.imp.com |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
We pay for incoming and outgoing mail, please don't send long files
From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <9203152242.AA02531@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 10:42:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <1992Mar13.014538.27729@talon.ucs.orst.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 01:45:38 GMT
In article <1992Mar12.164628.3013@math.okstate.edu> gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
>In article <1992Mar11.192107.278@talon.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>Absolutely. Those who use random sites to upload pornographic or other
>
>As should those who do not.
You are apparently unable to detect sarcasm. Also unable to understand
the meaning of followup-to: poster.
>>For using a system improperly. The existance of a site that will accept
>>anonymous FTP files is not blanket permission to put files there.
>
>If you don't want files put there why do you have an anonymous FTP site?
For authorized users whom I do not want to have to maintain separate
accounts. This is the normal reason for anonymous ftp.
>>Baloney. I will welcome uploads FROM USERS WHO USE THE SYSTEM FOR ITS
>>INTENDED PURPOSE. The rest of the community has no right to use this
>>system.
>
>What is that purpose?
You aren't authorized to use this site, you don't need to know.
>Do you plainly state that purpose immediately upon
>login?
I do not need to. Finding an anonymous ftp site is not authorization to
use it. Were I to advertise anonymous files via archie, that would be
authorization to use it. Since I have not, you are not, even though you
might be able to get my ftpd to talk to you.
>Is the community supposed to be psychic in order to know the
>administrators particular quirks?
No, the community SHOULD be smart enough to realize that, as I have
said many times and you keep ignoring, the existance of a writeable
anonymous ftp directory is not blanket permission to the world to use
it. But, people like you are the reasons that admins need to use
inetd filters and special ftpd's to keep their disks from being used by
j.random.asshole who thinks that the world exists to support his
computing hobby.
>Or, are you a sniper in a tower shooting
>down files and ideas that don't suit your mood today?
Right.
>from a mile off of the beach like that," *is* lashing out. If you don't
>like the download, don't keep it. Does your distaste warrant your
>abridgement of another persons freedom to use other portions of the
>network? I think not.
If you are using the system administered by 'your sysop' for illegal
purposes, you have no right to complain that someone else tells him
that.
>Again, if you don't want anonymous use, why have anonymous login?
For authorized users. Is that really a hard concept to grasp?
>>As are all the laws concerning illegal use. The fact that a system
>>belongs to the government does not make it legal for you to use it.
>
>The fact that you publicly offer its use makes it legal for me to use
>it.
Baloney. The mere presence of a writable anonymous ftp directory does not
'publicly offer its use'.
>Before you set your opinion on this you'd better check. This is a'kin' to
>the legalism that a restaurant or grocery store can not *legally* ask you
>for your social security number, your place of work, your phone number,
>your address, nor even your Driver's License number when you remit a check
Check again. Stores may, indeed, ask you for identification such as your
phone number, your address, or other identification when you cash a
check. They may, indeed, ensure that your phone number and address are
on the check, and may ask to verify that information. While some states
have limited what may be requested, I think you will find that there are
dollar amounts above which those items may still be requested.
>>(Do you think we should tell this guy about the USENET address database
>>that has been collecting his name and adresses?)
>
>Don't bother. I think he already knows.
[three more complete copies of this posting deleted]
Maybe I should tell him how to use an editor?
From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID: <9203152243.AA09415@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 10:43:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: Logging system usage (FTP), was Re: NSFnet rules
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 07:19:05 GMT
In <1992Mar12.164628.3013@math.okstate.edu> gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
>If you don't want files put there why do you have an anonymous FTP site?
Having guest ftp does not mean you can dump anything you want there.
>It isn't, but sending a message to my sysop that "Mr. X put material on my
>machine, Y, that is illegal/immoral/*bad*/distasteful/whatever and I want
^^^^^^^
If it is indeed illegal, then reporting should be done. By uploading
illegal material, you are placing an enormous liability on the sysop
and the organization owning the system.
>Again, if you don't want anonymous use, why have anonymous login?
OK, that's fair. My ftp server no longer will accept 'anonymous' as
a login name. Now you can only get in as 'ftp' or 'guest'. This is
just semantics though. Sure, anonymous was a bad choice of words,
but it's dangerous to read so much into one word. Does having
'Welcome' in my login message invalidate the restrictions noted in
that message?
>I fully understand that. The point is that the administrators are responsible
>to the owners who are responsible to .... on up to the (omnipresent)
>Federal Government.
Who are exactly the people who told me I couldn't carry certain files.
My responsibility (which you acknowledge) includes making sure that
their restrictions on use are enforced.
>The fact that you publicly offer its use makes it legal for me to use
>it.
Yes you can use the service, but you cannot use it for *anything*.
>Before you set your opinion on this you'd better check. This is a'kin' to
>the legalism that a restaurant or grocery store can not *legally* ask you
>for your social security number, your place of work, your phone number,
>your address, nor even your Driver's License number when you remit a check
>because with this information and your check, it is possible to really
>screw over your checking account.
And I am free to refuse service if you don't provide the information
I want. If you don't want to, you don't have to use the service.
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | "Like beauty and sadness/It's hard
(805) 893-4113 | to love/With so much to hate/I'm
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | feeling worthless" -Life Talking
