From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: alt.* groups removed at the University of Nebraska
Message-ID: <1992Mar16.162653.26942@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 16:26:53 GMT
Here is an email update from burchell@cse.unl.edu. I'm posting
with the author's permission.
- Carl
================================
I'll quickly update you on what is going on at UNL:
When a reporter friend of mine from the school newspaper
(the Daily Nebraskan) pressed the head of CRC (Computing
Resource Center, our college computer administrators)
on the issue of removing the alt.* groups, he claimed
that the reason they were removed is due to a lack of space
to store them.
However, we have strong reasons to believe that this is not
the case, and that censorship is the real reason behind the
alt.* group elimination.
An article in the Daily Nebraskan will most likely be out tomorrow
(Mon).
We are having an organizational meeting of Nebraska University
Students for Electronic Freedom (or something like that; we are
not sure yet of the name) Tuesday after the ACM meeting.
We plan to get status as a recognized student organization and
to circulate a petition condemning the action.
I am going to personally apply for a postion on the Computing Facilities
and Resources Committee. There has been a student rep in the past,
but he seems to have taken an internship in Texas and left us without
representaion on the committee.
There will also be a new seat on that committee for a grad student,
due to an unrelated restructuring of the committe.
We have some idea who to have apply for that postion as well.
We will be contacting the Omaha people and try to get them to join our
group (they are on the same network that we are, Huskernet).
I would appriciate any comments you may have on all this.
And thanks once more for your interest and assistance.
--
Dave Burchell | Review your options.
burchell@cse.unl.edu | Amiga.
ianr056@unlvm.bitnet |
--
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 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: Books and journals on-line from publishers and vendors
Message-ID: <199203161722.AA28125@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 07:22:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: steve@cise.cise.nsf.gov (Stephen Wolff)
Subject: Re: Books and journals on-line from publishers and vendors
Message-ID: <9203161603.AA21435@ncri>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 16:02:57 GMT
The NSFNET Backbone Services AUP is a joint product of the NSF Networking
Division's Staff and Advisory Committee and the NSF General Counsel. At the
hearings, I was not prepared with the specific citations in the NSF
legislative history and have asked Counsel to supply them.
The Congress may disagree that the citations uphold an AUP, or they may
agree but state that they do not wish the inference to be drawn; in either
case the AUP may fall after further discussions between the Executive and
Legislative branches, with possible intervention of the courts. Or of
course we may all agree that the AUP stands.
My note's only intent was to let the community know that the AUP is being
reappraised, as the Congress requested.
-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 16 00:00:00 1992
From: yusri@uop.uop.edu (mohd yusri)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: need help in using 8251 for embedded system
Message-ID:
Date: 17 Mar 92 01:38:33 GMT
Hi,
Actually, I'm not very sure that I'm posting to the right group.
Anyway, I need some help.
I'm a student, and for one of my project, I decided to use USART 8251
for serial communication to a remote PC (IBM compatible) from an
embedded system I designed.
The problem is that, I need a 9600 Hz clock cycle for USART's TxC and
RxC, and all I got are 4 MHz and 2MHz clock cycle which came from a
timer (8284 with 12 MHz crystal). So, how can I manipulate either one
of the clock cycle (4 MHz or 2 MHz) so that I can get a 9600 Hz?
These are what I had tried and will try :
1. use a counter and design a "devide-by-X", where X is the a power
of 2 number. This doesn't work since I cannot get exectly 9600 Hz.
2. use a 555 timer. The problem with this method is that the
tolerence is too high.
3. use a baud rate generator. This is too expensive.
So, can somebody shed some light to this problem, or direct me to the
appropriate group?
Thanks.
peace,
Mohd Yusri
Computer Engineering
Univ. of the Pacific.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.politics.correct] Charles Vest and the Michigan speech code
Message-ID: <9203170509.AA01135@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 17:09:15 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S. Roy)
Subject: Charles Vest and the Michigan speech code
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.000935.10773@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 00:09:35 GMT
One of our staffers, Mithran Mathew, has already inquired on this subject, but
I'll inquire once again...
Counterpoint, a new MIT-Wellesley magazine, is looking for information relating
to former University of Michigan provost Charles Vest and his role in the speech
code, which was instituted while he was provost. He has said publicly that he
"defends free speech gladly and with conviction;" however, we suspect his record
at Michigan will show otherwise. We are really looking for information
specifically related to Vest's involvement in the speech code or his authority
related to it. Does anyone have any ideas? Also, something that would be
helpful are the phone numbers of the offices of the Michigan Review and the
Michigan Daily.
Thanks in advance,
Avik S. Roy
Publisher
Counterpoint
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Libraries in the Present
Message-ID: <9203170510.AA01149@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 17:10:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: sea0t@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Susan E. Anderson)
Subject: Libraries in the Present
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.030434.2190@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 03:04:34 GMT
On March 16 the American Library Association and Friends of Libraries
USA launched the Call for America's Libraries campaign to rally public
support for America's libraries, librarians and, the Right to Know.
This campaign will run March 16 through National Library Week, April
5-11. For the first time ever, Americans nationwide will be able to
register their support for libraries by simply picking up the
telephone and calling a special toll-free number: 1-800-530-8888.
Callers will be asked if they agree with the following statement:
I believe America's librarians are essential to democracy; I
believe libraries play an important role in education, and that
librarians provide vital services in the Information Age. I
believe our nation's libraries should be fully funded.
Stand up and be counted. Make your call and distribute this
information widely to your neighbors, friends and students.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.newprod] NetNews/CD - USENET News Available on CD-ROM
Message-ID: <9203170536.AA01286@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 17:36:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
From: root@imd.sterling.com (Sterling IMD)
Newsgroups: comp.newprod
Subject: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available on CD-ROM
Message-ID: <94605@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 16 Mar 92 16:24:13 GMT
Sterling Software is proud to announce a new service, NetNews/CD,
which makes USENET News available on CD-ROM. Now, with NetNews/CD,
the wealth of information available via USENET is archived and readily
available when you need it, not just when it arrives. With NetNews/CD
you will be able to keep years of USENET News on your shelf so that
you can access and benefit from it at your convenience.
With nearly 3000 active newsgroups and more being created daily, one
of the major problems with USENET News has been the massive amounts of
data. Most sites do not have the disk space to store it all on a
daily basis, let alone a yearly basis. Those that do receive a full
feed are forced to use relatively short news expire times to free up
disk space for incoming daily news. Many sites have had to limit the
number of groups they subscribe to due to the speeds of their modems,
the costs of long distance phone calls to an upstream USENET feed or
the size of the available disk space. NetNews/CD solves these
problems by making nearly 600 Megabytes of USENET news available on
CD-ROM each month.
The purpose of the NetNews series is to assure that the valuable
information which passes through USENET daily is not lost, as is the
case in most newsgroups today. The monthly CDs are generated on the
first of each month.
Yearly subscribers receive 12 months of USENET news on CD-ROM and they
also receive the yearly NetGems special issue. The current NetGems
CD-ROM contains the X Window System Version 11 Release 5 sources, the
Free Software Foundation's GNU software as well as the USENET
comp.sources.* archives. It also contains alt.sources and
vmsnet.sources archives. Besides those archives, NetGems also
contains an archive of the Request For Comments (RFCs) available from
the NIC which are the basis for most of the existing Internet
protocols. The software and RFCs on the NetGems CD were gathered on
December 29, 1991.
X11R5 - X Window System Release 5, Patchlevel 8
gnu - GNU software
rfcs - Request For Comments
usenet - USENET News source archives
alt.sources, alt.sources.amiga,
alt.sources.patches, comp.archives,
comp.archives.admin, comp.sources.3b1,
comp.sources.amiga, comp.sources.apple2,
comp.sources.atari.st, comp.sources.bugs,
comp.sources.games, comp.sources.hp48,
comp.sources.mac, comp.sources.misc,
comp.sources.reviewed, comp.sources.sun,
comp.sources.unix, comp.sources.x,
news.answers, unix-pc,
u3b.sources, vmsnet.sources
Specifics:
Initially NetNews/CD will be distributed for Sun platforms with
ISO 9660 support becoming available in March. The January and February
CDs will be made available in ISO 9660 format at that time. NetNews/CD is
available in both a yearly subscription or monthly issue rate.
Costs:
Yearly subscription + NetGems - $349.95 US plus shipping.
Individual monthly issues - $39.95 US plus shipping.
NetGems, Best of '91 - $49.95 US plus shipping.
Volume discounts are available.
Shipping: NetGems begins shipping the first week in February, and
January's NewNews/CD begins shipping on February 15. Subsequent
monthly CDs are being shipped on the 15th of each month.
Phone inquiries concerning orders and technical support questions may
be made between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM CST, Monday through Friday at
1-800-643-NEWS (or 1-800-643-6397). The FAX number is 1-402-291-4362.
There is also an electronic mail address:
cdnews@sterling.com or uunet!sparky!cdnews
The US Mail address is
Sterling Software
NetNews/CD
1404 Fort Crook Road South
Bellevue, NE 68005-2969
If you have any suggestions or comments we want to hear them. Please feel
free to call, write or send email.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Looking for an anonymous READNEWS
Message-ID: <9203170540.AA01300@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 17:40:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Date: Monday, 16 Mar 1992 17:43:25 EST
From:
Message-ID: <92076.174325PWELLISO@MTUS5.BITNET>
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Looking for an anonymous READNEWS
Can anyone help me I'm looking for a site that I can get a full collection of
readnews. The on campus server can't support the whole readnews due to a lack
of space or some other reason they won't tell us. But any way can somebody
help me. Thanx very much ...
Peter Ellison (Student at MTU)
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.politics.drugs, et al.] New crack :-) in the WoD
Message-ID: <9203171845.AA05197@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 06:45:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
From: dougm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: New crack :-) in the WoD
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.082716.38590@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 92 08:27:15 CST
From the Lawrence [KS] Journal-World 03/16/1992, p.2. Reprinted without
permission.
Drug raids upset town; vote urges legalization
STARKS, Maine (AP) -- Angry over drug raids, residents of this tiny
western Maine town narrowly adopted a resolution asking the state to
legalize marijuana.
The resolution, passed by a 45 to 42 margin, calls on the Legislature to
prohibit bans on the cultivation, possession and sale of cannabis hemp for
agricultural and commercial uses, such as for fiber and feed. It also asks
lawmakers to legalize the possession of up to two pounds of dried flowers
from female marijuana plants.
The vote Saturday followed a series of well-publicized drug raids by the
state's Bureau of Intergovernmental Drug Enforcement.
"This is military intimidation," Ralph Smithers said during a fiery town
meeting.
"The people in Russia reached a point of saying 'enough,' and they gained
democracy. They have more democracy in Russia than we do."
Smithers talked about helicopter surveillance of the countryside by
pot-hunting drug agents.
Other speakers charged that drug agents shoved guns in their faces and
[the speakers] expressed fears that the wrong house might be raided and
occupants injured.
But Kerry Herbert, who opposed the resolution, accused pot growers of
"dragging landowners into a felony action by planting this stuff on other
people's land."
--
***************************************************************
"People must be free to work, to save, to own their own home, to
take risks, to invest in each other and, in essence, to control
their own lives."
Pres. George Bush
"I don't know that athiests should be considered citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Pres. George Bush
"If we don't succeed, we risk failure."
J. Danforth Quayle
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.privacy] email privacy
Message-ID: <9203171847.AA05219@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 06:47:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: ahlevy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Allan Levy)
Subject: email privacy
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.171113.7966@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 17:11:13 GMT
Does anyone have any definite and/or authoritatie information as to
whether email coming into our going out of a a university is subject to
the same restrctions on interception (tapping) as is voice communication
by telephone?
I have been trying to get an answer to this question from my university
senior administrators for many months now, but have only gotten the answer
that the policy is still under study.
I am not referring to bulletin boards and their censorship, simply the
privacy of email.
(This is an intentional repeat post, as original distribution was local
only.)
Allan H. Levy
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign
Opinions are mine and not those of the University of Illinois (of course).
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: How do academic sys admins feel about email privacy for users?
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.200015.20392@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 20:00:15 GMT
If you are a sys admin, I would be grateful for your opinions on email
privacy for users. Feel free to elaborate.
1) Most universities require authorization before an office or dorm
room can be search, or before a university telephone can be tapped.
Who should be authorized to authorize searches of user computer files
and taps of email? (e.g. anyone, operators, sys admin, department
head, dean, judical committee, judge)
1.1) Should it make any difference if the user is a professor rather
than a student?
1.2) Are email searches comparable (in terms of authorization that
should be requried) to office and dorm seaches and telephone taps? If
not, what makes them different?
2) If your system has an email policy, who does that policy give
search authority to?
3) Have you ever been asked or ordered to search user email or files
but felt uncomfortable with the order?
4) Some searches of email might be illegal or immoral. On the other
hand, refusing a supervisor's order to search might be insubordinate.
Do you think that written email policies that detail when a search
request is valid offer you important protection.
5) The law relating to email privacy is unclear. Do you think that
universities should wait until the law is settled (via lawsuits and
court cases) before creating written email policy?
Thanks for you help. I accept anonymous replies (see my .signature).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ()
Subject: Re: need help in using 8251 for embedded system
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.183431.29798@linus.mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 18:34:31 GMT
Why does it need to be exactly 9600? If you divided by 416 or 417 you would
be very close.
Mike
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 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: <9203172118.AA06428@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 09:18:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 17:12:41 GMT
In article <_85hmchbishop@netcom.com> bishop@netcom.com (Mike Sherwood) writes:
> To me, it seems that there is an implication that
> spending too much time with any "toy" will burn you out.
It's not that IRC is a toy, it's that chat systems in particular seem to suck
people in. This has its good and bad sides: it gives people who have been
traditionally introverted an environment where they can safely interact with
other people, which is definitely a major benefit, but it can also lead to
a kind of burnout that is relatively rare in other environments.
I'm *NOT* saying that everyone who gets involved with IRC is a burnout. I'm
*NOT* saying that people can't burn out on other environments: they can. It's
just rarer. I've known a LOT more people who've burned out on chat than anything
else I can think of.
I'm not aiming a flamethrower at IRC. To the contrary, I'm saying that it can
be managed. You just need to watch out for possible burnout cases and pull them
out before they drop 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).
If they burn out, they're burnouts. The wizards, gurus, and hackers are not
the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people who get obsessive
to the point they neglect the real world. This is a bad state to get in, and
can actually prevent growth into true hackerdom.
Not to mention graduation. I speak from experience here.
--
-- 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 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.dcom.telecom] EFF Announces Pioneer Award Winners
Message-ID: <9203172223.AA06892@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 10:23:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
From: van@eff.org (Gerard Van der Leun)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: EFF Announces Pioneer Award Winners
Message-ID:
Date: 16 Mar 92 23:19:58 GMT
ENGELBART, KAHN, WARREN, JENNINGS AND SMERECZYNSKI
NAMED AS FIRST WINNERS OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION'S PIONEER
AWARDS
Cambridge, March 16,1992
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today announced the five
winners of the first annual EFF Pioneer Awards for substantial
contributions to the field of computer based communications. The
winners are: Douglas C. Engelbart of Fremont, California; Robert Kahn
of Reston, Virginia; Jim Warren of Woodside, California; Tom Jennings
of San Francisco, California; and Andrzej Smereczynski of Warsaw,
Poland.
The winners will be presented with their awards at a ceremony open to
the public this Thursday, March 19, at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in
Washington, DC, beginning at 5:15 PM. Most winners are expected to be
present to accept the awards in person. The ceremony is part of this
week's Second Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy that is
taking place at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in D.C.
Mitchell Kapor, President of the EFF, said today that: "We've created
the Pioneer Awards in order to recognize and honor individuals who
have made ground-breaking contributions to the technology and culture
of digital networks and communities."
Nominations for the Pioneer Awards were carried out over national and
international computer-communication systems from November, 1991 to
February 1992. Several hundred nominations were received by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the final winners were selected by
a panel of six judges.
The criteria for the Pioneer Awards was that the person or
organization nominated had to have made a substantial contribution to
the health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based
communications.
The Pioneer Winners
Douglas Engelbart is one of the original moving forces in the personal
computer revolution who is responsible for many ubiquitous features of
today's computers such as the mouse, the technique of windowing,
display editing, hypermedia, groupware and many other inventions and
innovations. He holds more than 20 patents and is widely-recognized in
his field as one of our era's true visionaries.
Robert Kahn was an early advocate and prime mover in the creation of
ARPANET which was the precursor of today's Internet. Since the late
60's and early 70's Mr. Kahn has constantly promoted and tirelessly
pursued innovation and heightened connectivity in the world's computer
networks.
Tom Jennings started the Fidonet international network. Today it is a
linked network of amateur electronic bulletin board systems (BBSs)
with more than 10,000 nodes worldwide and it is still growing. He
contributed to the technical backbone of this system by writing the
FIDO BBS program as well as to the culture of the net by pushing for
development and expansion since the early days of BBSing. He is
currently editor of FidoNews, the network's electronic newsletter.
Jim Warren has been active in electronic networking for many years.
Most recently he has organized the First Computers, Freedom and
Privacy Conference, set-up the first online public dialogue link with
the California legislature, and has been instrumental is assuring that
rights common to older mediums and technologies are extended to
computer networking.
Andrzej Smereczynski is the Administrator of the PLEARN node of the
Internet and responsible for the extension of the Internet into Poland
and other east European countries. He is the person directly
responsible for setting up the first connection to the West in post-
Communist Middle Europe. A network "guru", Mr. Smereczynski has
worked selflessly and tirelessly to extend the technology of
networking as well as its implicit freedoms to Poland and neighboring
countries.
This year's judges for the Pioneer Awards were: Dave Farber of the
University of Pennsylvania Computer Science Department; Howard
Rheingold, editor of The Whole Earth Review; Vint Cerf, head of CNRI;
Professor Dorothy Denning Chair of George Washington University's
Computer Science Department; Esther Dyson, editor of Release 1.0,
Steve Cisler of Apple Computer, and John Gilmore of Cygnus Support.
For more information contact:
Gerard Van der Leun
Director of Communications
Electronic Frontier Foundation
155 Second Street Cambridge, MA 02141
(617) 864-0665 Internet: van@eff.org
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: How do academic sys admins feel about email privacy for users?
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.232533.23182@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 23:25:33 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>If you are a sys admin, I would be grateful for your opinions on email
>privacy for users. Feel free to elaborate.
>1) Most universities require authorization before an office or dorm
>room can be search, or before a university telephone can be tapped.
[...]
I didn't not mean to imply that a Univeristy needs a search warrant to
empty your trash or to fight a fire in your office.
Let me clarify this by quoting the general privacy policy for the U.
of Illinois (from the Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying
to All Students):
"IV. Privacy
A. Members of the University community have the same rights of
privacy as other citizens and surrender none of those rights by
becoming members of the academic community. These rights of privacy
extend to residence hall living. Nothing in University regulations or
contracts shall give University officials authority to consent to a
search by police or other government officials of offices assigned or
living quarters leased to individuals except in response to a properly
executed search warrant or search incident to an arrest.
B. When the University seeks access to an office assigned or living
quarters leased to an individual to determine compliance with
provisions of applicable multiple-dwelling unit laws, ordinances, and
regulations, or for improvement or repairs, the occupant shall be
notified of such action not less that twenty-four hours in advance.
There may be entry without notice in emergencies where imminent
danger to life, safety, health, or property is reasonably feared and
for custodial service.
C. The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office
assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in
response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to
an arrest."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: How do academic sys admins feel about email privacy for users?
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.233811.23337@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 23:38:11 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>I didn't not mean to imply that a Univeristy needs a search warrant to
^^^^^^^^^^
>empty your trash or to fight a fire in your office.
[...]
Whoops, it should read "I didn't mean to ...".
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Mar 18 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 02.08
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.092905.29340@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 09:29:05 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 cafv02n08
--- begin abstract ---
[Best of January, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[Many of these paraphrases are based weekly paraphrases by
Elizabeth, Paul, and me. - Carl]
Notes 1-3 regard a recent controversy at Carnegie Mellon
University involving issues of sexual harassment and freedom of
speech.
1. As described in the Carnegie Mellon student newspaper 'The Tartan',
student Eric Jefferson has had sexual harassment charges filed
against him because of his postings to a CMU bulletin board for
the Women's Center.
<1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org>
2. Here is a ruling on sexual harassment from the university of
Wisconsin which quite clearly indicates that Jefferson's postings did
not and cannot constitute harassment.
<1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
3. Jefferson's chastisement does not constitute a threat to freedom
of speech - indeed, constitutional protections are irrelevant in a
privately owned university. However, the more important issue is
whether the university is more committed to the ideal of freedom of
speech or to the ideal of the free exchange of ideas. The two are not
the same, and the free expression of hatred can create an atmosphere
in which ideas cannot be freely shared.
<8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu>
Notes 4-5 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit
access to netnews.
4. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive
the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives. The head of
the department where the machines are located can request that the
machines have access to the omitted groups. Students and staff are
attempting to change the policy.
<1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>
5. "If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of
arbitrary censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of
arbitrary censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an
electronic library of ideas."
<1992Jan26.045844.10853@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Notes 6-7 concern the UC's court-ordered search of computer files.
6. Dean Pentcheff (dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu): This is a summary of
the events surrounding "UC's court-ordered search of files on two of
its Unix mainframe computers... [This summary is] based on my own
understanding of what's going on. These are not "official" summaries,
either from the University of California, or from the plaintiff in the
case. I am not involved with the case in any capacity except as an
interested observer."
7. There are some grave inconsistencies inherent in defining a user's
files as 'university records'. For example, such a definition means
that a user who reads *her or his own email* might violate of federal law.
<1992Jan14.032659.8519@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 describes the outcome of the recent Cubby vs. Compuserve case.
8. The effect of the Compuserve decisions has been to show that the
more a computer-mediated forum is monitored, the greater the liability
of the moderators/owners for what is said in that forum. If there is no
censorship then liability rests entirely with the authors of
individual posts.
9. Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org): By granting CompuServe's request
for a summary judgment (finding CompuServe not liable), the court has
strengthened first amendment protection for online services. The
judge's decision holds that CompuServe was a distributor, not a
publisher. Like a bookstore owner, CompuServe is not required to
review everything it carries prior to providing it to its customers.
<1992Jan6.204341.5096@eff.org>
Notes 10-11 discuss the recent removal of software from users'
accounts, computer suspendions before hearings, and searches
of user files at the University of Wyoming,
10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not
to use IRC on the computer. "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster)
account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be
searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be
disusered without hope for reinstatement."
<3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200*@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
11. Even if the university was within its legal rights, did it have the
moral right to take this action? Specifically, should the
administrator have suspended the accounts before establishing that the
user had done something wrong? (No.) And should he have searched user files
without authorization? (No.)
<199201101800.AA13167@eff.org>
Note 12 is about Freedom of (impolite) Speech.
12. The ACLU handbook on teachers' legal rights and Robert J. Wagmam's
_The First Amendment Book_ indicate that "The Freedom of Speech
guaranteed by the Constitution *does not* require that speakers be
polite."
<1992Jan5.025518.11163@eff.org>
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, 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 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: U of Illinois at Chicago Penalties Policy
Message-ID: <199203181655.AA03311@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 06:55:51 GMT
Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources
09/23/91
The following Computer Center policies provide guidelines for the use of com-
puting resources at UIC and the actions that will be taken in cases of misuse.
Please note that MINIMUM penalties are listed. Repeated or major misuse will
automatically result in a suspension of computing privileges for a longer
period of time and imposition of additional disciplinary actions. Specifi-
cally, a second infraction of any kind will automatically be considered to
belong to the next lengthier suspension category. In no case will the imposi-
tion of the minimum penalty preclude the invocation of additional internal or
external actions.
SUSPENSION OF COMPUTING PRIVILEGES FOR A MINIMUM OF 3 DAYS TO 1 WEEK:
* Disruptive or abusive use of electronic mail, locally or over external net-
works, including but not limited to the following:
- For BITNET, sending files larger than the BITNET limit of 3000 lines
of a maximum of eighty characters each
- Sending an electronic chain letter
- Sending an unsolicited message, mail or communication of any kind to
persons who have not requested it or who cannot be reasonably
expected to welcome such communication
* Frequent frivolous use of computing resources
* Hoarding terminals or microcomputers in the Computer Center terminal/micro-
computer laboratories
* Interfering with the use of computing facilities by others
* Playing computer games
* Smoking, eating or drinking in any terminal/microcomputer laboratory
* Use of UIC computing resources for commercial soliciting or advertising of
any kind
SUSPENSION OF COMPUTING PRIVILEGES FOR A MINIMUM OF 3 MONTHS:
* "Lending" an account, account units or online disk storage to another per-
son.
* Using an account, account units or online disk storage that belong to
another person
SUSPENSION OF COMPUTING PRIVILEGES FOR A MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS:
* Using a stolen account
SUSPENSION OF COMPUTING PRIVILEGES FOR A MINIMUM OF 1 YEAR:
* A pattern of any misuse of computing resources
ADDITIONAL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PENALTIES:
* Civil and criminal penalties in cases of infringement of copyright laws for
the use and reproduction of UIC site licensed microcomputer software
* Denial of honor student computing privileges
* Monetary charges for illegally-used computing resources
* Request for University disciplinary action as outlined in the Student Judi-
cial Code
The Computer Center will consider extenuating circumstances to reduce imposed
penalties. Imposition of account suspensions and the appeal mechanism follow
the University student disciplinary guidelines as outlined in the Student
Judicial Code. Additionally, any student may appeal to the Director of the
Computer Center for a preliminary review of the penalty imposed and has the
right to have a case referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
--
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 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U of Illinois at Chicago Penalties Policy
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.191830.5134@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 19:18:30 GMT
This is a critique of the UIC policy. I've reformatted it a bit.
Summary: This is the most creatively repressive policy I read in a
long time. The policy gives the false illusion of explicitness and due
process. In fact, however, it makes almost everything illegal and
subject to harsh and disproportionate punishment. It then gives the
Computer Center expansive discretion on enforcement and punishment.
The effect for users is the same as if there was no policy at all.
> Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources > 09/23/91
>SUSPENSION OF COMPUTING PRIVILEGES FOR A MINIMUM OF 3 DAYS TO 1 WEEK:
[...]
> - Sending an unsolicited message, mail or communication of any kind to
> persons who have not requested it or who cannot be reasonably
> expected to welcome such communication
[...]
So, if I get unwelcome email from a student computer operator telling
me I'm me I'm over my disk quota, he or she will automatically be
suspended from the computer for 3 days?
Sounds good :-)
I think this rule is so over broad that it necessarily will be enforced
very selectively and arbitrary.
(Somewhere on the net there is an FAQ about "You don't need permission
to send email." If you know where, please post it or send it to me.)
> * Frequent frivolous use of computing resources
This is vague.
>SUSPENSION OF COMPUTING PRIVILEGES FOR A MINIMUM OF 3 MONTHS:
[...]
> * Using an account, account units or online disk storage that belong to
> another person
So, if my friend tells me to look in her .login to see how she set her
"PATH" statement, I will be suspended for 3 months? This is
ridiculously harsh. Is it really enforced?
>SUSPENSION OF COMPUTING PRIVILEGES FOR A MINIMUM OF 1 YEAR:
> * A pattern of any misuse of computing resources
Like looking at her .login twice?
>The Computer Center will consider extenuating circumstances to reduce imposed
>penalties.
So, it is factually incorrect to call the penalties "minimum".
This policy gives the false illusion of explicitness and due process.
In fact, however, it makes almost everything illegal and subject to
harsh and disproportionate punishment. It then gives the Computer Center
expansive discretion on enforcement and punishment. The effect for
users is the same as if there was no policy at all.
The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says "In
developing responsible student conduct, disciplinary proceedings play
a role substantially secondary to example, counseling, guidance, and
admonition." This does not see to be the case at UIC where warning
are, according to the policy, never issued.
The Statement also says "Disciplinary proceedings should be instituted
only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with
significant student participation and published in advance through
such means as a student handbook or a generally available body of
institutional regulations." I doubt if student and faculty
participated in the create of this users this heavy-handed policy.
One way to resist this policy might be to follow it! If I were at
student at UIC (rather than UIUC), I would ask the computer
administration to review almost every email note that I thought about
sending so they could tell me it could be reasonable expected to be
welcome. I would also request written permission from the head of the
Computer Center ever time a friend tell me I can look at her .login
file. I might also report every Computer Center staff member who sent
me unwelcome mail.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Mar 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.motss] This is a test of censorship
Message-ID: <9203182228.AA00832@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 10:28:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 18 00:00:00 1992
From: sunthej@reis58.alleg.edu (Jake)
Newsgroups: alt.sex.motss
Subject: This is a test of censorship
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.143654.6339@pellns.alleg.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 92 14:36:54 GMT
My college claims that it hasn't censored any newsgroups. However, motss
remains completely unactive, and I doubt that it's a dead group. I am
posting this to see whether they are lying or not. In the words of Pink
Floyd... Is there anybody out there?
Jake
From caf-talk Caf Mar 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: alt.* groups removed at the University of Nebraska
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.012841.9889@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 01:28:41 GMT
burchell@cse.unl.edu writes:
[...]
>When a reporter friend of mine from the school newspaper
>(the Daily Nebraskan) pressed the head of CRC (Computing
>Resource Center, our college computer administrators)
>on the issue of removing the alt.* groups, he claimed
>that the reason they were removed is due to a lack of space
>to store them.
>However, we have strong reasons to believe that this is not
>the case, and that censorship is the real reason behind the
>alt.* group elimination.
[...]
This illustrates why a selection policy should be written (especially
of the policy effects thousands of users). As the American Library
Association's Workbook for Selection Policy Writing says (in the
context of high school text and library book selection):
''The reason [for having a selection policy] should be obvious:
haphazard patterns of acquisition will result in waste because some -
perhaps many - materials will overlap in content, or will be unrelated
to changing patterns of instruction.
A comprehensive policy on the selection of instructional
materials will also enable school professionals to rationally
explain the school program to the community. And, most important
in a crisis, when there are complaints about social studies
texts, human development materials in the media center, or
fiction in the English class, the use of the "objectionable" item
can more easily be explained.''
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
--
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 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] One regional's proposal to keep the Internet whole
Message-ID: <199203190303.AA10888@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 17:03:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: jrugo@nic.near.net
Subject: One regional's proposal to keep the Internet whole
Message-ID: <9203190129.AA18713@psi.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 15:28:21 GMT
NEARnet, and the Internet in general, have seen dramtic growth over recent
years, both in the number and variety of organizations which have joined. Many
members of regional networks, including NEARnet's members, have expressed
interest in using their connections to support inter-business communications.
However, use of the NSFNET to support business activities is prohibited under
the National Science Foundation's Acceptable Use Policy. An organization of
providers of commercial services has been formed to provide those services,
named the Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX). In addition, the provider of
NSFNET services, Advanced Network and Services (ANS), has formed a subsidiary
to provide commercial services (ANS CO+RE). NEARnet's policies already allow
commercial traffic between NEARnet members. NEARnet has been negotiating with
both ANS and the CIX to provide broader commercial access to our members.
NEARnet believes that the Internet needs to remain fully interconnected in
order to support the wide range of needs present in the Internet.
NEARnet has proposed to join the CIX and to sign an agreement with ANS CO+RE.
Under the terms of the ANS CO+RE agreement, NEARnet's access to the CIX member
networks (PSI, Alternet, CERFnet, BARRNET, and a few others) would be provided
by the ANS CO+RE network. We believe that this solution accomplishes two
goals. The first goal is to establish connectivity with the greatest number of
networks. The second goal is to establish that connection using the best
available technical means. NEARnet has determined that, if separate
connections were established to ANS and the CIX, current routing technology
would not enable us to provide the best possible service to our members.
Utilizing the high-speed ANS connection for CIX and ANS CO+RE traffic will
satisfy both goals in the interim while we continue to pursue advances in
routing technology that wil allow more diverse network connections for NEARnet.
We hope to have a working interim solution available from ANS and CIX in the
near future.
Bill Yundt, the Executive Director of the Bay Area Regional Research Network
(BARRNet) which serves over 120 organizations in California, has joined with
NEARnet in support of its proposal. Yundt says:
"BARRNet management is committed to the NEARnet strategy and has informed the
CIX management that BARRNet's continued participation in the CIX organization
is contingent upon resolution of routing issues and effective coordination of
connectivity with the ANS-NSFNET backbone. Though announced as a CIX member,
BARRNet has deferred its connection to the CIX West hub which we determined
would result in unacceptable routing and coordination difficulties and
increased performance risks to our membership. The current routing technology
is not up to the task of supporting regional networks with multiple Internet
connections in a way that satisfies use restrictions, matches paths to user
requirements and avoids routing assymetry, loops or other unacceptable routing
behavior.
We believe NEARnet has proposed the only workable solution currently available
to the Internet community and we are prepared to use the NEARnet model as the
basis for negotiating our connectivity agreements with the CIX and ANS."
--
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 18 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 02.09
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.032909.11497@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 03:29:09 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 cafv02n09
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending February 23rd, 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 are 6 discuss the issue of TERMINUS, a terminal server at MIT
which allows users to connect to any port of any Internet connected
machine and which has been seen as a security threat by the NSFnet.
1. The NSF cannot be expected to cut off MIT or TERMINUS any more than
the phone company could be expected to disconnect MIT's phones just
because someone used their phone lines to break into a system. If
anything will shut down TERMINUS it will be the privatization of the
network which will no longer allow them to put the onus of security
onto other sites.
<1992Feb18.215827.4@sdg.dra.com>
2. A simple solution to the security problems caused by terminus would
be to instigate a policy of allowing users of open terminal servers to
connect to only port 23 (telnet) on remote systems.
<1992Feb18.112035.26089@ms.uky.edu>
3. Network policy and implementation should not compel a site to apply
one network's policy to other network's. The responsibility for
compliance with network policy should rest with the service requester,
not the service provider.
<1992Feb19.163425.9651@eff.org>
4. The Arpanet used to an open environment in which the sharing of
resources was encouraged and those resources were freely offered. In
the evolution of the Arpanet into the Internet, with all the demands
for security made by various sites on it, we have lost something
valuable.
5. While the loss of the 'small town' attitude of not locking doors is
to be regretted, it is not a feasible way to address issues in the
'big city' that the Internet has become.
<1992Feb20.180456.10987@news2.cis.umn.edu>
6. "The issue under discussion is not how individual target sites
should "deal with" TERMINUS-based incursions -- that is pretty much
known. The issue is whether MIT ought to continue providing the toys
wherewith more and more sites can be made to have to "deal with" the
nuisance."
<50076102@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Notes 7 and 8 carry on from the TERMINUS controversy to discuss what
is and is not acceptable use of national academic networks in general.
7. The TERMINUS case has brought up a number of questions about
network access that ought to be applied more widely. On what basis
should institutions provide researchers and students with access to
academic networks?
<9202182129.AA25590@phloem.uoregon.edu>
8. Here are some suggestions as to what might be educational
institutions' NREN access policies.
<9202191440.AA20298@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
Notes 9 to 11 are on unrelated issues addressing ethics and censorship
in computer-use.
9. [From Brewster Kahle, the operator of the directory of servers in
the WAIS system:] The new breed of "digital librarians" must consider
the ethical obligations which follow from their privileged position
with regard to the users whom they serve.
10. Does unauthorised access to a Company's computer constitute
grounds for dismissal of an employee? The Denco Ltd. v. Joinson case
turned on this issue.
<920218194602.2020c632@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
11. Switch, the federal institution which provides the network
connections between Swiss universities, has decided to refuse to
carry certain Usenet newsgroups on the grounds that they may be
illegal under Swiss law.
<1992Feb20.180752@sic.epfl.ch>
Note 12: And now for something completely different...
12. [Carl Kadie, abandoning his position as the Staid and Rational
Source of all Well-Documented Argument:] Here is a parody of the Iowa
State University Usenet policy.
<1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Elizabeth]
--- 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 19 00:00:00 1992
From: scrogginstom@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Info needed
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.221111.1056@bvc.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 92 04:11:11 GMT
This is the first time for me to post to this news group for those of you who
wanted to know. I am not really sure if this is the proper news group for this
request, but it seemed as good as any.
Anyhow, I was wondering if anyone has information or knows where I can find
some info on electronic freedom of speech. Stuff like censorship of newsgroups
or file confiscation of files, etc...
I would be extremely appreciative if anyone could e-mail me info on this stuff.
Thanks in advance,
Tom
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ____________ ______ ___ ___ |Tom Scroggins - SCROGGINSTOM@BVC.EDU|
| /____ ____/ / / / / / | Buena Vista College Storm Lake, Ia |
| / / / / / / / / / |------------------------------------|
| / / / / / / /__/ / | |
| /__/ /_____/ /__/ /__/ | this space is |
|--------------//------------------------| reserved for future implementation |
| A bug is just an undocumented feature! | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Mar 19 00:00:00 1992
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Test
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.195555.3245@tygra.Michigan.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 92 19:55:55 GMT
Test - will Mikey and Johnny get it??
--
CAT-TALK Conferencing System | E-MAIL: jp@Michigan.COM
+1 313 790 6426 (USR HST) | MICHIGAN NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC.
+1 313 790 6432 (TELEBIT PEP) | 800-736-5984 FAX: 313-790-6437
********EIGHT NODES*********** | TELEBIT, DIGIBOARD, ISC UNIX, MICROPOLIS
From caf-talk Caf Mar 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Regarding electronic mail privacy/searches/examinations.....
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.94600.15681@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 14:46:00 GMT
NOTE: When I originally posted this message, my news system complained
that "errors occured during processing". A quick examination of
the spool area indicated that the message had not been dispatched,
so I am reposting it now. If you have already seen this, I apologize.
As a result of the growing concern over email privacy (or lack thereof), I
made a conscious decision some time ago to protect my users from potential
problems/hassles.
I do not archive electronic mail on my backup tapes.
Since we perform backups with the almost-universally-portable cpio(1), it
was a simple matter to drop user mailboxes out of the backup list. For
those of you who may be unfamiliar with find(1) and cpio(1), our backup
string looks something like this:
find / {parameters}|grep -v $MAILBOXDIR|{other stuff}|cpio {options} >/dev/blah
where MAILBOXDIR is the system mail directory. This eliminates mailboxes
from our backup tapes.
Our users are informed, in advance, that electronic mail is not preserved
on backup tapes. We haven't had any complaints.
The only electronic mail which can be searched/seized/examined is the
current contents of the user's system mailbox in MAILBOXDIR. Notice
that a search warrant authorizing an "electronic mail" search would NOT
cover any mail archives in the user's home directory; as soon as the
user moves a file from his system mailbox to his home directory, the
nature of the material changes from "electronic mail" to "user files",
which would (hopefully) fall into a completely different category.
I based this action on the supposition that electronic mail, once delivered,
is no longer under the authority of the delivery agent. The Postal Service
cannot prosecute me for things I do with my mail AFTER they deliver it; why
should electronic mail be treated differently? I don't care if the user
prints it, posts it on the wall, or translates it into Pig Latin; once he takes
it out of his system mailbox, it is no longer email.
(None of this has been tested in an actual case, so my interpretation may
turn out to be completely wrong; I'm not a lawyer)
There is a complication in some operating systems, however. Under most
varieties of Unix, each user owns their own system mailbox; in some other
systems, email is held in a common pool or directory, which is owned by the
system itself. This "loophole" may be construed as implicit permission for
scanning/snooping/reading, since "it doesn't belong to the user, but to
the system." Those of you who are running such systems may have to in-
clude more specific protections in your policy.
--
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 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: bibliography of bibliographies on library censorship
Message-ID: <9203191716.AA05219@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 05:16:07 GMT
This is very short biblography of bibliographies on library
intellectual freedom, pornography, censorship, privacy etc. Many of
the articles might be useful to those fighting against (or for!)
Netnews censorship.
Each bibliography is 10-25 pages long. According to the
back cover of one of them, each can be ordered from:
VANCE BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Post Office Box 229
Monticello, Illinois 61856
I've included the price after the first two items. I don't know
the price of the other two.
========================
Christensen, John O.
Intellectual freedom and libraries : a selective bibliography /
John O. Christensen. Monticello, Ill. : Vance Bibliographies, :1991:
15 p. ; 29 cm. (Public administration series--bibliography,
0193-970X ; P-3068)
Cover title.
"April 1991."
ISBN 0792007883 (pbk.)
1. Libraries--Censorship--Bibliography. I. Title. II. Series.
ocm23-295948
PRICE: $3.75
============================
Christensen, John O.
Obscenity, pornography, and libraries : a selective bibliography /
John O. Christensen. Monticello, Ill. : Vance Bibliographies, :1991:
10 p. ; 29 cm. (Public administration series--bibliography,
0193-970X ; P-3069)
Cover title.
"April 1991."
ISBN 0792007891 (pbk.)
1. Obscenity (Law)--United States--Bibliography. 2. Pornography--
United States--Bibliography. 3. Libraries--Special collections--
Pornography--Bibliography. 4. Libraries--Censorship--Bibliography.
5. Libraries--Special collections--Erotica--Bibliography. I. Title.
II. Series.
ocm23-353422
PRICE: $3.00
========================================
Christensen, John O.
Legal issues in public and school libraries : some recent
references / John O. Christensen. Monticello, Ill. : Vance
Bibliographies, :1990:
24 p. ; 28 cm. (Public administration series--bibliography,
0193-970X ; P-2945)
Cover title.
"September 1990."
ISBN 0792006453 (pbk.)
1. Public librarians--Legal status, laws, etc.--United States--
Bibliography. 2. Library legislation--Bibliography. 3. School
libraries--Law and legislation--United States--Bibliography. I. Title.
II. Series.
ocm22-339034
PRICE: ?????
========================================
Christensen, John O.
The FBI, libraries, and the library awareness program controversey
:sic: : selected references / John O. Christensen. Monticello, Ill. :
Vance Bibliographies, :1990:
7 p. ; 28 cm. (Public administration series--bibliography,
0193-970X ; P-2946)
Cover title.
"September 1990."
ISBN 0792006461 (pbk.)
1. United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation 2.
Information services and state--United States--Bibliography. 3.
Freedom of information--United States--Bibliography. I. Title. II.
Series.
ocm22-339081
PRICE: ?????
From caf-talk Caf Mar 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Exceprts from bibliographies on library censorship
Message-ID: <9203191809.AA05485@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 06:09:30 GMT
Here are selected excerpts from the bibliographies. Most of the school
related items seem aimed at high schools. I guess this means that
censorship of traditional information services at Universities are
uncommon.
Articles:
Anderson, Arthur James. "Politics & Policy (with discussion),"
_Library Journal 10:37-9 May 15, 1985.
Asheim, Lester. "Selection and Censorship: A Reapprasial", _Wilson
Libary Bulletin_ 58(3):180-84 November 1983
Berninghausem, David K. "Toward an Intellecutal Freedom Theory
for Users of Libraries," Drexel Library Quarterly 18(1):57-81
Coggins, Timothy L. "Book Removals from School Libraries and Student's
First Amendment Rights," School Law Bulletin 17(3):17-21 Summer 1986.
Ficociello, Tony. "Censorship, Book Selection, and the Marketplace
of Ideas," Top of the News 41(1):33-38 Fall 1984
Hopkins, Dianne McAff. "The School Library Media Specialist: Dealing
with Complaints about Materials," Catholic Library World 56(4):172-74
November 1984.
"Is It Legal?" See issues of Newsletter of Intellectual Freedom.
Lee, Earl. "Library Censorship after Webster," American Libraries
20(11):1044-45, 1047-48 December 1989.
[Does anyone know what "Webster" the title refers to? - Carl]
Manley, Will. "Facing the Public (book slection and intellectual
freedom)," Wilson Library Bulletin 61:32-3 February 1987.
Moss, Lee A. "A Case Against Censorship of School Libraries," Georgia
Social Schience Journal 20(1):4-6 Winter 1989.
Schmidt, C. James. "Intellectual Freedom and Technlogy: Deja Vu?"
North Carolina Libraries 46:129-30 Fall 1987.
Sumerford, Steve, "The Public Library: Offensive by Design," Public
Libraries 26(2):60-62 Summer 1987.
Books:
American Library Assoication. _Hit List: Frequently Challenged Young
Adult Titles: References to Defend Them_, 1989
Berman, Sandford. _Battle of the Books: Literary Censorship
in the Public Schools_, 1989.
Cornog, Martha (ed), _Libraries, Erotica, and Pornography, 1991.
Downs, Donald Alexander. _The New Politics of Pornogrpahy. 1989.
Hoffman, Frank. _Intellectual Freedom and Censorship: An Annotated
Bibliography_, 1989.
Office of Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association,
_Intellectual Freedom Manual_, 3rd ed., 1989.
[Much of this material is available on-line, for info, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send library-policies README
- Carl]
Oboler, Eli M. _To Free the Mind: Libraries, Technology, and
Intellectual Freedom_, 1983.
Oboler, Eli M. _Defending Intellectual Freedom: the Library
and the Censor_, 1983.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Liabilities of providing access
Message-ID: <9203191820.AA05542@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 06:20:34 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 19 00:00:00 1992
From: rogue@cellar.org (Rachel McGregor)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Liabilities of providing access
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Mar 92 00:17:28 GMT
rob@mother.bates.edu (Rob Spellman) writes:
>
> 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
Access to alt.sex.* can be filtered out by the site manager at the school
district before it ever reaches the kids. If any scandal were to occur, the
parents' anger and the press' scrutiny should focus on the district, not on
Bates.
I'd recommend you make sure that the subscriber school knows what's available
on the full extent of the Internet so they know what's appropriate to filter
out. Stay well out of the way, though, if any high school kids jump on the
school board for censoring their access to talk.bizarre.
"I won't forget. 'Cause every time it rains, | Rachel McGregor
you're here in my head / like the sun coming out." | micro trainer/consultant
-- Kate Bush, 'Cloudbusting' | rogue@cellar.org
From caf-talk Caf Mar 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.politics.correct
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: U of M students wanted; Speech Code
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.092140.18526@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 09:21:40 EST
MIT is a private school. They might be able to get away with a speech code
modeled after the U of M code.
You MIT folks had better be on your guard.
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Mar 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.privacy, et al.] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203201648.AA10930@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 04:48:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.unix.admin
From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 05:10:53 GMT
simong@ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory) writes:
>I am currently engaged in an assignment based on the pros and cons
>of the monitoring of email systems, and the opinions of various different
>groups of people regarding this sensitive issue.
>I would appreciate any forthcoming replies, giving information or
>opinions on the topic. Please include your occupation with your reply.
>As a general guide, i include the following questions:
> 1) Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
>to look at the text of an article?
yes.
> 2) What should the post master do if potentially damaging
>or illegal information is revealed. eg. If the spreading of a virus
>is revealed through a boast on email, or two students are discussing
>copying a computing assignment. Should one's personal privacy be sacrificed
>in such a case?
depends on the severity, reprimand to dismissal - to potentially legal
consiquences.
> 3) Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
>widely known and accepted?
you'd better have, and *e*v*e*r*y*o*n*e* should be aware of it, and what it is.
> 4) Would it be more acceptable if people were made aware
>of when and on what systems reading of mail by an outside party could
>occur?
on my system i have a public statement, near where they sign for the system
access their after which states something to the effect that we will try to
ensure the email is private but that we will not guarantee it. then we list
some of the things which might prompt an authorized person to read it. it's
important to have a public policy that everyone knows and spell out what
happens if it's not followed. if you'd like i can mail you out form so you
can see what we use.
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.privacy, et al.] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203201649.AA10939@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 04:49:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.unix.admin
From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 08:01:50 GMT
[request for example deleted]
sorry had to post this as the mail bounced and i want to go home and go to bed
i gotta be in here for work in about 5 hours. anyway i edited it to remove
identifing stuff for my employer (i'm on contract) it looks better when it's
printed from a wp instead of pumped through the keyboard buffer.
RS/6000 ACCESS REQUEST SHEET
YourName __________________________________________________________________
Your SectionName ___________________________________________________________
Your Telephone Number ______________________________________________________
Your Supervisor's Name ______________________________________________________
Your Supervisor's Telephone Number ___________________________________________
Your Supervisor's Signature ___________________________________________________
Authorizing Signature (Dave Johnson) __________________________________________
Access Required:
General AIX Access ........................................................................... ______
General ORACLE Access (read permission) ______
General ORACLE Access (write permission) ______
why? ____________________________________________________
xxxxxxx Data Access (read permission) ______
xxxxxxx Data Generation Access (write permission) ______
why? ____________________________________________________
CASE Dictionary & CASE Generator Access ______
why? ____________________________________________________
Modem Access ______
why? ____________________________________________________
FOR THE ABOVE ACCESS IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE REQUESTER (USER) KNOWS HOW TO USE THE
SOFTWARE/SYSTEMS FOR WHICH THEY ARE REQUESTING ACCESS TO
Notes:
* The only access offered at this time is via Xwindows; this includes access to the ORACLE Database.
* EMail regarding AIX or ORACLE crashes or bugs should be directed to the user
known as sysadmin. General training in the use of AIX or ORACLE is not currently
offered.
* Users are expected to adhere to xx/DOT information systems policy, including (but not restricted to): the right of privacy of EMail (users should expect EMail to be private) except in the following cases:
termination of employment,
researching security breaches (to be done by an authorized user),
extended absences (due to illness, vacation, etc. where access to EMail contents may be required to support ongoing xx/Dot activities. Try to assign another user [person] to intercept your critical EMail and avoid this predicament.
* In short, we shall attempt to preserve the privacy of EMail,
BUT PRIVACY CANNOT BE GUARANTEED!!
* You are required to NOT access or attempt to access files other than your own!!
* It is your responsibility to use these data systems in the manner for which they are normally intended. The use of this system as a tool to illegally access, damage, or attempt to cause damage, to the smooth operation of other computer systems, or data, will not be tolerated. Intentional, malicious, or ignorant misuse of these systems can be cause for termination of user accounts an/or disciplinary action.
* Please help us to maintain a friendly, courteous relationship.
Thank you,
signed: sysadmin
From caf-talk Caf Mar 20 00:00:00 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Subject: National Security Education Act of USA
Message-ID: <1992Mar21.074417.1862@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 21 Mar 92 07:44:17 GMT
From the newsgroup misc.activism.progressive:
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.182110.10411@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: 18 Mar 92 18:21:10 GMT
Resent-From: "Rich Winkel"
The following article is from War Research Info Service,
March 1992 (Packet #4). Copyright 1992 University Conversion
Project. Feel free to reprint with credit. Please also add: "Published
by University Conversion Project, Box 748, Cambridge, MA 02142.
Tel. (617) 354-9363. Info free with SASE; sample issue $3"
Sheep In Wolves Clothing?
The National Security Education Act of 1991
by David MacMichael
The 1992 Intelligence Authorization establishes the National
Security Education Act of 1991 (NSEA). Written and pushed
vigorously by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman David
Boren (D-OK), the Act gives the directors of the US national
security system a solid foothold on university campuses and a
significant amount of control over their programs of international
affairs, language and area studies curricula and of the students
enrolled in them. Justified in the name of a very broad and
dubious post- Cold War definition of what constitutes national
security, this intrusion raises serious questions for the integrity
and independence of the US university system. Unfortunately,
campus administrators and faculties, financially strapped and
desperate for funds, seem to overlook or underplay the dangers
of establishing close working relations with intelligence and
military organizations and applaud the Act. The cloak and gown
scandals of the Vietnam era appear to have been forgotten, and
the very recent revelations of CIA penetration and manipulation
of the Rochester Institute of Technology (resulting in the
resignation of RIT's president and his chief administrative
assistant) seems not to have reminded them that the leopard still
has his spots.
When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first space
satellite, the United States government concluded we had fallen
behind in the development of scientists. The response was the
National Defense Education Act, which provided federal money for
graduate fellowships in science so that we could catch up in the
space race.
That was the time of Cold War, and everything from the
building of interstate highways (The National Defense Highway
Act of 1956) to foreign aid (the Mutual Security Act) was justified
by the need to meet the Soviet threat. Now the Cold War is over,
and obsolescent cold warriors seek new enemies and missions to
justify their budgets.
So it is not altogether surprising to find NSEA in the 1992
Intelligence Authorization. Declares the Act, "Cold War tensions
continue to decline," but "economic competition, regional
conflicts, terrorist activities, and weapon proliferations have
dramatically increased." From this, it concludes somehow, the
"The future national security and economic well-being of the
United States will depend substantially on the ability of its
citizens to communicate and compete by knowing the languages
and cultures of other countries." The Act appropriates $150
million to establish a National Security Education Act Trust Fund
from which $35 million, in equal thirds, is in undergraduate
scholarships for study abroad in "critical countries;" graduate
fellowships at US institutions in foreign languages, area studies,
and "international fields that are critical areas..." and grants to
universities to establish programs in the "critical areas."
The premise about national security may be valid, and the
programs to be financed may be an educationally sound response.
What is disturbing, though, is that the legislation was drafted in
the Senate Intelligence Committee, the money comes from the
Defense Department, the project is administered by the
Secretary of Defense through the Defense Intelligence College,
and is overseen by a "National Security Education Board," chaired
by the Secretary of Defense and on which sit the Secretaries of
State and Commerce, the Directors of Central Intelligence and of
the US Information Agency and, almost as an afterthought, the
Secretary of Education. Four experts in international and language
studies to be appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate complete the board.
An important objective is to provide US national security
departments and agencies with qualified recruits. Although the
Act specifies that no US intelligence agency may use a student
receiving grants, fellowships or scholarships to carry out any
activity for it during the period of study, at the same time, the
Secretary of Defense is empowered to order such students, after
graduation, to serve with an intelligence organization. Even more
significantly for campus independence, the Defense Intelligence
College will monitor student progress and, essentially, dictate to
participating colleges the content and emphasis of their in-
ternational, language and area studies programs. The university,
under this scheme, merely contracts to provide training for the
nation's intelligence services.
The Association of Professional Schools of International
Affairs (APSIA), comprised of the leading international affairs
schools at US universities--including Harvard, Yale, Southern
California, among others--was loud in its praise. It argued that
absent a "renewed commitment to international education" the US
was doomed to ineffectuality in its dealings with Japanese
businessmen, Arab oil ministers or European Community officials-
- not to mention drug dealers and terrorists. National security is
threatened.
The Liaison Group for International Educational Exchange, which
coordinates the placing of US students on foreign campuses and
vice versa, has praised the bill and its purposes and pledged its
cooperation. But the Liaison Group's executive secretary, Norman
Peterson, is apprehensive. After all, how do you explain to foreign
ministries of education that they are to accept US students who
may be future spies? Says Peterson, "We have to convince them
that we are not sending wolves in sheeps' clothing but sheep in
wolves' clothing."
Since the Department of Defense and the CIA already have
deservedly renowned language and country study facilities which
draw on cooperative and well-qualified academics, this move
toward a more direct and controlling presence on campuses is
hard to justify in terms of its announced purposes. But we should
expect much foreign university cooperation with an international
education project labelled "US national security" and directed by
the US Defense Intelligence College?
Without a doubt, US higher education needs to improve its
programs in international affairs and languages - something, by
the way, it could do on its own simply by restoring foreign
language degree requirements, which a shocking number of
institutions have dropped in recent years. If federal funding
assistance is needed, the appropriate source is the Department
of Education. If a rationale is required, it should not be some
inflated and dubious extension of the concept of "national
security" to excuse direction of what should be the liberating
process of university education by military and intelligence
bureaucrats looking for a post-cold war mission.
The next Congress should repeal NSEA, place federal support
for international education in the Department of Education
budget, and justify it in terms, not of a narrow US national
security, but of an increased US ability to understand
international problems and contribute to equitable and just
solutions for them.
[David Macmichael, a former CIA analyst, now directs the
Association for National Security Alumnae at (202) 483-9325. He
edits the publication Unclassified.]
From caf-talk Caf Mar 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Recent Changes to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
Message-ID: <1992Mar21.201021.16889@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 20:10:21 GMT
The CAF Archive is an electronic library of information about
computers and academic freedom.
It is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in
directory "pub/academic". It is also available via email. For
information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In
the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index".
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/abstracts
=================
These are abstracts to the Computers and Academic Freedom News
(CAF-news). Referenced issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous
ftp to eff.org in directory "academic/news".
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/dec_15_1991
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_23_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/mar_01_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/mar_08_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/mar_15_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/mar_22_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civics/foia
=================
The file is for individuals or organizations who wish to make an
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) application to a federal agency.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civics/gov.contact
=================
Tells how to call a representive or senator, how to call the White House
(comment line, fax, general), how to write Congress or the White House.
Also, gives names of key leaders of congress.
- Carl
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civics/media.fax
=================
Fax numbers for major media.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.policies
=================
q: Do any universities treat email and computer files as private?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.privacy
=================
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/brandenberg-v-ohio
=================
In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right
to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law.
It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10:
Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may
not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce
'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.'
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/childrens-legal-vs-fcc
=================
UPI newspaper story about the Supreme Court case _Children's Legal
Foundation, et al., vs. Federal Communications Commission, et al._/
_Federal Communications Commission, et al., vs. Action for Children's
Television, et al._. In this case the " Supreme Court ... declined to
let the government institute a ban on material it considers 'indecent'
from television and radio broadcasts."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986.godwin
=================
Mike Godwin, legal staff for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
says that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) could be
reasonably construed to protect university email.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n30
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n45
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n05
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n06
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n07
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n08
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n09
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu
=================
Ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
(Critiqued)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/ctr.columbia.edu
=================
"CTR Rules and Regulations Reguarding the Use of Computing
Facilities". CTR is the Center for Telecommunications Research at
Columbia University. The policy was sent in by Seth Robertson
.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/seas.upenn.edu
=================
This is the current policy for the main timesharing system for the
School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS) at the University of
Pennsylvania. The policy is being revised. The revision is expected
this summer. Eniac is the hostname of the system (Critiqued).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/seas.upenn.edu.critique
=================
A critique of the current policy for the main timesharing system for
the School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS) at the University
of Pennsylvania. The policy is being revised. The revision is expected
this summer. Eniac is the hostname of the system.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/uicvm.uic.edu
=================
"Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources", a policy of the
University of Illinois at Chicago's Computer Center (Critiqued).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/uicvm.uic.edu.critique
=================
Critique of "Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources", a
policy of the University of Illinois at Chicago's Computer Center.
Summary: This is the most creatively repressive policy I read in a
long time. The policy gives the false illusion of explicitness and due
process. In fact, however, it makes almost everything illegal and
subject to harsh and disproportionate punishment. It then gives the
Computer Center expansive discretion on enforcement and punishment.
The effect for users is the same as if there was no policy at all.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/umich.edu
=================
POLICY: PROPER USE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
AND NETWORKS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/uiuc.code.excerpts
=================
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/Other.info
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/acadia.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/baylor.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/boston.u.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/colgate.u.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/columbia.u.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/dan.webster.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/jmadison.u.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/kansas.state.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/mich.st.u.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/mich.tech.u.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/new.castle.u.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/new.mex.st.u.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/ocf.bylaws
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/ocf.constitution
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/purdue.cc.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/purdue.ecn.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/riacs.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/rose.hulman.cs.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/u.idaho.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/u.missouri.c.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/u.missouri.kc.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/u.missouri.rolla.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/u.new.mexico.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/u.pitt.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/u.wales.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/udel.guidelines_draft
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/udel.policy_draft
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/umc.cs.policy
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/wash.u.engr.policy
=================
=================
=================
--
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 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: burchell@cse.unl.edu (David Burchell)
Subject: Newspaper article at U. of Nebraska (alts)
Message-ID: <9203212232.AA24018@cse.unl.edu>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 22:32:24 GMT
For anyone who has been following the alt.* controversy at UNL,
the following article appeared on page one of _The Daily Nebraskan_,
the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, on
Tuesday, March 17, 1992.
UNL loses `alt' computer files
by Mike Lewis
staff reporter
Many UNL computer-users got hot under their collars a few
weeks ago, but it wasn't because of radiation from their monitors.
They were angry because the Computing Resource Center at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln had stopped feeding an entire set
of "bulletin board" news groups, called alternative or alt groups,
into UNLINFO, a machine that provides information via computers to
the UNL community.
Paul Kenyon, a UNL graduate student in computer science, said
he was angry that the alt groups were eliminated from UNLINFO.
"I would like to find a leginimate way to regain access to
the alt groups," he said.
The alt groups disappeared from UNLINFO without any warning
from the Computing Resource Center, Kenyon said.
"We found out about it after the fact," he said.
Kenyon said the alt groups made up one category of news groups
available on USENET, a worldwide computer "bulletin board" on which
users can post information for the general public. Kenyon called
USENET a "forum for discussion."
The USENET service is available on about 200,000 computers
worldwide, he said, and about 1 million people use the service for
research, entertainment and other reasons.
USENET holds a "big, big volume of data," Kenyon said, and
UNLINFO stors only a small fraction of all the USENET groups.
Most USENET news group categories deal with specific subjects,
such as science, computers or recreation, he said. The groups in
these categories often have moderators or editors who decide what
information will be posted.
But the alt groups never have editors, Kenyon said. Anyone can
start an alt group, and anyone can add to one.
Kenyon said he thought the alt groups were taken out of UNLINFO
because some of them were pornographic in nature, such as
"alt.sex.bondage" and "alt.sex.bestiality." Others dealt with trivial
subjects, such as "alt.tv.simpsons."
But other alt groups are worthwhile, he said.
"I'll guarantee you that out of 400 (alt groups), there are 200 that
are as legitimate as the rest of USENET," Kenyon said.
Douglas Gale, director of computing at UNL, said he was tired of
hearing students complain about the removal of the alt groups from
UNLINFO.
"They haven't been denied anything," he said.
People still can gain access to the alt groups by logging into
systems elsewhere, Gale said. A list of alternative sites was posted on
UNLINFO, he said.
Many students do not understand why those groups could no longer be
stored on UNLINFO, Gale said.
"We're dealing very much with a resource issue," he said.
The amount of memory on UNLINFO was doubling every four months, he
said, and the increase of data was making UNLINFO run more slowly.
Gale said he got the impression that some students would limit access
to valuable educational resources, such as library catalogs and news
wire services, just to look at "alt.tv.simpsons."
The content of the USENET groups also makes a difference, Gale said,
when taxpayers' money is involved.
"Some of that stuff (in the alt groups) is pretty sick," he said.
"There's stuff that would not be in the adult bookstore downtown."
CRC decided to stop storing the alt groups after a Feb. 27 meeting of
the UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and Facilities Committee.
Leo Chouinard, the Academic Senate representative on the Computational
Committee, said the committee discussed several considerations before
making a decision about the alt groups, including possible violations of
state pornography laws and concerns about computer resources being used
for non-educational purposes.
--
Dave Burchell | Review your options.
burchell@cse.unl.edu | Amiga.
ianr056@unlvm.bitnet |
From caf-talk Caf Mar 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar21.225125.9543@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 22:51:25 GMT
Summary: I consider the U. of Nebraska's action the electronic
equivalent of book burning. All of the University's rationalization
could be used just as well to justify removal of traditional library
material. If the U. of Nebraska does not have a policy on intellectual
freedom, it should create one. If it does have one, it should apply it
to both traditional media and computer media.
[...]
>the following article appeared on page one of _The Daily Nebraskan_,
>the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, on
>Tuesday, March 17, 1992.
>
[...]
> The alt groups disappeared from UNLINFO without any warning
>from the Computing Resource Center, Kenyon said.
> "We found out about it after the fact," he said.
[...]
Policy should not be made in secret.
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, the main
statement of student academic freedom in the U.S. says:
"As constituents of the academic community, students should be free,
individually and collectively, to express their views on issues of
institutional policy and on matters of general interest to the student
body. The student body should have clearly defined means to
participate in the formulation and application of institutional policy
affecting academic and student affairs. The role of the student
government and both its general and specific responsibilities should
be made explicit. and the actions of the student government within the
areas of its jurisdiction should be reviewed only through orderly and
prescribed procedures."
[...]
> USENET holds a "big, big volume of data," Kenyon said, and
>UNLINFO stores only a small fraction of all the USENET groups.
[...]
This is likely not true. More likely UNLINFO was getting
a large fraction of the newsgroups.
> Most USENET news group categories deal with specific subjects,
>such as science, computers or recreation, he said. The groups in
>these categories often have moderators or editors who decide what
>information will be posted.
This is not true. Most Usenet group are unmoderated forums, e.g.
free speech forums.
> But the alt groups never have editors, Kenyon said. Anyone can
>start an alt group, and anyone can add to one.
This is not true. Some alt groups do have editors. For example,
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, has an editor.
[...]
> Douglas Gale, director of computing at UNL, said he was tired of
>hearing students complain about the removal of the alt groups from
>UNLINFO.
> "They haven't been denied anything," he said.
> People still can gain access to the alt groups by logging into
>systems elsewhere, Gale said. A list of alternative sites was posted on
>UNLINFO, he said.
Just because you can get material elsewhere doesn't mean that it is not
censored here.
The American Library Association defines "censorship" as "the change
in the access status of material, made by a governing authority or its
representatives. Such changes include: exclusion, restriction,
removal, or age/grade level changes."
> "We're dealing very much with a resource issue," he said.
> The amount of memory on UNLINFO was doubling every four months, he
>said, and the increase of data was making UNLINFO run more slowly.
If resources are an issue, the UNLINFO should do what libraries do:
create an clear, open, written selection policy. Do do otherwise is do
leave the strong impression of censorship. [Information about library
selection policies is enclosed.]
[..]
> The content of the USENET groups also makes a difference, Gale said,
>when taxpayers' money is involved.
Libraries deal with this problem every day. One of their principles
is that :
"Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all
points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be
proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval."
[Library Bill of Rights]
> "Some of that stuff (in the alt groups) is pretty sick," he said.
>"There's stuff that would not be in the adult bookstore downtown."
[...]
Virtually everything in the alt groups is Constitutionally protected.
Most is very similar to what is found in an academic library.
The Joint Statement says: "Academic institutions exist for the
transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of
students, and the general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free
expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals its
members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to
develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a
sustained and independent search for truth."
Usenet (and the alt groups) fit these purposes perfectly.
- Carl Kadie
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.
=================
library/censorship.def.ala
=================
The American Library Association's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
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/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send library-policies censorship.def.ala
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
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/library/censorship.def.ala
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.privacy] Re: email privacy
Message-ID: <9203220128.AA18131@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 13:28:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 21 00:00:00 1992
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: email privacy
Message-ID: <21MAR199217164960@venus.tamu.edu>
Date: 21 Mar 92 22:16:00 GMT
In article <1992Mar17.171113.7966@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ahlevy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Allan Levy) writes...
>Does anyone have any definite and/or authoritatie information as to
>whether email coming into our going out of a a university is subject to
>the same restrctions on interception (tapping) as is voice communication
>by telephone?
>
>
>Allan H. Levy
>University of Illinois College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign
> Opinions are mine and not those of the University of Illinois (of course).
When I was at the Screw of I, the first time I logged onto my account a
message appeared basically saying, "the university owns this account and
everthing on it, and retains the right to do whatever it wants with anything
on this account whenever it wants. Using this account implies accepting these
conditions". It's always possible the policy has changed....
As a general rule, unless the university has specifically promised NOT to
read your Email, you don't have any legal protection against them doing so.
As a matter of fact, I know that somebody at U of I read a message I sent
there which bounced, becuase he replied to it (Basically, my note said,
"why, why, why don't you reply to my notes anymore" and somebody said,
"why, why, why not send mail to a valid address". They had changed
protocol on me (the address used to be valid)).
So I can say with certainty that U of I reads Email under at least some
circumstances.
Mr. Grinch
From caf-talk Caf Mar 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Dismissal for hacking - further info.
Message-ID: <920322151214.21203539@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 15:12:14 GMT
Further to my earlier posting, I have obtained an authorised report of the
decision:
Denco Ltd v. Joinson [1992] 1 All English Reports 463.
The headnote to the decision reads:
The employee had been employed by the employer as a sheet metal worker
since 1967. He was also a trade union official and chairman of a union
committee which negotiated with both his employer and a subsidiary company
based at his employer's site. The two companies shared computer facilities.
While working on the night shift, the employee used another employee's
code and password to gain entry to the subsidiary's computer and attempted
to obtain information about the subsidiary's customer file. His actions
were recorded on the computers' history file and when discovered he was
dismissed for gross misconduct. He complained to an industrial tribunal
that he had been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal upheld his complaint
on the ground that the employers had not shown that the employee had gained
access to the computer for an illegitimate purpose rather than idle
curiosity and therefore the allegation of gross misconduct had not been
made out. The employers apealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Held - If an employee deliberately used an unauthorised password to enter
or to attempt to enter the employer's computer which he knew contained
information to which he was not entitled to have access that of itself
amounted to gross misconduct which prima facie justified summary dismissal,
since unauthorised use of or tampering with a computer was a very serious
industrial offence.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was constituted by Justice Wood, and
Messers Phipps and Springer. Woods J., delivered the decision. At p.467-68
he states:
The industrial members are clear in their view that, in this modern
industrial world, if an employee deliberately uses an unauthorised password
in order to enter or attempt to enter a computer known to contain informat-
ion to which he is not entitled, then that of itself is gross misconduct
which prima facie will attract summary dismissal, although there may be
some exceptional circumstances in which such a response might be held
unreasonable. Basically, this is a question of 'absolutes' and can be
compared with dishonesty. However, because of the importance of preserving
the integrity of a computer with its information it is important that
management should make it abundantly clear to its workforce that inter-
fering with it will carry severe penalties.
[...]
An analogy may be drawn with a situation where an employee enters the
management offices of a company where he had no right to be, goes into
an office, sees a key on the desk which he knows is the key to the
filing cabinet which contains information to which he is not entitled
and thereafter opens the filing cabinet and takes out a file.
This is a fairly strong assertion, albeit an analogy, but one wonders if
the judiciary will take similar approaches in future computer misuse cases
(whether civil or criminal).
Mark Neely
22/3/1992
From caf-talk Caf Mar 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 06:34:22 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar22.063422.16518@anomaly.sbs.com>
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Summary: I consider the U. of Nebraska's action the electronic
>equivalent of book burning.
Bullshit. If the University had discontinued receiving certain alt groups
because of content, such as alt.sex, then *that* may be objectionable. In
this case we have a University making the decision that the alt
hierarchy doesn't fit into the educational goals of the University.
Just as a University might not offer Basket Weaving as a subject material
because it doesn't fit into the type of education they are attempting to
offer their students.
>All of the University's rationalization
>could be used just as well to justify removal of traditional library
>material.
Naturally. Whether you like it or not, Universities *do* censor
library material. They simply do not have the resources to carry every
book ever published.
[babble deleted]
>Virtually everything in the alt groups is Constitutionally protected.
>Most is very similar to what is found in an academic library.
Virtually every statement made by bozos screaming on streetcorners is
Constitutionally protected as well, that doesn't mean it has academic
merit.
>Usenet (and the alt groups) fit these purposes perfectly.
Too bad Usenet (and the alt groups) may not fit the definition of
academically-suitable material for the particular educational
institution.
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan /
-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
From caf-talk Caf Mar 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar22.163703.25361@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 16:37:03 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Summary: I consider the U. of Nebraska's action the electronic
>equivalent of book burning.
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Bullshit. If the University had discontinued receiving certain alt groups
>because of content, such as alt.sex, then *that* may be objectionable. In
>this case we have a University making the decision that the alt
>hierarchy doesn't fit into the educational goals of the University.
Are you saying that newsgroups alt.censorship, alt.civil-liberty, and
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk don't fit into the educational goals of the
University, but rec.skydiving does? I think it is more likely that
banning alt.* was just a backhanded way of banning discussion of sex
(alt.sex.*) without coming right out and saying that "discussions of
sex are prohibited." It is as if the library decided that to ban all
magazines starting with the letter "P" because it wanted to remove
_Playboy_?
Of course, there is no way to know for sure whether your interpreation
is correct or if mine is correct. Why? Because the decision was make
by a committee what worked in secret and that produced no detailed
selection policy.
According to the newspaper article:
> Leo Chouinard, the Academic Senate
> representative on the Computational Committee, said the committee
> discussed several considerations before making a decision about the
> alt groups, including possible violations of state pornography laws
[...]
To which I responded:
>>Virtually everything in the alt groups is Constitutionally protected.
>>Most is very similar to what is found in an academic library.
To which mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Virtually every statement made by bozos screaming on streetcorners is
>Constitutionally protected as well, that doesn't mean it has academic
>merit.
But it *does* mean that fear of "state pornography laws", a motivation
mentioned by a committee member, is a poor justification for banning,
for example, alt.censorship.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Mar 22 00:00:00 1992
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar22.181013.23157@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 22 Mar 92 18:10:13 GMT
In article <1992Mar22.063422.16518@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>All of the University's rationalization
>>could be used just as well to justify removal of traditional library
>>material.
>
>Naturally. Whether you like it or not, Universities *do* censor
>library material. They simply do not have the resources to carry every
>book ever published.
This isn't a relevant example, it would cost a library millions to carry
all books. It would cost the computer center less than $1000 to carry all
newsgroups.
>>Virtually everything in the alt groups is Constitutionally protected.
>>Most is very similar to what is found in an academic library.
>
>Virtually every statement made by bozos screaming on streetcorners is
>Constitutionally protected as well, that doesn't mean it has academic
>merit.
Educational institutions have a obligation to allow free flow of information,
that is there entire function. Yes legally they can do anything they want,
but ethically a university has no right to arbitrarily restrict access to
information. The only exception I could see are for groups like
alt.credit-cards.numbers, or alt.binaries.pirated.software.
>>Usenet (and the alt groups) fit these purposes perfectly.
>
>Too bad Usenet (and the alt groups) may not fit the definition of
>academically-suitable material for the particular educational
>institution.
WPI is a technical college yet our library has books of a non technical
nature. The free flow of information should not end at strictly defined
boundaries, students should have access to information on all subjects,
restricting learning to someones major is silly.
Some examples:
alt.os.linux-lets say your college teachs liberal arts only, should your
students not be allowed to learn about free OS's that are
available? What if having LaTex would help there report
writting?
alt.personals-Schools often sponsor activities for students to meet people
why not spend the $10-$20 to carry this group? When your
spending $1000's on social events?
--
Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact". ------
This is a mutated signature virus, if you don't put it in your .sig \ /
file you may lose your job, your dog may be run over, and you may die. \ /
If you repent and add the .sig you may win the lottery and get laid. \/
From caf-talk Caf Mar 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar22.175845.29563@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 22:58:45 GMT
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>Whether you like it or not, Universities *do* censor
>>library material. They simply do not have the resources to carry every
>>book ever published.
>This isn't a relevant example, it would cost a library millions to carry
>all books. It would cost the computer center less than $1000 to carry all
>newsgroups.
How do you know this computer center can spare this $1000? I'm sure
you've noticed there's a recession going on; even in the best of times
there's never enough money to support everything a site wants to
support. Perhaps they came to the conclusion that they needed the
space for things like user accounts, or to keep other groups for more
reasonable periods of time.
Alt is a perfect example of use expanding to fill available resources.
And with all the joke newgroups and huge posts to the pictures groups,
it's an administrative nightmare. Alt as a whole is far less useful than
the more formal hierarchies, and I for one don't fault any site for not
carrying it.
>>>Virtually everything in the alt groups is Constitutionally protected.
>>>Most is very similar to what is found in an academic library.
>Educational institutions have a obligation to allow free flow of information,
>that is there entire function. Yes legally they can do anything they want,
>but ethically a university has no right to arbitrarily restrict access to
>information. The only exception I could see are for groups like
>alt.credit-cards.numbers, or alt.binaries.pirated.software.
Don't forget alt.binaries.pictures. According to my records, in the
last week these groups:
alt.binaries.pictures.misc
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.blondes
alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless
accounted for 3% of the posts to alt, and 37% of the volume. Yet
virtually all of it is illegal reproductions of copyrighted material.
I hope you're not suggesting that universities are somehow obligated
to provide access to _these_ groups, particularly in preference to giving
users more space to compile their programs.
If anyone's interested, this is what we received last week:
78382 articles, 143164813 chars comp+rec+soc+talk+sci+news+
misc+junk+control+trial
19046 articles, 57908123 chars All of alt
639 articles, 21728705 chars the above six groups
As you can see, it's not trivial to carry the alt groups; they add up
to quite a bit of volume.
--
Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky +1 606 257 2975
Department of Mathematics
Flame early, flame often.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: harwell@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU (Bandwidth Pig)
Subject: Usenet ethics
Message-ID: <00957F8C.B8D1E480.5943@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 23:16:30 GMT
Hi, everyone. This is my first post to this group. Apologies are made if this
is already a FAQ.
We're thinking of supplying Usenet to the user community at UTPA. Having no
prior experience in this area, I ask:
1). Does a University incur liability for the possible exposure of minors to
pornographic material? Do "community standards" apply to Usenet? Are there
other legal liabilities that Usenet might inadvertently expose the university
to?
2). Is Usenet protected by the First Amendment free speech guarantee? For
example, I find the idea of feeding the university a "satanism" discussion
group repugnant. Do I have authority to kill selected feeds? Does the
university have the authority to impose its will on discussion groups that it
finds unacceptable?
3). How have other universities handled the implementation of Usenet? Will you
share your stories with me?
Thanking you in advance,
Anne Harwell
From caf-talk Caf Mar 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar22.224952.2290@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 22:49:52 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Summary: I consider the U. of Nebraska's action the electronic
>>equivalent of book burning.
>Bullshit. If the University had discontinued receiving certain alt groups
>because of content, such as alt.sex, then *that* may be objectionable. In
>this case we have a University making the decision that the alt
>hierarchy doesn't fit into the educational goals of the University.
And rec does?
>-- Michael P. Deignan /
>-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
>-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
--
/// ____ \\\ | CAUTION:
| |/ / \ \| | | Avoid eye contact. In case of contact, flush
\\_|\____/|_// | mind for 15 minutes. See a psychiatrist if
\_)\\/ | irritation persists. Not to be taken
gberigan `-' cse.unl.edu | seriously. Keep out of sight of children.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:32:59 GMT
KH> == Kenneth Herron
KH> If anyone's interested, this is what we received last week:
KH> 78382 articles, 143164813 chars comp+rec+soc+talk+sci+news+
KH> misc+junk+control+trial
KH> 19046 articles, 57908123 chars All of alt
KH> 639 articles, 21728705 chars the above six groups
KH> As you can see, it's not trivial to carry the alt groups; they add up
KH> to quite a bit of volume.
Well, yes, but if you do something like alt,!alt.binaries then you wind
up with this:
18407 articles, 36179418 chars. If you expire alt in under a week,
you can cut even that down. That's taking everything. If you spend
some time weeding, *that* goes down...
The problem with alt is that perfectly worthwhile groups, megabytes of
copyright violations, and my.inside.joke.ha.ha.ha all coexist in the
same area. It's therefore not a no-maintenance hierarchy (unless you
have lots of disk space)...
--
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 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.034401.15537@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 03:44:01 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Summary: I consider the U. of Nebraska's action the electronic
>equivalent of book burning.
What equivalent crime am I guilty of by not creating alt.mcdonalds.cocacola?
I seldom read anything past the first 20 lines of Carl's postings anymore.
You make no original arguments, instead you constantly repost sections of
other documents. My eyes glazed over long ago and I'm a fast reader. If
you're going to be a information freedom fanatic, do try to be interesting.
/pbp
--
Paul Pomes, Univ of Illinois | Necessity is the argument of tyrants, it is
Email to Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu | the creed of slaves. --William Pitt (1783)
