From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 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: <1992Mar23.051352.4366@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 05:13:52 GMT
kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
[...]
>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.
[...]
Perhaps. From the newspaper article, however, it does not sound as if
lack of resources was the Committee's only concern. There is really no
way to know since the Committee acted so quickly and without outside
comment.
In any case, I would hope that any system that decided to remove all
of "alt" would at least have a mechanism to add back some of the
groups (e.g. alt.censorship) at user request.
- 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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Usenet ethics
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.054851.4762@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 05:48:51 GMT
harwell@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU (Bandwidth Pig) writes:
>Hi, everyone. This is my first post to this group. Apologies are made if this
>is already a FAQ.
I'm enclosing references to FAQ's at the end of this note.
>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?
As far as I know this has never happened. You may want to check with
your library to see how they handle it.
> Do "community standards" apply to Usenet?
Most likely, but remember "community standards" refers to part of the
legal definition of obscenity, not pornography. As far as I know, no
textual material has been found obscene since _Miller_. (If _American
Psycho_ is Constitutionally protected and in university libraries,
then Usenet should be pretty safe.)
> Are there
>other legal liabilities that Usenet might inadvertently expose the university
>to?
As with any student publication, the University may worry about
liability for liable. As far as I know, however, no school has ever
been found liable when students are allowed to make their own
editorial decisions (for example, with student newspapers).
>2). Is Usenet protected by the First Amendment free speech guarantee?
Most likely.
> 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?
Legally, you likely select/not select anything. The real question is
ethical. It is the policy of most (and in my opinion, the moral
obligation of all) univeristies to respect intellectual freedom. Again
I think library policy is useful here.
>3). How have other universities handled the implementation of Usenet? Will you
>share your stories with me?
A few like Stanford have formal library-like anticensorship polices.
A few like Iowa State University have a formal policy that bans
discussions of sex via newsgroups such as alt.sex. Most have no formal
policy but seem to get most newsgroups.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
law/miller
=================
The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_
test)
=================
stanford.statements
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-faq policy
send caf-faq netnews.reading
send caf-faq netnews.liability
send caf-faq netnews.writing
send caf-law miller
send acad-freedom stanford.statements
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/faq/policy
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/law/miller
pub/academic/stanford.statements
--
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 23 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: <1992Mar23.060026.4947@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 06:00:26 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.
paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes:
>What equivalent crime am I guilty of by not creating alt.mcdonalds.cocacola?
Assuming you didn't base your decision on partisan or doctrinal
disapproval, none at all.
>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.
Hey, I resent that. I've *alway* constantly reposted sections of other
docuements. :-)
> 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.
It's hard to be original on the topic of newsgroup selection; the only
thing that changes is the place. I thought the critique of the U of
Illinois of Chicago policy was interesting. Maybe I'll start marking
such posting "*new topic*".
- 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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] The Emporer's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203230601.AA04989@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 20:01:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: daveh@csn.org (Dave Hughes)
Subject: The Emporer's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203221705.AA05959@teal.csn.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:05:06 GMT
Dick Karpinksi asks:
>Thus ANY AUP for any cross-regional network such as NSFNET is a
>total exercise in futility. It represents IDIOCY and must be
>eliminated in any plan to make sense of networking in this nation.
>Can anyone deny the obvious reality of this simple claim?
At last we have a few frustrated voices whose eyes recognize the
Internet Emperor and his Virtual Bride NREN have no clothes.
Dick is dead right. All efforts should be directed toward moving as
rapidly as possible toward a wide open, including commercial
traffic, global, not-controlled-by-one-entity network. And without
Byzantine rules which will drag the whole network into the
convoluted buracracy that computers and telecom are supposed to free
us from.
And the National Science Foundation should be the one to say that
themselves right to the face of Congress. Asking for whatever
legislation is needed to make it possible. With the principal of
'Universal Data Access' (price and connectivity) driving the whole
policy. With the absolute minimum of 'Data Control' on matters of
substance, while all efforts are directed at the difficult matters
of economics, performance, standards, and growth.
Its time to look at the broadest Public, and not just Individual
(institutional, corporate, government) Interest. Its time, folks, to
drop the scales from your eyes and see the realities of a core
network everyone wants to use, everyone wants to be able to pay for,
every company wants to profit from, every telco wants to hook to,
every university wants for their own purposes, every K-12 school
wants to introduce their kids to, every library wants to be accessed
over, every researcher and self-employed knowledge worker wants to
connect to, and every politician wants to take credit for.
If we can't figure out how to give America that, then we deserve to
lose - to the Japanese, Germans, European Community, Pacific Rim
nations, or whoever else has the sense to see where we are all going
in the future - and deliver it forthwith.
Benjamin Franklin would have been the first owner of a microcomputer
- an Apple II. Thomas Jefferson would have written the Declaration
of Independence on an IBM PC in Word Perfect 5.0. And Thomas Paine
would have put Common Sense on the first pirate bulletin-board.
I don't want any corporate or government King's George treading on
my cursor. We must have absolute freedom of Electronic Speech,
Digital Assembly, and Cursor Commerce over networks created by
public funds. If private entities, with their own money, want to
create networks, control it any way they want, and sell it to me
because it is better for me than public networks - ok. But any
network created by public funds (and I don't forget that most every
university and midlevel here is also the recipient of public funds.
They are not as 'private' as they want everyone to believe.)
The proper function of Government in this case is exactly what it
was in the Constitutional Convention of 1785 - providing, among other
things, in the Constitution no less, for a system of 'Post Roads'
for the carrying of information of the day - paper mail.
Now it is time for open Highways of the Mind to be legislated and
opened up, funded to the point that Everyman, woman, child and
self-starting computer can use them for any legal purpose.
If we in the US *don't* repeat political history in this matter -
which deals no less than with the way Americans will connect up
their minds to each other - we will sink back into the Balkanization
of Europe, (which has taken them centuries to grow out of), the
Power mongers of Asia (from war lords to corporate dictators), or
the backwardness of the Middle Ages (where Rome incestously debated
angels on a pin while Copernicus looked at the stars the way they
really were) and the Information Rich (those who could afford
private tutors) lorded it over the Information Poor (those would
were illiterate) - until Gutenburg made society egalaterian for at
least 300 years.
Now, at the true dawning of the Electronic Information Age (where
everyperson can now technically and economically be connected) we
either continue that grand political tradition started in 1776 -
with its unique synthesis of public and private interest - for the
benefit of all - or we too, will fail as a nation, as all others
before us have. When they couldn't adapt new forms of power to their
ultimate national social vision.
daveh@csn.org
dave%oldcolo@csn.org
Dave Hughes Fido 1/128/67
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [unl.general] Re: alt. groups, etc.
Message-ID: <199203230613.AA05214@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 20:13:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: unl.general
From: burchell@cse.unl.edu (David Burchell)
Subject: Re: alt. groups, etc.
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.004407.12778@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 00:44:07 GMT
Paul makes a good point. CRC doesn't HAVE to provide usenet.
But this begs the question, what DO they have to provide?
And why does CRC provide anything? Why does CRC exist?
My personal opinion is that CRC exists, and provides things,
as a service to the university. CRC is not some philanthropic
organization, donating computers and their use to the lucky
students and faculty of UNL. We (the University) created
CRC to do our bidding and provide the services we need.
The broad question many of us are guilty of ignoring in our
posts (myself included) is "How good of a job is CRC doing
of serving the University?"
The answer seems to be that there is some room for improvement.
When a service is eliminated with no previous warning and no
prior discussion, CRC has failed in its mission of providing
the University with good service.
The elimination of alt.* access on usenet, like the elimination
without warning last semester of many graduate student accounts
on hoss, is an example of this failure.
On the subject of whining, I have yet to hear any whining from
anyone, unless you count Doug Gale's comment that he is tired of
hearing students complain about the removal of alt groups.
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203230640.AA23348@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 18:40:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
From: n13@krypton.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (Leonard J. Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Mar 92 03:07:26 GMT
Please note that my reply is based upon my views of the following
questions in an academic environment only, and does not reflect my views
about the questions in a business or pay-per-message system.
In article 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.
[stuff cut]
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?
Those who are responsible for the system (such as the Postmaster or
the sysadmin, should always have the ABILITY to look at mail. That is, if you
have the proper system privs, it is possible to look at mail. I would think
it unwise from a sysadmin point of view, to restrict yourself in any way from
anything on your machine. If you _have_ to get to something, you should
be able to.
As for the "RIGHT" of the sysadmin to look at mail...see below.
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?
If such things are found, they probably should be delt with according
to local policy. This question isn't too clear on the circumstances of how
the message was found. I don't beleive in having people brouse through mail
just to see if students are cheating on an assignment. But if said things
ARE found, they probably should be delt with.
3) Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
widely known and accepted?
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?
It would probably be a good idea if the following were done:
1) Make a policy about the privicy of e-mail on the systems involved.
2) Inform everyone who is one the machine (including the sysadmins) about
the policy.
3) Keep the policy on-line for easy access.
4) Follow that policy and notify your user community if they change.
Here is a policy that I was thinking about using:
--cut--
Your mail is not secure. Due to the nature of the operating system
and/or network upon which mail is transfered, mail messages may be faked.
Your mail is not private. The administration will only access your
mail files for valid reasons such as, but not limited to: 1) corrupt mail
format, 2) legal reasons, 3) security breaches, just to name a few.
If you have any questions, mail the sysadmin.
--cut--
It's simple, it could probably be worded a lot better, it leaves
the sysadmin in a good position to get things done when they need to, and
it also lets the users know that the sysadmin is willing to answer questions
about the policy.
Leonard Schmidt
Mankato State University
n13@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
Standard disclaimer applies.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <9203230645.AA23369@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 18:45:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: trussell@isis.cs.du.edu (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar22.020842.29426@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 02:08:42 GMT
burchell@cse.unl.edu (David Burchell) writes:
> 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.
I find this comment VERY interesting, considering the fact that a couple
of years ago, several UNL computer users were treated as the equivalent of
computer crackers (lost their accounts, disciplinary action) for connecting
to MUDs in the public user rooms.
Now, none other than the director of computing is allowing, nay ADVOCATING,
that users connect to other sites and waste network bandwidth in order to
access these "controversial" groups. So rather than having these groups
sent once over an NNTP link, they'll be sent hundreds of times as each indiv-
idual user reads them on a remote net site.
Or is this all a smokescreen? Will users be disciplined when they
actually do access these groups remotely? This remains to be seen.
Well, when traffic volume goes up on the Midnet and "legitimate" work
suffers as a result, we all know who to thank! gale@unlinfo.unl.edu.
> 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."
Talk about your straw men! UNLLIB is a totally separate machine.
--
Tim Russell Omaha, NE trussell@isis.cs.du.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 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: <9203230655.AA23406@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 18:55:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: email privacy
Message-ID: <1992Mar22.102355.13769@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 22 Mar 92 10:23:55 GMT
In article <1992Mar17.171113.7966@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ahlevy@ux1 (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?
Yes, but only when in transit. It's illegal to violate communication
privacy on telephone and it's illegal to violate communications
privacy of electronic mail (and postal mail).
The trouble is when the mail is considered to be in transit - one
might argue that in /usr/spool/mail it's not in transit. A law change
is planned to fix this in connection with the second part of the
general criminal code review.
The government and police are (again) talking about violating
citizen's privacy by listening to innocent citizen's phone
conversations, but there's no detailed plan for that yet. There have
been rumors circulating about police and/or security agencies
illegally tapping phones repeated by even the former head of the
justice department, though I don't think she's said anything detailed.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.071544.17220@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 92 07:15:44 GMT
In article <1992Mar23.034401.15537@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu 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.
>
>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.
Such a shame that Carl won't debate with just interesting opinions,
and instead keeps throwing out documented facts. Sure makes for a
boring debate... and it is impossible to argue against it too!
Why, if Carl would just quit doing his homework, it would be *sooo*
much more fun.
Here's to a sarcastic day,
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, Alaska
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 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: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 06:40:15 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.064015.22068@anomaly.sbs.com>
gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>And rec does?
The rec hierarchy has certain guidelines for newsgroup creation. Alt,
however, has none, and the System Administration may have decided that it
is easier not to get alt at all rather than put up with the bullshit of
deleting 17,000 alt.newsgroups.puke.puke.puke every semester.
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 06:42:54 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.064254.22338@anomaly.sbs.com>
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>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.
Clearly, you have no clue what it *may* or *may not* cost for a computer
center to carry all newsgroups. When was the last time you prepared a
computer center budget?
kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
[facts deleted]
Geeze, Ken, you don't want to confuse them with the FACTS now, do you?
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.followup
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.140333.13737@tijc02.uucp>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 14:03:33 GMT
From article <1992Mar23.064015.22068@anomaly.sbs.com>, by mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan):
> gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>
>>And rec does?
>
> The rec hierarchy has certain guidelines for newsgroup creation. Alt,
> however, has none, and the System Administration may have decided that it
> is easier not to get alt at all rather than put up with the bullshit of
> deleting 17,000 alt.newsgroups.puke.puke.puke every semester.
>
I don't think every college should be required to carry every newsgroup or
hierarchy. Cost and content should be able to be used as a valid criteria
for carrying certain groups. Those with the authorities to make the
decisions should be using the same criteria as a library. Since the
decision was not made using proper procedure and included content judgement
on personal values rather than educational values, this decision likely fits
the description of censorship. The original post quoted the Director of
Computing Services as saying:
> "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."
This sure seems like an inadequate defense of the actions taken. He has
judged all newsgroups in alt based on the worst. This would be the
equivelant of rejecting a certain publishers books because of a few.
There will be growing pains as those in charge of computing services get
educated on the correct ways of dealing with this new media of information
transfer. I am glad we have the EFF around -- there archive of library
policies makes it possible for any savvy computer director to make decisions
that will not censor material.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schmidt - President "Freedom seems to have unleashed the
Davy Crockett Chapter: creative energies of the people --
Advocates for Self-Government and leads to ever higher levels of
706 Judith Drive income and social progress."
Johnson City, TN 37604 United Nations report
(615)283-0084 -- uunet!tijc02!pjs269
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Reposts from UNL
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.153408.9494@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 15:34:08 GMT
All the reposts I'm doing from unl.general/distribution=local are with
the authors' permission. When reading these articles keep in mind that
they are a week or two old.
I've asked their permission because when they posted to unl.genera{
they expected their notes to stay on campus.
Aside: Not all "local" newsgroups really are local. For example,
uiuc.general is distributed off campus.
- 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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [unl.general] alt. groups, etc.
Message-ID: <199203231536.AA09658@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 05:36:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: unl.general
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Subject: alt. groups, etc.
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.213534.6879@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 21:35:34 GMT
I use Usenet extensively and miss alt.horror, but reading through the
irate discussion here, I think this is not being seen in perspective.
Yes, a good case can be made about freedom of information, but:
1) as someone has noted, we don't have to have ANY Usenet access AT ALL.
CRC is shorthanded (maybe shortbrained as well) as it is, and they could
just have easily decided to flush the whole works rather than fiddle with
the drives, keep the workstation going, etc.
2) It gives me a nice warm feeling inside to know that there are plenty
of people out there who's lives are smooth enough that this is what
they have to use up their store of righteous indignation on. All I
can say is, have fun in the real world, guys.
It sure would be nice to be able to just buy the "$150 worth of disk space"
folks claim is needed for the alt groups. Next time you're a little short
on your own hard drive, see if anybody will sell you, say, just $65 or
$75 dollars worth of space to add in. Oh, you can't do that? You mean
you have to replace the WHOLE DRIVE to add the extra space? Oh. Guess
that would cost a little more than $150, huh.
Let your opinion be known, and the more access we have to network groups,
the better I'll like it, but jeez, keep it in perspective. Nobody likes
a whiner.
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Paul Marxhausen /// University of Nebraska - Lincoln ///////////////////////
/ These opinions are absolute fact beyond possibility of rational disputation /
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [unl.general] Re: alt. groups, etc.
Message-ID: <199203231537.AA09726@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 05:37:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: unl.general
From: kenyon@saku.unl.edu (Paul H. Kenyon)
Subject: Re: alt. groups, etc.
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Mar 92 22:02:27 GMT
gsmith@hoss.unl.edu (Gregory W. Smith) writes:
>Removing alt.sex.* and alt.binaries.* would leave behind a collection of
>newsgroups where the positives outweigh the negatives IMHO. It would also
>go ninety percent of the way torwards solving problems of 'resource limits.'
>I have downloaded enough cheesecake wallpaper for my home Windows system
>to attest to the volume on the alt.binaries.* groups. (I have also
>BOUGHT a lot of frivolous pictures too. By the way, I am looking for a
>GIF picture of a P-38 Lightning to add to my collection.) Trimming
>alt.sex.* and alt.binaries.* would leave behind a group that probably
>mirrors the rec.* heirarchy in content as I see it.
Sorry Greg, I have to disagree with you.
The stripped (censored) alt.* groups would be of higher overall value
than the rec.* heirarchy !!!
>Greg Smith
>gsmith@hoss.unl.edu
-Paul
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [unl.general] Top 25 News Groups for the last 2 weeks
Message-ID: <199203231537.AA09788@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 05:37:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: unl.general
From: kenyon@saku.unl.edu (Paul H. Kenyon)
Subject: Top 25 News Groups for the last 2 weeks
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Mar 92 21:53:54 GMT
Hello, in the interest of adding facts to this discussion I am
reposting 2 articles which appear regularly in the grep news.lists.
I think they can answer some of the assumptions which have been made
about various traffic volume.
I leave it to others (for now) to draw calculations or conclussions from these.
Here is the first:
> Newsgroups: news.lists
> Path: unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!uunet!uunet!rick
> From: newsstats@uunet.UU.NET
> Subject: Top 25 News Groups for the last 2 weeks
> Message-ID: <1992Mar13.202241.21391@uunet.uu.net>
> Sender: rick@uunet.uu.net (News Statistics)
> Organization: UUNET Communications Services
> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 20:22:41 GMT
> Approved: rick@uunet.UU.NET
>
> No. of $ Cost % of Cumulative
> Rank Kbytes Articles per Site Total % of Total Group (Articles/contributor)
> 1 22596.7 502 59.63 6.2% 6.2% alt.binaries.pictures.erotica (5.8)
> 2 12401.4 369 32.73 3.4% 9.7% alt.binaries.pictures.misc (3.1)
> 3 8955.7 220 23.63 2.5% 12.1% alt.binaries.sounds.misc (3.9)
> 4 8559.5 193 22.59 2.4% 14.5% alt.binaries.pictures (5.5)
> 5 6565.0 153 17.32 1.8% 16.3% alt.sex.pictures (7.0)
> 6 5515.0 1515 14.55 1.5% 17.9% bionet.molbio.genbank.updates (1.0)
> 7 3573.0 1655 9.43 1.0% 18.8% talk.politics.misc (3.9)
> 8 2926.7 1487 7.72 0.8% 19.6% talk.abortion (8.3)
> 9 2815.5 1209 7.43 0.8% 20.4% rec.arts.movies (2.0)
> 10 2746.5 1243 7.25 0.8% 21.2% talk.politics.mideast (5.0)
> 11 2661.5 1159 7.02 0.7% 21.9% rec.games.frp (2.4)
> 12 2651.4 113 7.00 0.7% 22.7% comp.binaries.apple2 (4.5)
> 13 2638.2 83 6.96 0.7% 23.4% alt.sources (2.0)
> 14 2561.1 120 6.76 0.7% 24.1% news.answers (1.0)
> 15 2496.8 62 6.59 0.7% 24.8% comp.binaries.os2 (1.0)
> 16 2451.4 57 6.47 0.7% 25.5% comp.binaries.mac (1.0)
> 17 2411.4 743 6.36 0.7% 26.1% alt.sex.bondage (2.5)
> 18 2279.0 59 6.01 0.6% 26.8% comp.sources.x (1.0)
> 19 2245.3 1251 5.93 0.6% 27.4% rec.arts.anime (4.7)
> 20 2226.4 52 5.88 0.6% 28.0% alt.sex.pictures.female (5.2)
> 21 2212.6 2149 5.84 0.6% 28.6% rec.sport.cricket (3.5)
> 22 2188.4 1167 5.77 0.6% 29.2% alt.sex (1.9)
> 23 2136.6 49 5.64 0.6% 29.8% alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female (5.4)
> 24 2088.0 44 5.51 0.6% 30.4% fj.binaries.msdos (1.0)
> 25 2031.4 1187 5.36 0.6% 30.9% rec.arts.tv.soaps (3.3)
>
> $ Cost is the cost of sending it over a Trailblazer to UUNET, using the
> 800 number and Night rates. (1000 characters per second and $9.50 per hour)
> I.e .264 cents per kilobyte
>
At your service,
-Paul Kenyon
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [unl.general] Total traffic through uunet for the last 2 weeks
Message-ID: <199203231539.AA09873@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 05:39:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: unl.general
From: kenyon@saku.unl.edu (Paul H. Kenyon)
Subject: Total traffic through uunet for the last 2 weeks
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Mar 92 21:57:07 GMT
Hello again, here is some more information this file.
It could answer such questions as:
What is saved by cutting alt. (versus say the biggest 25 groups)
and
How much is the news feed growing over say 4 months.
Hope this helps,
-Paul
> Newsgroups: news.lists
> Path: unlinfo.unl.edu!wupost!uunet!uunet!rick
> From: newsstats@uunet.UU.NET
> Subject: Total traffic through uunet for the last 2 weeks
> Message-ID: <1992Mar13.202246.21450@uunet.uu.net>
> Sender: rick@uunet.uu.net (News Statistics)
> Organization: UUNET Communications Services
> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 20:22:46 GMT
> Approved: rick@uunet.UU.NET
>
>
> 185487 articles, totaling 361.817410 Mbytes (446.028690 including headers),
> were submitted from 18259 different Usenet sites by 48937 different
> users to 2081 different newsgroups for an average of 25.844101 Mbytes
> (31.859192 including headers) per day.
>
>
> Article Total
> Category Count Mbytes Percent Mbytes
> alt 34015 124.251064 34% 140.507767
> rec 55938 79.810112 22% 104.760568
> comp 42679 77.869047 21% 97.236206
> soc 22609 40.520360 11% 51.812836
> talk 9359 18.467874 5% 23.203764
> bit 10720 15.562037 4% 20.799951
> sci 7878 14.514925 4% 18.313968
> clari 5793 14.315533 3% 18.035179
> misc 9206 14.058517 3% 18.277245
> fj 4871 12.318663 3% 14.831021
> bionet 2084 6.741392 1% 7.564829
> news 2102 6.490574 1% 7.517983
> gnu 1357 2.939445 0% 3.529382
> vmsnet 707 1.303344 0% 1.678943
> biz 348 0.800077 0% 1.004016
> inet 187 0.540135 0% 0.613992
> eunet 171 0.179708 0% 0.260676
> de 19 0.022684 0% 0.031524
> sfnet 1 0.012220 0% 0.012745
> k12 2 0.002372 0% 0.003314
> alt/aquaria 2 0.001572 0% 0.002362
> decr 2 0.001286 0% 0.002173
>
> Propagation Delay to uunet
>
> No. of Cumulative Hourly Breakdown of First Day
> Days Articles Percent Hours Articles Percent
> <0 1560 0% (Time Warp) -1 715 0%
> 0 1 0% 0 1 0%
> 1 169833 92% 1 78992 43%
> 2 8463 97% 2 24533 56%
> 3 2099 98% 3 11016 62%
> 4 1161 99% 4 6957 66%
> 5 624 99% 5 4758 68%
> 6 329 99% 6 4036 70%
> 7 236 99% 7 3472 72%
> 8 77 99% 8 2841 74%
> 9 60 99% 9 2478 75%
> 10 52 99% 10 2164 76%
> 11 42 99% 11 2476 78%
> 12 64 99% 12 2413 79%
> 13 45 99% 13 2206 80%
> 14 21 99% 14 2190 81%
> 15 3 99% 15 1683 82%
> 16 2 99% 16 1665 83%
> 17 0 99% 17 2172 84%
> 18 2 99% 18 3183 86%
> 19 1 99% 19 2736 88%
> 20 0 99% 20 2802 89%
> 21 2 99% 21 1713 90%
> 22 3 99% 22 1394 91%
> 23 1 99% 23 1056 91%
> 24 3 99%
> 25 1 99%
> 26 1 99%
> 27 2 99%
> 28 1 100%
>
> Average delay per article is 7.9 hours
>
> Article Size Distribution:
> % of % of % of % of
> Kbytes Count Articles Bytes Kbytes Count Articles Bytes
> 1 50678 27.3% 8.7% 9 547 0.3% 1.1%
> 2 85002 45.8% 27.8% 10 384 0.2% 0.8%
> 3 26960 14.5% 14.9% 11 333 0.2% 0.8%
> 4 9474 5.1% 7.4% 12 232 0.1% 0.6%
> 5 4365 2.4% 4.5% 13 194 0.1% 0.6%
> 6 2298 1.2% 2.9% 14 153 0.1% 0.5%
> 7 1221 0.7% 1.8% 15 159 0.1% 0.5%
> 8 799 0.4% 1.4% >= 16 2688 1.4% 25.8%
>
>
> Historical Traffic Data
>
> 14 days Mbytes Posting Active
> ending Articles per day Sites Users Groups
> 910822 127466 18.217 13634 33731 1651
> 910909 124208 17.546 13503 33411 1657
> 910923 137682 19.600 14389 36719 1740
> 911008 137225 20.215 14565 37797 1732
> 911023 142161 20.124 14572 38388 1758
> 911111 154597 21.072 15531 41378 1810
> 911127 163345 22.330 15860 43955 1891
> 911209 145496 22.131 14997 39474 1851
> 920109 107114 16.686 12452 29869 1725
> 920211 195672 27.709 18092 49442 2045
> 920224 186934 26.287 17859 48591 2070
> 920312 185487 25.844 18259 48937 2081
>
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: repost request
Message-ID: <199203231543.AA09963@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 05:43:08 GMT
[email reposted with author's permission - carl]
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Subject: Re: repost request
To: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 8:13:49 CST
You may certainly repost my rather snippy little comments on UN-L's alt.
controversy. I would like to just add the comment that I do not intend
to live or die by that particular article. I will scarcely deny that
there are significant freedom-of-information/expression issues involved;
on the other hand, I get the distinct impression from the flavor of
postings on the subject that some folks are simply using such rhetoric
to bolster the fact that they are miffed that one of their favorite toys
has been taken away from them. I'm as much a net addict as the next guy
and only "alt.horror" has been taken away from me, and that wasn't all
that important to me.
But then, I know many may say, "this is just the thin edge of the wedge -
one day, they take away alt.sex.bestiality, the next day they are suppressing
political discussions, etc." Maybe. On the other hand, this kind of sounds
like National Rifle Association rhetoric - "registration is just the first
step to confiscation/totalitarianism/etc."
Also, as an electronics tech in the engineering college who is not unaware
of the politics/money situations/etc. in our Computing Resource Center, I
also wished to point out that the Powers That Be are not totally dissembling
when they use the issue of hard disk usage as an excuse for paring some of
the groups. This issue is not as trivial as it has been portrayed, with
short funds and VERY short manpower and increasing demands on local
network resources, it's hard for CRC to see this in the same light as
outraged users.
Well, this is turning into a whole other article, which you also have
my permission to edit/distribute at will. Again, I don't have the time
and attention to give this the kind of thoughtful consideration it deserves
so I cheerfully admit the possibility that I'm full of it on this.
Regards . . .
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] AUP
Message-ID: <199203231547.AA10089@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 05:47:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: peter@goshawk.LANL.GOV (Peter S. Ford)
Subject: AUP
Message-ID: <9203231205.AA13233@goshawk.lanl.gov>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 12:05:05 GMT
I believe most people will agree that the microphysics of hop by hop
destination based packet forwarding makes enforcing AUPs which talk about
end to end flows hard to enforce thru routing. ( Someone should write this
up for the annals of the Internet. Anyone???)
It is important to note that this does not mean that this is an
unsolvable problem, and in fact, one can look at work like InterDomain
Policy Routing to provide a clue as to what we might expect in the
future. It is also possible to restate the AUPs, but I believe these
new AUPs would be even more restrictive, and most people would
probably reject them as a step in the wrong direction.
I believe we are seeing stress due to the application of
technology which was designed, tested and deployed to serve a single
community of interest, when in fact the current Internet is far from a
single community of interest. In the former case, if there were
multiple paths between two sites using any or all of the paths was
okay. In the later case, it may not be okay, but that in and of itself is
okay.
Can we agree that it is unlikely every network in the Internet
will want to be a transit for every other network? Let's run the
thought experiment:
NSF lifts the AUP. (Sorry Steve, but perhaps we can get you
a minimum security cell somewhere nice in Maryland
with an Internet tap so you can still do e-mail. :-))
Now where does traffic transit? I bet a large amount will be going
to the NSF backbone.
Now what is our favorite topic on com-priv? Can you say
settlements? Can you say "I don't want to be the
1990's version of ihnp4!"?
I don't see the current formulation of the CIX solving the
problem of transit today. It does a great job of solving the access
problem as long as consenting networks are willing to eat arbitrary
transit costs. Perhaps this will be a natural state when the cost of
carrying photons reaches its limit of zero, but we are not there
today. (Note, I am rejecting the notion of a single interconnection
point since we lose some nice properties, like short paths.) I can
imagine some alternatives they (or other CIX-wanna-bes) might be considering:
settlements
a shared transit system between CIX points, somehow jointly
funded by CIX members (I bet this ends up looking like
some kind of settlements scheme)
sender keeps all, what does this mean for the regionals and the
global network providers ...?
I am sure there are other schemes that I have not listed here.
It is even possible something unexpected might evolve, much like
the rampant hub and spoke evolution of the airlines since they
were deregulated. (I hope I do not end up as the Salt Lake City
of networking where a single provider can charge whatever it
wants due to a monopoly position!!!)
[note all of the above may require some notion of (eeeek!)
accounting.]
What is my point? Much of the NSFnet AUP argument is unproductive
because it simply takes the reader from one set of assumed evils
to another set of assumed evils. As it stands, NSF funds a network to
support research and education, I think this is a good thing. This network
interconnects with many other networks some which serve communities other
than the R&E community, again a good thing. They interconnect so
that academia and research sites can communicate with non-R&E
people for purpose of knowledge exchange, tech transfer, etc., a good
thing. NSF would like the bandwidth/service it is paying for to support
connectivity to and/or from R&E sites only, thus helping to insure the
gumint is not losing its shirt, a good thing.
Current tech is not so great at selecting between two
available paths based on some criteria (policy, bandwidth, latency,
reliability, etc.). Some people propose the solution to the problem
is to get rid of the AUP and subsequently not having NSF fund any
particular network. I suggest the solution is to apply better
technology, in other words, get a new physics. This may include some
rational notion of accounting. For the forseeable future, the gumint
will want to target special networks to special problems (NASA
missions, inteconnecting supercomputer centers, interconnecting K-6
schools, etc.), and there will be AUPs. I would also argue that in the
future, many commercial ventures will want to have policies which look
a lot like AUPs. Time for new tech, new forwarding micro physics,
more bits ... On the other hand, it is probably also time to have
rational discussion of settlements and the like ...
cheers,
peter
P.S. Yes, I am sending this to kick the discussion out of the bash
the NSF AUP chaotic attractor. What about that Pennsylvania
Caller ID decision? What does it mean for src/dest routing and
recording in packet headers ...
--
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 23 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: <1992Mar23.160743.2594@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 16:07:43 GMT
floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>Such a shame that Carl won't debate with just interesting opinions,
>and instead keeps throwing out documented facts.
Carl's "documented facts" consist of policy statements from library groups,
conduct codes, and a few court decisions of debateable applicability. In
this area there are few absolutes (your "documented facts"). Unless he can
make his arguments more interesting, few people will bother reading his
polemics.
/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)
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: The Emporer's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203231617.AA11054@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 06:17:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Dan Schlitt)
Subject: Re: The Emporer's Clothes
Message-ID: <9203231345.AA20212@sci.sci.ccny.cuny.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 03:45:01 GMT
Ahhhhhh. What a fine rant, Dave.
One need not buy into the complete freedom rhetoric to see that the
acceptable use statements do not work on datagram networks that use routing
as we now know it. If you want to play strictly by the rules then you
have to restrict yourself to what is acceptable on the most restrictive
network which a datagram might be routed through between the two hosts.
To enforce the statements requires that one look into the contents of
every datagram that passes through a gateway between networks with
different standards. Even then it is not clear how one would
determine if the contents are ok.
To keep everyone's lawyers happy it probably will take an act of Congress
to get it done. Instead of dinking around getting an opinion from their
legal staff about the existing state of the law the NSF should ask congress
for an unabiguous statement that there is no restriction on the use of
the NSF/ANS backbone of the sort defined by the acceptable use statement.
/dan
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: The Emporer's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203231617.AA11113@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 06:17:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: kwe2@BBN.COM (Kent W. England)
Subject: Re: The Emporer's Clothes
Message-ID: <9203231548.AA04019@psi.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 14:47:20 GMT
>Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 08:45:01 -0500
>From: Dan Schlitt
>To: com-priv@psi.com, daveh@csn.org
>Subject: Re: The Emporer's Clothes
>
>Ahhhhhh. What a fine rant, Dave.
>
I would agree that it is a fine defense of the need for open
communications and personal freedom, but you must remember that the vast
majority of individuals still access the Internet via institutional
networks. These people will still be subject to appropriate use when
they use their institutional networks no matter how the backbones are
provisioned. It's just that the NSF contractors and regional networks
and commercial interconnect providers will be relieved of the burden of
announcing NSF AUP.
--Kent
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Personal use of, and freedom on, university resources
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.171306.11855@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 17:13:06 GMT
*New Topic*
This article 1) lists university resources and the amount of personal
use typically allowed, 2) identifies the factors that seem to effect
the amount of freedom/personal use allowed, 3) analyzes computer
resources using these factors, 4) suggests strategies for increasing
the amount of freedom-to-use computer resources.
As a first step toward understanding why personal use of some
university resources is allowed while personal use of other university
resources is not allowed, I offer these observations:
Resource: A professor's use of his or her own time.
Personal Use?: A professor can do personal business on university time
Resource: A professional staff person's use of his or her own time.
Personal Use? Allowed, but to a lesser degree than for a professor
Resource: A clerical workers use of his or her own time.
Personal Use?: More restricted
Resource: Hallways as a place to talk
Personal Use?: Generally allowed
Resource: Telephone -- local
Personal Use?: Generally allowed
Resource: Telephone -- long distance -- University pays
Personal Use?: Generally not allowed
Resource: Telephone -- long distance -- caller pays
Personal Use?: Generally allowed
Resource: Campus Mail
Personal Use?: Generally not allowed
Resource: U.S. Mail -- your stamp
Personal Use?: Allowed
Resource: U.S. Mail -- University stamp
Personal Use?: No
Resource: Library
Personal Use?: yes
Resource: Photocopy machine
Personal Use?: no
=============================================
Factors that seem to matter:
Explicitness of Incremental cost -- If the incremental cost is easy to
calculate (stamps, photocopies, long distance telephone, hourly
worker's time), personal use at university expensive is more likely to
be restricted. If incremental cost is hard to calculate (salaried
worker's time, cost providing hallway for talking, use of library),
personal use is more likely to be allowed.
Amount of incremental cost -- If the incremental costs are high (long
distance), personal use will likely be restricted. If the incremental
cost is low (local telephone calls), personal use may be allowed.
University Benefit from freedom -- If the university sees itself
benefiting from the freedom (self-directed professors creating great
research, moral higher because people can take calls from their kids,
students learning on their own in the library), it is more likely to
allow "personal use." If it seems itself being hurt (union organizing
via campus mail), it is more likely to prohibit "personal use".
========================
Analysis of computer resources.
Incremental costs: generally hard to calculate (the cost of bookkeeping
is often more than the cost of the resource.)
Amount of incremental costs: Depends. If a school has lots of CPU
cycles and disk space, then personal use uses resources that would
otherwise be wasted. If a school is short of CPU cycles and disk
space, then personal use could be quite expensive.
University benefit from freedom -- In my opinion, the benefit is
similar to allowing personal use of the library: User may learn and
create on their own, moral will be helped, great research will be
fostered. Others may see such freedom as a threat.
Conclusions: The least controversial way to increase freedom on
computers is to increase the amount of computing resources. Another
strategy is to emphasize the benefits to the university of such
freedom.
- 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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: How do U. of I. sys admins feel about email privacy for users?
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.182015.18970@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 18:20:15 GMT
About a week ago, I posted a note to uiuc.general asking U. of
Illinois sys admins how the feel about email privacy for users. I
received three reponses. Here is a paraphrase the responses (items in
double quotes are direct quotes). Responses are separated by a blank
line.
cmk> 1) The U. of I. requires authorization before an office or dorm room
cmk> can be searched and before a university telephone can be tapped. Who
cmk> should be authorized to authorize searches of user computer files and
cmk> taps of email? (e.g. anyone, operators, sys admin, department head,
cmk> dean, judical committee, judge)
What is a 'search'? In the course of work I have seen user email. "As
a matter of personal policy I try to avoid doing so."
A judge.
I have mixed feelings, we don't need more red tape. "Sometimes you
have to use a grep on a certain userid or something in private areas
in order to find misuse. I do not feel that anyone lower than a judge
should be able to authorize more than a simple grep through. I feel
that use of the command grep is much different than the use of the
command 'more'."
cmk> 1.1) Should it make any difference if the user is a professor rather
cmk> than a student?
No.
No.
No.
cmk> 1.2) Are email searches comparable (in terms of authorization that
cmk> should be requried) to office and dorm seaches and telephone taps? If
cmk> not, what makes them different?
Again 'search' needs to be defined. "To some extent I act as mail
clerk under a system where everyone sends postcards."
Yes, compariable.
Having a sys admin reading all of a user's mail spool is comparable.
But, just searching a user's mail spool for keywords (such as "NSA"),
"is a different story, because you do not have such an analogue in
dorm searches." [I think the responent is saying that keyword searches
are OK because they are so narrow. - cmk]
cmk> 2) If your system has an email privacy policy, who does that policy
cmk> give search authority to?
No explicit policy.
No explicit policy.
No explicit policy.
cmk> 3) Have you ever been asked or ordered to search user email or files
cmk> but felt uncomfortable with the order?
No.
No.
No.
cmk> 4) Some searches of email might be illegal or immoral. On the other
cmk> hand, refusing a supervisor's order to search might be insubordinate.
cmk> Do you think that written email policies that detail when a search
cmk> request is valid offer you important protection.
Potentially.
Yes.
"I think that written policies do offer some protection, but having a
written policy makes you open for scrutiny when there are no problems,
I guess."
cmk> 5) The law relating to email privacy is unclear. Do you think that the
cmk> University should wait until the law is settled (via lawsuits and
cmk> court cases) before creating written email policy?
[ambigious response - cmk]
No, should not wait.
I think we should wait. "Obviously, they [s]hould abide by current laws
(ECPA, etc.), but I think that it is prudent to wait until laws are
settled and in the meantime, be reasonable."
=================
[Other comments:]
"most of the questions seem leading and there are grammar, spelling,
and punctuation errors."
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: How do U. of I. sys admins feel about email privacy for users?
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.184747.13631@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 18:47:47 GMT
At the same time I posted to uiuc.general, I put a similar query to
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and comp.admin.policy. I received two
responses. Here is a paraphrase of the responses (items in double
quotes are direct quotes).
cmk> 1) Most universities require authorization before an office or dorm
cmk> room can be search, or before a university telephone can be tapped.
cmk> Who should be authorized to authorize searches of user computer files
cmk> and taps of email? (e.g. anyone, operators, sys admin, department
cmk> head, dean, judical committee, judge)
Dean of students, someone similar for faculty, judges.
The premise of the question is incorrect because universities can
search dorms without authorization if they give 24 hour warning or if
there is an emergency. "Offices are presumed to belong to the
University including all the papers in locked cabinets." "Telephones
are routinely checked for quality without any notice or warning before
or after the check." "As the above illustrates, there is a big
difference between checking for quality or emergencies and checking
for other reasons. The individual at the front line should be
presumed to have the authority to correct problems as they arise,
especially in an emergency." "It is wrong for people in supervisory
positions to order or authorize the search because then the search is
not for fixing technical problems but for finding non-technical
faults."
cmk> 1.1) Should it make any difference if the user is a professor rather
cmk> than a student?
No.
No.
cmk> 1.2) Are email searches comparable (in terms of authorization that
cmk> should be requried) to office and dorm seaches and telephone taps? If
cmk> not, what makes them different?
Yes.
No. "They are much easier." "They leave no trace of the search."
cmk> 2) If your system has an email policy, who does that policy give
cmk> search authority to?
No policy (yet).
"No mention of any search authority in the email policy."
cmk> 3) Have you ever been asked or ordered to search user email or files
cmk> but felt uncomfortable with the order?
"I was asked once, and I flatly refused; that was the end of the matter."
No.
cmk> 4) Some searches of email might be illegal or immoral. On the other
cmk> hand, refusing a supervisor's order to search might be insubordinate.
cmk> Do you think that written email policies that detail when a search
cmk> request is valid offer you important protection.
"I would draw a parallel between this situation and the military
solution. Enlisted soldiers have the explicit right to disobey orders
which they believe to be illegal"
"No. Challenging an order and citing a policy is an easy way to loose
a job. Supervisors dislike being quoted policy and will find some
reason to get rid of you."
cmk> 5) The law relating to email privacy is unclear. Do you think that
cmk> universities should wait until the law is settled (via lawsuits and
cmk> court cases) before creating written email policy?
"No; I believe that we can initiate a policy before the law is
''settled''. We may have to modify that policy to meet the laws
developed at a later date, but this is a common procedure."
"YES. There is the large risk of writing policy that is illegal.
Illegal policy will not protect anyone and may make persons
implementing such policy guilty of conspiracy."
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: kenyon@saku.unl.edu (Paul H. Kenyon)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Mar 92 15:13:46 GMT
Since I find that I was:
1) interviewed, 2) quoted, 3) and now re-quoted in usenet
I feel I should respond.
This of course is the great advantage of usenet over say a student paper,
in usenet I can respond.
(Mr. Gale of course abstains from such discussions)
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 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.
Sounds about right to me. In fact as I read through your comments,
I find I mostly agree with your point of view of this mess.
I appreciate any help groups outside of UNL can give us.
In fact I encourage your advice, and would like hearing from anyone who
has won a news group banning battle. But, please to not pretend to
understand what is happening based on one newspaper article.
> >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.
Agreed!
> > 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.
Funny, I don't recall saying 'a small fraction'.
I do remember discussing (in the interview) the fact that there
were groups which unlinfo naturally didn't get.
(for example att.* decr.* de.* eunet.* fj.*, etc.)
Note: I stand by the "big, big volume of data," quote,
it sounds like something I would say.
> > 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.
My saying 'often have moderators' and your saying 'most are unmoderated'
are not really contradictory statements, are they?
However, in the interest of universal agreement
I should have used the phrase: 'many have moderators'.
> > 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.
Gee, you are a nit picker aren't you. In fact it sounds like you are even
more argumentative and free minded then I. Perhaps we should have sent a
reporter out to Urbana to get some really good quotes. ;-)
Now seriously, I was unaware of the status of alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
I am curious, can you name 10 others.
I seem to remember reading your words elsewhere that:
the un-moderated groups were had truly free information.
I would agree with this. In the interview, I explained the concept of
a moderator mainly to get across the point that 'most groups' were not
moderated and this was 'a good thing'.
> > Douglas Gale, director of computing at UNL, said he was tired of
> >hearing students complain about the removal of the alt groups from
> >UNLINFO.
I love this quote. I leave it here as a tribute to the sensitiveness
of Univ. Admin. everywhere to the cares of their student bodies.
> > "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.
Thank you for making this point. In fact we have gotten no official
information from CRC about what these 'alternative sites' are.
A list was posted by a student. For all we know using an account on
a CRC machine to access such an alternate site via CRC's network will
be deemed a violation of the new policy and will result in a student losing
the account.
> > "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.
The resource issue is a ruse. What this is really about is censorship.
We know it, you (in the eff) know it.
-Paul
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203231918.AA14358@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 09:18:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: daveh@csn.org (Dave Hughes)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203231718.AA28637@teal.csn.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 03:18:39 GMT
Kent makes a good point in that 'the majority of individuals access
the Internet via institutional networks.' Sure. So long as the
links *between* these networks are open, any institution can make
any rules it wants/needs for access and use of its own network.
Nothing wrong with that. Whether one can use my driveway on
private property for delivering pizza should be my decision. But
not government's decision in the public street before my house.
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] AUPs
Message-ID: <199203231919.AA14434@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 09:19:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: yakov@watson.ibm.com
Subject: AUPs
Message-ID: <9203231741.AA07126@psi.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 17:39:08 GMT
>I believe most people will agree that the microphysics of hop by hop
>destination based packet forwarding makes enforcing AUPs which talk about
>end to end flows hard to enforce thru routing.
The problem with supporting/enforcing AUPs is that some of them are
expressed in terms that are not easily translatable into parameters present
in the IP header. An example of such situation is the NSFNET AUP
where NSFNET is required to restrict its traffic to R&E.
Unfortunately there is nothing in IP header that would allow to
indicate that a particular packet belongs to R&E traffic.
So, that supporting such AUP at the network layer becomes problematic.
Please note that source/destination addresses have little or
nothing to do with whether a packet belongs to R&E traffic.
Therefore, blaming the problem on destination based packet forwarding
and promoting other schemes (like source/destination based packet
forwarding as a solution to the problem of enforcing AUPs) is a step
in a wrong direction. Indeed, using addresses as a mechanism to
support AUPs is nothing more than overloading these fields with the
semantics they were not intended to carry.
In such a situation there are only three choices to support such AUPs:
a) change AUPs, so that the restrictions may be expressed in terms
of parameters present in the IP header
b) change/modify network layer protocol (IP) to something else, so that
the restrictions stated in AUPs will be translatable into parameters
present in the network layer header (e.g. define a new TOS that
would indicate R&E traffic)
c) support AUPs at upper layers via application layer gateways
Observe that support for AUPs, by itself, does not guarantee the
verification/enforcement. Indeed, even if a particular
mechanism may be suitable to support an AUP (e.g. TOS),
enforcement of such AUP may be impractical,
since it would require "that one look into
the contents of every datagram that passes through a gateway
between networks with different standards. Even then it is not
clear how one would determine if the contents are ok." (see
e-mail from Dan Schlitt to com-priv 3/23/92). Given this
situation one may ask about the relevence of AUP that can not be
verified/enforced.
>It is important to note that this does not mean that this is an
>unsolvable problem, and in fact, one can look at work like InterDomain
>Policy Routing to provide a clue as to what we might expect in the
>future.
If, indeed, you think that InterDomain Policy Routing provides
a clue "as to what we might expect in the future", then
let's shed more light on several aspects of this "future":
1. Size of the forwarding tables is likely to be large enough
in quite a few places within the Internet to make the whole
scheme impractical
2. Size of routing information is likely to be large enough
all over the Internet to make storage of this information
impossible, and timely computation over this information problematic.
3. A domain that has a complex AUP will require ALL the domains
within the Internet to share the burden of supporting a particular
routing scheme and bare the overhead burden, regardless of whether
other domains care or not about this AUP. In practical terms it
means that supporting NSFNET AUP would require to put unjustifiable
burden on all the commercial service providers, like CIX members,
who have nothing to do with the NSFNET AUP.
These are just few aspects, not an exhaustive list...
And, by the way, it still does not solve the NSFNET AUP problem.
>Can we agree that it is unlikely every network in the Internet
>will want to be a transit for every other network ?
There are two distinct types of networks: commercial and
federally funded. With respect to commercial networks
they'll be willing to act as a transit as long as there is
a settlement scheme in place.
Your assertion may be true with respect to the federally funded
networks, but the restriction on transit may be easily enforced
via controlled distribution of routing information (which is
not a new technology at all).
>I suggest the solution is to apply better technology, in other words,
>get a new physics.
I suggest that before applying "new physics" we need to perform
very careful cost/benefit analysis, so that the "new physics"
would not cost more than it would allow to save. After all,
federally funded networks should be concern not just with
the "special networks to special problems", but with the cost of
such special networks.
>I would also argue that in the future many commercial ventures will want
>to have policies which look a lot like AUPs.
Given the nature of current AUPs the above means to imply that
in the future many commercial ventures will want to have
support for absolutely arbitrary things that need not be:
a) implementable
b) verifiable
c) enforceable
Perhaps "this will be a natural state when the cost" of developing
new software and putting more memory, CPU and bandwidth, "reaches
its limit of zero, but we are not there today." (Quotations
are from the original mail).
Also, while we may argue about some future needs, one just need
to look at the current commercial ventures to count how many
AUPs they would like to impose.
>Time for new tech, new forwarding micro physics, more bits...
Time to sit and have a rationale discussion on the problems we
need to solve, rather than trying to push a particular solution that
may not necessarily solve the problem we need to solve, but instead
introduces few new problems.
Time to look at the overall managebility of an environment with
unconstrained proliferation of arbitrary AUPs.
Time to take a rationale evaluation of the overall picture
(and not just a microscopic view) and make very careful cost/benefit
assessment of any proposed solution (given that we first define
what is the problem we need to solve).
Time to realise that the Internet is not just a collection of federally funded
networks, but more and more pure commercial service providers,
to whom AUPs may not be relevant.
Yakov Rekhter
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: How do U. of I. sys admins feel about email privacy for users?
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.193525.14705@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 19:35:25 GMT
A sys admin is paraphrased/quoted by me:
>"Offices are presumed to belong to the
>University including all the papers in locked cabinets."
So the University can break into a professor's files without notice
and sell the contents? I find this hard to believe.
cmk> 1.2) Are email searches comparable (in terms of authorization that
cmk> should be requried) to office and dorm seaches and telephone taps? If
cmk> not, what makes them different?
>No. "They are much easier." "They leave no trace of the search."
To me these are reasons for increased scrutiny. (BTW, what
trace is there of a telephone tap or dorm search?)
>"No. Challenging an order and citing a policy is an easy way to loose
>a job. Supervisors dislike being quoted policy and will find some
>reason to get rid of you."
Are you saying that challenging an improper order without being able
to cite policy is a better way to protect your job? Or are you saying
that improper orders should not be challenged?
>"YES. There is the large risk of writing policy that is illegal.
A policy that says "we can look at your disk files for any reason"
runs the risk of being illegal. I don't see how a policy that says
"The right of users to be secure in their email and computer files
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the material to be seized" could ever be found illegal.
>Illegal policy will not protect anyone and may make persons
>implementing such policy guilty of conspiracy."
Has this ever happened?
- 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 23 00:00:00 1992
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.185115.23237@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 23 Mar 92 18:51:15 GMT
In article <1992Mar22.175845.29563@ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>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?
Do 100 students read the alt groups? Charge each one $10 for it.
>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.
Actually I didn't realize alt was so small, 60 megs is alot less than
$1000, even for a drive costing $4/meg its still only $240. Charge the
students $2 to read the alt groups.
The copyright problem maybe a legitimate concern although I don't know if
this is the responsibility of the college. I would assume the poster is
responsible for the copyright violation.
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203231958.AA26554@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 07:58:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: tpm@anat.UMSMED.EDU (Terence P. Ma)
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.183636.12487@anat.UMSMED.EDU>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 18:36:36 GMT
In article simong@ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory) writes:
>
> 1) Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
>to look at the text of an article?
The postmaster/systems administrator should have the ability to look
at the text of electronic mail messages. However, in my opinion,
doing so is the same as a mail delivery person opening mail and
reading it. I think it is an unacceptable practice. The ability to
look at email on the system should be to allow the SysAd to solve
user problems AT THE INVITATION OF THE USER.
However, of course, any systems administrator can set any policy
they would like regarding this issue.
> 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?
I don't know about your facility, but I don't nor do other systems
administrators I know have the time to read other people's mail on
our systems. If something blatantly illegal were to come to my
attention due to bounced mail (though I have set up my system to
only report by whom mail was sent and from where it was bounced),
then I would handle on a case-by-case basis. If there was a user
complaint, then I would certainly pursue the issue.
> 3) Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
>widely known and accepted?
Probably, but I would doubt that it could be agreed upon.
> 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?
Yes, but not practical since every site varies. However, you can
make that explicit to your local site.
Regards!
--
Terence P. Ma, Ph.D. VOICE: 601-984-1654
Department of Anatomy FAX: 601-984-1655
University of Mississippi Med. Ctr. INTERNET: tpm@anat.UMSMED.EDU
Jackson, MS 39216-4505 UUCP: ... uunet!tpm-sprl!tpm
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society] Anonymity and privacy on the network
Message-ID: <9203232059.AA27052@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 08:59:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Date: Monday, 23 Mar 1992 07:21:52 EST
From:
Message-ID: <92083.072152SOCICOM@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Anonymity and privacy on the network
Moderator's note: The following article is a lengthy excerpt from a
recent issue of FIDONEWS concerning individual privacy and the use of
aliases or handles in computer-based communications. It was submitted by
a comp.society reader who used a handle; because the excerpt is a cross-
post from another electronic publication, I have taken the liberty of
viewing the use of a handle by sender as a request for privacy and
anonymity similar to the request a newspaper editor might receive in a
letter to the editor. Thus, while reprinting the submission, the name
and address of the sender are "withheld upon request." The article
raises a number of good points; the submission by a reader using a handle
to preserve anonymity makes a point; and the editorial action of
submitting the reader's posting anonymously makes the question current.
What are the implications of using aliases on the net?
Greg Welsh, moderator, comp.society
Internet: Socicom@american.edu
Bitnet: Socicom@auvm.bitnet
[begin excerpt]
F I D O N E W S -- | Vol. 9 No. 9 (2 March 1992)
The newsletter of the |
FidoNet BBS community | Published by:
_ |
/ \ | "FidoNews" BBS
/|oo \ | (415)-863-2739
(_| /_) | FidoNet 1:1/1
_`@/_ \ _ | Internet:
| | \ \\ | fidonews@fidonews.fidonet.org
| (*) | \ )) |
|__U__| / \// | Editors:
_//|| _\ / | Tom Jennings
(_/(_|(____/ | Tim Pozar
(jm) |
----------------------------+---------------------------------------
Published weekly by and for the Members of the FidoNet international
amateur network. Copyright 1992, Fido Software. All rights reserved.
Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes
only. For use in other circumstances, please contact FidoNews.
Paper price: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.00US
Electronic Price: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . free!
For more information about FidoNews refer to the end of this file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[...some editing...]
======================================================================
ARTICLES
======================================================================
The Joy of Handles
Mahatma Kane Jeeves
101/138.8
David Lescohier
101/138.0
THE JOY OF HANDLES
------------------
or:
EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT ME
(but have no right to ask)
--------------------------
* * * * *
We should never so entirely avoid danger as to appear
irresolute and cowardly. But, at the same time, we should
avoid unnecessarily exposing ourselves to danger, than
which nothing can be more foolish. [Cicero]
* * * * *
Do you trust me?
If you participate in computer conferencing, and you use
your real name, then you'd better.
"Why?", you ask. "What can you do with my name?" To start
with, given that and your origin line, I can probably look
you up in your local phone book, and find out where you
live. Even if you are unlisted, there are ways to locate
you based on your name. If you own any property, or pay any
utility bills, your address is a matter of public record.
Do you have children in the public schools? It would be
easy to find out. But that's just the beginning.
Former Chairman of the U.S. Privacy Protection Commission
David F. Linowes, in his book "Privacy in America" (1989),
writes of New York private investigator Irwin Blye:
"Challenged to prove his contention that, given a little
time and his usual fee, he could learn all about an
individual without even speaking with him, Blye was
presented with a subject -- a New Jersey
newspaperman.... The result was a five-page, single-
spaced, typed report which documented, though not always
accurately, a wide sweep of the journalist's past, and
was detailed to the point of disclosing his father's
income before his retirement."
Who am I? If I don't post, you might not even know I exist.
I could be on your local Police Department, or an agent
working with the IRS, or some federal law-enforcement
agency. I could be a member of some fanatical hate group,
or criminal organization. I might even be a former Nixon
White-House staffer!
I could be that pyromaniacal teenager you flamed last
weekend, for posting a step-by-step description of how he
made plastic explosive in his high-school chem lab. He
seemed kind of mad.
But you're an upstanding citizen; you have nothing to hide.
So why not use your name on the nets? Trust me. There's
nothing to worry about.
Is there?
* * * * *
WHAT'S ALL THIS BROUHAHA?
-------------------------
Stupidity is evil waiting to happen. [Clay Bond]
Not long ago in Fidonet's BCSNET echo (the Boston Computer
Society's national conference), the following was posted by
the conference moderator to a user calling himself "Captain
Kirk":
"May we ask dear Captain Kirk that it would be very
polite if you could use your real name in an echomail
conference? This particular message area is shared
with BBS's all across the country and everyone else is
using their real name. It is only common courtesy to
do so in an echomail conference."
One of us (mkj) responded with a post questioning that
policy. Soon the conference had erupted into a heated
debate! Although mkj had worried that the subject might be
dismissed as trivial, it apparently touched a nerve. It
brought forth debate over issues and perceptions central to
computer communications in general, and it revealed profound
disparities in fundamental values and assumptions among
participants.
This article is a response to that debate, and to the
prevailing negative attitudes regarding the use of handles.
Handles seem to have a bad reputation. Their use is
strangely unpopular, and frequently forbidden by network
authorities. Many people seem to feel that handles are rude
or dishonest, or that anyone wishing to conceal his or her
identity must be up to no good. It is the primary purpose
of this article to dispel such prejudices.
Let us make one thing perfectly clear here at the outset: We
do NOT challenge the need or the right of sysops to know the
identities of their users! But we do believe that a sysop
who collects user names has a serious responsibility to
protect that information. This means making sure that no
one has access to the data without a legal warrant, and it
certainly means not pressuring users to broadcast their real
names in widespread public forums such as conferences.
* * * * *
SO YOU WANT TO BE A STAR?
-------------------------
John Lennon died for our sins. [anonymous]
Andy Warhol said that "In the future, everyone will be
famous for fifteen minutes". The computer nets, more than
any other medium, lend credibility to this prediction. A
network conference may span the globe more completely than
even satellite TV, yet be open to anyone who can afford the
simplest computer and modem. Through our participation in
conferencing, each of us becomes, if only briefly, a public
figure of sorts -- often without realizing it, and without
any contemplation of the implications and possible
consequences.
Brian Reid (reid@decwrl.DEC.COM) conducts and distributes
periodic surveys of Usenet conference readership. His
statistical results for the end of 1991 show that of the
1,459 conferences which currently make up Usenet, more than
fifty percent have over 20,000 readers apiece; the most
popular conferences are each seen by about 200,000 readers!
Mr. Reid's estimate of total Usenet readership is nearly TWO
MILLION people.
Note that Mr. Reid's numbers are for Usenet only; they do
not include any information on other large public nets such
as RIME (PC-Relaynet), Fido, or dozens of others, nor do
they take into account thousands of private networks which
may have indirect public network connections. The total
number of users with access to public networks is unknown,
but informed estimates range to the tens of millions, and
the number keeps growing at an amazing pace -- in fact, the
rate of growth of this medium may be greater than any other
communications medium in history.
The special problems and risks which arise when one deals
with a large public audience are something about which most
computer users have little or no experience or
understanding. Until recently, those of us involved in
computer conferencing have comprised a small and rather
elite community. The explosion in network participation is
catching us all a little unprepared.
Among media professionals and celebrities, on the other
hand, the risks of conducting one's business in front of a
public audience are all too familiar. If the size of one's
audience becomes sufficiently large, one must assume that
examples of virtually every personality type will be
included: police and other agents of various governments,
terrorists, murderers, rapists, religious fanatics, the
mentally ill, robbers and con artists, et al ad infinitum.
It must also be assumed that almost anything you do, no
matter how innocuous, could inspire at least one person,
somewhere, to harbor ill will toward you.
The near-fatal stabbing of actress Theresa Saldana is a case
in point. As she was walking to her car one morning near her
West Hollywood apartment, a voice behind her asked, "Are you
Theresa Saldana?"; when she turned to answer, a man she had
never seen before pulled out a kitchen knife and stabbed her
repeatedly.
After her lengthy and painful recovery, she wrote a book on
the experience ("Beyond Survival", 1986). In that book she
wrote:
[pg 12] "... Detective Kalas informed me that the
assailant, whom he described as a Scottish drifter, had
fixated upon me after seeing me in films."
[pg 28] "... it was through my work as an actress that
the attacker had fixated on me. Naturally, this made
me consider getting out of show business ..."
[pg 34] "For security, I adopted an alias and became
'Alicia Michaels.' ... during the months that followed
I grew so accustomed to it that, to this day, I still
answer reflexively when someone calls the name Alicia!"
Or consider the fate of Denver radio talk show host Alan
Berg, who in 1984 died outside his home in a hail of
gunfire. Police believe he was the victim of a local neo-
nazi group who didn't like his politics.
We are reminded of the murders of John Lennon and Rebecca
Shaffer; the Reagan/Hinckley/Foster incident; and a long
string of other "celebrity attacks" of all sorts, including
such bizarre events as the occupation of David Letterman's
home by a strange woman who claimed to be his wife! There is
probably no one in public life who doesn't receive at least
the occassional threatening letter.
Of course, ordinary participants in network conferencing may
never attract quite the attention that other types of
celebrities attract. But consider the following, rather less
apocalyptic scenarios:
-- On Friday night you post a message to a public
conference defending an unpopular or controversial
viewpoint. On Monday morning your biggest client
cancels a major contract. Or you are kept up all
night by repeated telephone calls from someone
demanding that you "stop killing babies"!
-- You buy your teenage son or daughter a computer and
modem. Sometime later you find your lawn littered
with beer bottles and dug up with tire marks, or
your home vandalized or burglarized.
-- One day you are nominated to the Supreme Court. Who
are all these strange people on TV claiming to be
your friends? How did that fellow know your position
on abortion? Your taste in GIFs?
Celebrities and other professional media personalities
accept the risks and sacrifices of notoriety, along with the
benefits, as part of their chosen careers. Should computer
conference participants be expected to do the same? And who
should be making these decisions?
* * * * *
OTHER MEDIA
-----------
When thou art at Rome, do as they do at Rome [Cervantes]
Older media seem to address the problems of privacy very
differently than computer media, at least so far. We are
not aware of ANY medium or publication, apart from computer
conferencing, where amateur or even most professional
participants are required to expose their true names against
their will. Even celebrities frequently use "stage names",
and protect their addresses and phone numbers as best they
can.
When a medium caters specifically to the general public,
participants are typically given even greater opportunities
to protect their privacy. Television talk shows have been
known to go so far as to employ silhouetting and electronic
alteration of voices to protect the identities of guests,
and audience members who participate are certainly not
required to state their full names before speaking.
The traditional medium most analogous to computer
conferencing may be talk radio. Like conferencing, talk
radio is a group discussion and debate medium oriented
toward controversy, where emotions can run high. Programs
often center around a specific topic, and are always run by
a "host" whose role seems analogous in many respects to that
of a conference moderator. It is therefore worth noting
that in talk radio generally, policy seems to be that
callers are identified on the air only by their first names
(unless of course they volunteer more).
Finally, of course, authors have published under "pen names"
since the dawn of publishing, and newspapers and magazines
frequently publish letters to the editor with "name and
address withheld by request" as the signature line. Even
founding fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John
Jay, in authoring the seminal Federalist Papers in 1787 for
publication in the Letters columns of various New York City
newspapers, concealed their identities behind the now-famous
psuedonym "Publius".
What would you think if someone called a radio talk show
demanding to know the identity of a previous caller? Such a
demand would undoubtedly be seen as menacing and
inappropriate in that context. Yet that same demand seems
to arise without much challenge each time a handle shows up
in a computer conference. The authors of this article feel
that such demands should always be looked upon as
suspicious, and that it would be beneficial for moderators
to take upon themselves the responsibility of making sure
that besieged handle-users are aware of their right to
refuse such inappropriate demands.
It is reasonable to assume that privacy policies in
traditional media are the result of hard-won wisdom gained
from long experience. Are we so arrogant that we cannot
learn from others? It is not hard to imagine the sorts of
problems and experiences which shaped these policies in the
old media. Will we have to wait for similar problems to
occur on the computer networks before we learn?
* * * * *
PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE
------------------------
In an effort to identify people who fail to file tax
returns, the Internal Revenue Service is matching
its files against available lists of names and
addresses of U.S. citizens who have purchased
computers for home use. The IRS continues to seek
out sources for such information. This information
is matched against the IRS master file of taxpayers
to see if those who have not filed can be
identified.
[COMPUTERWORLD, Sept. 1985]
Date: Thu, 23 May 91 11:58:07 PDT
From: mmm@cup.portal.com
Subject: The RISKS of Posting to the Net
-
I just had an interesting visit from the FBI. It
seems that a posting I made to sci.space several
months ago had filtered through channels, caused the
FBI to open (or re-open) a file on me, and an agent
wanted to interview me, which I did voluntarily...
I then went on to tell him about the controversy
over Uunet, and their role in supplying archives of
Usenet traffic on tape to the FBI...
[RISKS Digest]
Also frequent are instances where computers are
seized incident to an unrelated arrest. For
example, on February 28, 1991, following an arrest
on charges of rape and battery, the Massachusetts
state and local police seized the suspect's computer
equipment. The suspect reportedly operated a 650-
subscriber bulletin board called "BEN," which is
described as "geared largely to a gay/leather/S&M
crowd." It is not clear what the board's seizure is
supposed to have accomplished, but the board is now
shut down, and the identities and messages of its
users are in the hands of the police.
[CONSTITUTIONAL, LEGAL, AND ETHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEALING WITH ELECTRONIC
FILES IN THE AGE OF CYBERSPACE, Harvey A.
Silverglate and Thomas C. Viles]
Most of us have been brought up to be grateful for the fact
that we live in a nation where freedom is sacred. In other
countries, we are told as children, people are afraid to
speak their minds for fear they are being watched. Thank
God we live in America!
It would surprise most of us to learn that America is
currently among the premiere surveillance nations in the
world, but such, sadly, is indeed the case. Our leadership
in technology has helped the U.S. government to amass as
much information on its citizens as almost any other nation
in history, totalitarian or otherwise. And to make matters
worse, a consumer surveillance behemoth has sprung up
consisting of huge private data-collection agencies which
cater to business.
As Evan Hendricks, editor of "Privacy Times" (a Washington
D.C.-based newsletter) has put it: "You go through life
dropping bits and pieces of information about yourself
everywhere. Most people don't realize there are big vacuum
cleaners out there sucking it all up." [Wall Street
Journal, March 14, 1991].
To get an idea of how much of your privacy has already been
lost, consider the bits and pieces of information about
yourself which are already available to investigators, and
how thoroughly someone might come to know you by these clues
alone.
A person's lifestyle and personality are largely described,
for example, by his or her purchases and expenses; from your
checking account records -- which banks are required by law
to keep and make available to government investigators -- a
substantial portrait of your life will emerge. Credit card
records may reveal much of the same information, and can
also be used to track your movements. (In a recent case,
"missing" Massachusetts State Representative Timothy O'Leary
was tracked by credit-card transactions as he fled across
the country, and his movements were reported on the nightly
news!)
Then there are your school records, which include IQ and
other test results, comments on your "socialization" by
teachers and others, and may reveal family finances in great
detail. Employment and tax records reveal your present
income, as well as personal comments by employers and co-
workers. Your properties are another public record of your
income and lifestyle, and possibly your social status as
well. Telephone billing records reveal your personal and
business associations in more detail. Insurance records
reveal personal and family health histories and treatments.
All of this information is commonly accessed by government
and private or corporate investigators. And this list is
far from exhaustive!
Now consider how easily the computer networks lend
themselves to even further erosions of personal privacy. The
actual contents of our mail and telephone traffic have up to
now been subjected to deliberate scrutiny only under
extraordinary conditions. This built-in safety is due
primarily to the difficulty and expense of conducting
surveillance in these media, which usually requires extended
human intervention. But in the medium of computer
communications, most surveillance can be conducted using
automated monitoring techniques. Tools currently available
make it possible and even cost-effective for government and
other interests to monitor virtually everything which
happens here.
Why would anyone want to monitor network users? It is well
documented that, throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the FBI and
other agencies of government, in operations such as the
infamous COINTELPRO among others, spent a great deal of time
and effort collecting vast lists of names. As Computer
Underground Digest moderators Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer
recalled in a recent commentary (CuD #3.42):
"A 1977 class action suit against the Michigan State
Police learned, through FOIA requests, that state and
federal agents would peruse letters to the editor of
newspapers and collect clippings of those whose politics
they did not like. These news clippings became the basis
of files on those persons that found there way into the
hands of other agencies and employers."
To get onto one of these government "enemies" lists, you
often needed to do nothing more than telephone an
organization under surveillance, or subscribe to the "wrong"
types of magazines and newspapers. Groups engaged in
political activism, including environmental and women's
rights organizations, were commonly infiltrated. The sort
of investigative reporting which uncovered these lists and
surveillances back in the '60s and '70s is now rare, but
there is little reason to assume that such activities have
ceased or even slowed. In fact, progressive computerization
of local police LEIU activities (Law Enforcement
Intelligence Units, commonly known as "red squads") suggests
that such activities may have greatly increased.
Within the realm of computer conferencing especially, there
is ample reason to believe that systematic monitoring is
being conducted by government and law-enforcement
organizations, and perhaps by other hostile interests as
well. In a recent issue of Telecom Digest
(comp.dcom.telecom), Craig Neidorf (knight@EFF.ORG) reported
on the results of a recent Freedom of Information Act
request for documents from the Secret Service:
" ... The documents also show that the Secret Service
established a computer database to keep track of
suspected computer hackers. This database contains
records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers,
known associates, a list of activities, and various
[conference postings] associated with each individual."
But the privacy issues which surround computer
communications go far beyond the collection of user lists.
Both government and industry have long pursued the elusive
grail of personality profiling on citizens and consumers. Up
to now, such ambitions have been restrained by the practical
difficulty and expense of collecting and analyzing large
amounts of information on large numbers of citizens. But
computer communications, more than any other technology,
seems to hold out the promise that this unholy grail may
finally be in sight.
To coin a phrase, never has so much been known by so few
about so many. The information commonly available to
government and industry investi-gators today is sufficient
to make reliable predictions about our personalities,
health, politics, future behavior, our vulnerabilities,
perhaps even about our innermost thoughts and feelings. The
privacy we all take for granted is, in fact, largely an
illusion; it no longer exists in most walks of life. If we
wish to preserve even the most basic minimum of personal
privacy, it seems clear that we need to take far better care
on the networks than we have taken elsewhere.
* * * * *
FREEDOM
-------
Human beings are the only species with a history.
Whether they also have a future is not so obvious.
The answer will lie in the prospects for popular
movements, with firm roots among all sectors of the
population, dedicated to values that are suppressed
or driven to the margins within the existing social
and political order...
[Noam Chomsky]
In your day-to-day social interactions, as you deal with
employers, clients, public officials, friends, acquaintances
and total strangers, how often do you feel you can really
speak freely? How comfortable are you discussing
controversial issues such as religion, taxes, politics,
racism, sexuality, abortion or AIDS, for example? Would you
consider it appropriate or wise to express an honest opinion
on such an issue to your boss, or a client? To your
neighbors?
Most of us confine such candid discussions to certain
"trusted" social contexts, such as when we are among our
closest friends. But when you post to a network conference,
your boss, your clients, and your neighbors may very well
read what you post -- if they are not on the nets today,
they probably will be soon, as will nearly everyone.
If we have to consider each post's possible impact on our
social and professional reputations, on our job security and
income, on our family's acceptance and safety in the
community, it could be reckless indeed to express ourselves
freely on the nets. Yet conferences are often geared to
controversy, and inhibitions on the free expression of
opinions can reduce traffic to a trickle, killing off an
important conference topic or distorting a valuable sampling
of public opinion.
More important still is the role computer networks are
beginning to play in the free and open dissemination of news
and information. Democracy is crippled if dissent and
diversity in the media are compromised; yet even here in the
U.S., where a "free press" is a cherished tradition, the
bulk of all the media is owned by a small (and ever-
shrinking) number of corporations, whose relatively narrow
culture, interests and perspec-tives largely shape the
public perception.
Computer communication, on the other hand, is by its nature
very difficult to control or shape. Its resources are
scattered; when one BBS goes bust (or is busted!), three
others spring up in its place. The natural resiliency of
computer communications (and other new, decentral-ized
information technologies such as fax, consumer camcorders
and cheap satellite links) is giving rise to a new brand of
global "guerrilla journalism" which includes everyone, and
defies efforts at suppression.
The power and value of this new journalistic freedom has
recently shown itself during the Gulf War, and throughout
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, as well as within the
U.S. Just think of the depth and detail of information
available on the nets regarding the Secret Service's recent
"Operation Sundevil" and associated activities, compared to
the grossly distorted, blatantly propagandistic coverage of
those same activities given to the general public through
the traditional media.
Historically, established power and wealth have seldom been
disposed to tolerate uncontrolled media, and recent events
in this country and elsewhere show that computer media are
sometimes seen as threats to established interests as well.
To understand the role of handles in this context, it is
useful to note the flurries of anti-handle sentiment which
have arisen in the wake of crackdowns such as Sundevil, or
the Tom Tcimpidis raid in the early 1980s. Although few
charges and fewer convictions have typically resulted from
such operations, one might be tempted to speculate that the
real purposes -- to terrorize the nets and chill freedoms of
speech and assembly thereon -- have been achieved.
In this way, sysops and moderators become unwitting
accomplices in the supression of freedom on the networks.
When real name requirements are instituted, anyone who fears
retaliation of any sort, by any group, will have to fear
participation in the nets; hence content is effectively
controlled. This consideration becomes especially important
as the nets expand into even more violent and repressive
countries outside the U.S.
We must decide whether freedom of information and open
public discussion are in fact among the goals of network
conferencing, and if so, whether handles have a role in
achieving these goals. As access to the networks grows, we
have a rare opportunity to frustrate the efforts of
governments and corporations to control the public mind! In
this way above all others, computers may have the potential
to shape the future of all mankind for the better.
* * * * *
A CALL TO ACTION
----------------
The move to electronic communication may be a turning
point that history will remember. Just as in
seventeenth and eighteenth century Great Britain and
America a few tracts and acts set precedents for
print by which we live today, so what we think and do
today may frame the information system for a
substantial period in the future.
[Ithiel de Sola Pool, "Technologies of Freedom", 1983]
There was a time when anybody with some gear and a few
batteries could become a radio broadcaster -- no license
required. There was a time when anyone with a sense of
adventure could buy a plane, and maybe get a contract to
carry mail. Those early technological pioneers were
probably unable to imagine the world as it is today, but
their influence is strongly felt in current laws,
regulations and policies with roots in the traditions and
philosophies they founded and shaped.
Today the new pioneers are knitting the world together with
computers, and the world is changing faster than ever. Law
and ethics are scrambling to keep up. How far will this
growth take us? No one can say for sure. But you don't
need a crystal ball to see that computer communications has
the potential to encompass and surpass all the functionality
of prior media -- print, post, telegraph, telephone, radio
and television -- and more. It seems reasonable to assume
that computer communications will be at least as ubiquitous
and important in the lives of our grandchildren as all the
older media have been in ours.
It will be a world whose outlines we can now make out only
dimly. But the foundations of that world are being built
today by those of us exploring and homesteading on the
electronic frontier. We need to look hard at what it will
take to survive in the information age.
In this article we have attempted to show, for one very
narrow issue, what some of the stakes may be in this future-
building game. But the risks associated with exposing your
name in a computer conference are not well defined, and
various people will no doubt assess the importance of these
risks differently. After all, most of us take risks every
day which are probably greater than the risks associated
with conferencing. We drive on the expressway. We eat
sushi. To some people, the risks of conferencing may seem
terrifying; to others, insignificant.
But let us not get side-tracked into unresolvable arguments
on the matter. The real issue here is not how dangerous
conferencing may or may not be; it is whether you and I will
be able to make our own decisions, and protect ourselves (or
not) as we see fit. The obvious answer is that users must
exercise their collective power to advance their own
interests, and to pressure sysops and moderators to become
more sensitive to user concerns.
To help in that effort, we would like to recommend the
following guidelines for user action:
-- Bear in mind John Perry Barlow's observation that
"Liberties are preserved by using them". Let your
sysop know that you would prefer to be using a
handle, and use one wherever you can.
-- Try to support boards and conferences which allow
handles, and avoid those which don't.
-- When using a handle, BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY! There will
always be irresponsible users on the nets, and they
will always use handles. It is important for the
rest of us to fight common anti-handle prejudices by
showing that handles are NOT always the mark of an
irresponsible user!
-- Educate others about the importance of handles (but
NEVER argue or flame anyone about it).
To sysops and moderators: We ask you to bear in mind that
authority is often used best where it is used least. Grant
users the right to engage in any harmless and responsible
behaviors they choose. Protect your interests in ways which
tread as lightly as possible upon the interests of others.
The liberties you preserve may be your own!
In building the computer forums of today, we are building
the social fabric of tomorrow. If we wish to preserve the
free and open atmosphere which has made computer networking
a powerful force, while at the same time taking care against
the risks inherent in such a force, handles seem to be a
remarkably harmless, entertaining and effective tool to help
us. Let's not throw that tool away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[end of excerpt]
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
From: fielden@spot.Colorado.EDU (fielden j.a.)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Security Education Act of USA
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.205351.10625@colorado.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 92 20:53:51 GMT
In article <1992Mar21.074417.1862@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>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
> 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
Wouldn't joining the Peace Corps be enough to get around that? My
understanding is that after serving in the Peace Corps you are
barred from serving in intelligence agencies for 10 years. Is this
accurate or did I hear wrong?
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.163003.2516@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 21:30:03 GMT
Carl does post opinions from time to time. I especially enjoy his
policy reviews, where he makes comments on their strengths and
weaknesses. I find these very useful, for it gives me some perspective
on how to deal with things that come up at our school.
But Carl isn't just trying to spout opinions, as 99% of Usenet posters
do; he's trying to effect real change. To do that, one needs a solid
background on which to rest and a bigger context in which to view
things. Case histories, policies, and other facts he posts are vital
when trying to convince someone of the need for change.
Perhaps someday we'll all have hypertext Usenet readers that can pop
up one of Carl's references in a window, thus avoiding the clutter in
the text of the post. But until then, he needs to post those
documents, or at least provide good references.
I find his postings some of the most responsible around, and I applaud
his efforts. To those that don't want to read his stuff, today's
newsreaders may not by hypertext linked, but they can do permanent
kills by author. Takes less than 30 seconds to do. Kadie is one of the
10 or 12 people I have a permanent *select* on.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.followup
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.163152.2899@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 21:31:52 GMT
pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
|The original post quoted the Director of Computing Services as saying:
|> "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."
That's pretty ironic, considering there's probably worse stuff in
their library.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203232242.AA27673@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 10:42:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Mar 92 21:28:16 GMT
tpm@anat.UMSMED.EDU (Terence P. Ma) writes:
>In article simong@ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory) writes:
>>
>> 1) Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
>>to look at the text of an article?
>The postmaster/systems administrator should have the ability to look
>at the text of electronic mail messages. However, in my opinion,
>doing so is the same as a mail delivery person opening mail and
>reading it. I think it is an unacceptable practice. The ability to
>look at email on the system should be to allow the SysAd to solve
>user problems AT THE INVITATION OF THE USER.
[text deleted for bandwidth]
i think if you look at the context of the user access request i post
last week? that you'll get the drift of the kinds of things which need
to be addressed. note that my sheet is for a .com not a .edu so there
will be business differences. i.e. someone dies or goes on vac w/o
forwarding their possibly urgent mail.
don't forget the environment you'r in has a lot to do with how you
handle privacy (always not to forget *written* policy [must have])
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203232243.AA27687@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 10:43:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.170730.9286@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 22:07:30 GMT
n13@krypton.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (Leonard J. Schmidt) writes:
| Those who are responsible for the system (such as the Postmaster or
|the sysadmin, should always have the ABILITY to look at mail. That is, if you
|have the proper system privs, it is possible to look at mail. I would think
|it unwise from a sysadmin point of view, to restrict yourself in any way from
|anything on your machine. If you _have_ to get to something, you should
|be able to.
| As for the "RIGHT" of the sysadmin to look at mail...see below.
I think PEM will eventually solve this problem. Postmasters will not be
able to look at the "inside of the envelope" no matter how hard they
try. They should get used to only being able to see headers, because
regardless of the ethics involved, technically it will be impossible.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.politics.misc, et al.] Homosexuality in Alabama
Message-ID: <9203232308.AA27788@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 11:08:12 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Homosexuality in Alabama
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Mar 92 18:37:31 GMT
There seems to be a quite robust controversy brewing at Auburn
University in Alabama concerning so-called homosexual "rights". There
is apparently a "gay-lesbian" group at this school which seeks to
achieve formal recognition by the university. The problem here is
that certain activities which homosexuals engage in (e.g., buggery)
are against Alabama state law. The school contends that a group
composed essentially of individuals who engage in illegal activities
has no right to use state facilities.
The Governor of Alabama supports the school in this matter -- as do a
significant number of citizens of the state as well as students of the
university. There was a petition circulated in support of the school
which gathered over ten thousand signatures. The homosexual group, on
the other hand, has gone to court. Let's hope that the judges who
will hear the case will be perceptive enough to see the wisdom of the
school's policy.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
{...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.motss] LBG funding at U. Auburn, Alabama
Message-ID: <9203232309.AA27797@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 11:09:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
From: jimdb@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: LBG funding at U. Auburn, Alabama
Message-ID: <1992Mar22.170336.38726@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 22 Mar 92 17:03:36 CST
Hey all,
I was just listening to NPR and LeAnn Hanson had a story on
Auburn University and their much beleagured LBG campus group.
She said that the LBG group sought student funding from the University
and, after much hulabaloo the state legislature is considering a bill
that would outlaw any funding to LBG groups in a public institution.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Is anyone from Alabama or the environs that would know anything
about the state legislature bill?
This concerns the hell out of me because, as a resident of a state
with a still-intact sodomy law, my group (Gay and Lesbian Services
of Kansas, GLSOK) could just as easily be attacked by the right-wing
fascists in our state legislature. The same goes for the majority
of you reading this -- a pathetic minority of states have overturned
their sodomy laws.
Why have we not heard about this earlier?
How can we help the group at Auburn?
reply as soon as possible.
Queerly,
Jim
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Danoff-Burg (Snow Museum, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045)
Bitnet: JIMDB@UKANVAX Internet:jimdb@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
"Myrmecophiles-R-Us"
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.flame, et al.] Re: Homosexuality in Alabama
Message-ID: <9203232311.AA27816@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 11:11:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Alabama
Message-ID: <1746@asuvax.eas.asu.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 92 19:46:07 GMT
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> There is apparently a "gay-lesbian" group at this school which seeks to
> achieve formal recognition by the university. The problem here is
> that certain activities which homosexuals engage in (e.g., buggery)
> are against Alabama state law. The school contends that a group
> composed essentially of individuals who engage in illegal activities
> has no right to use state facilities.
>
> Let's hope that the judges who will hear the case will be perceptive
> enough to see the wisdom of the school's policy.
Well I doubt that will happen, T*ddles. You
see, the problem is, even taking whatever sodomy
laws Alabama has at face value, there is no proof
that the Auburn students involved have engaged
in any of those acts simply because their sexual
orientation happens to be homosexual.
Look at it this way, T*d -- just because
*you* loudly proclaim your sexual preference to
be heterosexual does not mean that you are
anthing other than the middle-aged geek virgin
you are.
--Starcap'n Ra {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.flame] Re: Homosexuality in Alabama
Message-ID: <9203232311.AA27825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 11:11:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.flame
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Alabama
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 20:15:17 GMT
ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>> There is apparently a "gay-lesbian" group at this school which seeks to
>> achieve formal recognition by the university. The problem here is
>> that certain activities which homosexuals engage in (e.g., buggery)
>> are against Alabama state law. The school contends that a group
>> composed essentially of individuals who engage in illegal activities
>> has no right to use state facilities.
>>
>> Let's hope that the judges who will hear the case will be perceptive
>> enough to see the wisdom of the school's policy.
> Well I doubt that will happen, T*ddles. You
>see, the problem is, even taking whatever sodomy
>laws Alabama has at face value, there is no proof
>that the Auburn students involved have engaged
>in any of those acts simply because their sexual
>orientation happens to be homosexual.
> Look at it this way, T*d -- just because
>*you* loudly proclaim your sexual preference to
>be heterosexual does not mean that you are
>anthing other than the middle-aged geek virgin
>you are.
Exactly. Look at it from the othe rside, just because I'm heterosexual
doesn't mean I rape women.
Let them associate with whomever they choose, then if they engage
in some illegal activity you prosecute the individual offenders.
BRI
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.flame, et al.] Re: Homosexuality in Alabama
Message-ID: <9203232312.AA27834@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 11:12:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Alabama
Message-ID: <1747@asuvax.eas.asu.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 92 22:28:13 GMT
djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
> > Well I doubt that will happen, T*ddles. You
> > see, the problem is, even taking whatever sodomy
> > laws Alabama has at face value, there is no proof
> > that the Auburn students involved have engaged
> > in any of those acts simply because their sexual
> > orientation happens to be homosexual.
>
> Hiding behind the piles of bullshit again I see......
> I guess they just hold hands..
Of course they do more than hold hands.
But you can't prove it in a court of law, you
fucking idiot. Which shoots down the
university's entire legal plan of attack.
--Starcap'n Ra {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] The Emporer's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203232314.AA18914@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 13:14:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: The Emporer's Clothes
Message-ID: <9203232246.AA02674@world.std.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 12:46:28 GMT
>From: "Kent W. England"
>I would agree that it is a fine defense of the need for open
>communications and personal freedom, but you must remember that the vast
>majority of individuals still access the Internet via institutional
>networks. These people will still be subject to appropriate use when
>they use their institutional networks no matter how the backbones are
>provisioned.
1. The vast majority access the internet...
Is that full connectivity? Does that include e-mail
only (e.g. MCImail? Compuserve? USENET?)
It's exactly these ambiguities that make the problem
complicated, can't just swish them away with vague
language.
2. via institutional networks.
What is an institutional network? Do you mean regional
network? Do you mean via the LAN at some University eg?
I'll assume regionals. A lot of the regionals are permitting
commercial traffic within the regional. As far as head-count*
goes I think that accounts for "the vast majority". Nearnet,
SURAnet, possibly BARRnet, CERFnet, NYSERnet, essentially
both coasts, comes to mind. I'll guess others have similar
policies where they have jurisdiction.
* Another vague term. Vast majority of end-users? Hosts? Regionals
even if they're tiny? I'm using "end-users" here.
Now, one can mince words, there's always some sort of "appropriate
use", but it seemed to me you meant that they are under a regional (or
institutional?) AUP which was approximately the same as NSF's AUP.
I think that's simply untrue for "the vast majority", or at least a
very large and significant plurality.
There's also a chicken and egg problem in your view of the matter.
If the commercial side is being kept out by AUP and that's what we're
trying to encourage for the first time it's not really useful to point
out that the current user community is not primarily commercial and
then conclude that therefore, based on past experience, this is how it
will always be.
At the very least one would have to show that the current situation
serves these end-users.
My guess is that most regionals which have an AUP which mirrors NSF's
AUP only have that because they think they have to be in synch with
NSF to be attached. It's the same confusion.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: How do U. of I. sys admins feel about email privacy for users?
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.233815.14854@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 23:38:15 GMT
In article <1992Mar23.182015.18970@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[the following is the response of some U. of Illinois sysadmin to a
>query by Carl wrt. e-mail privacy]
>Again 'search' needs to be defined. "To some extent I act as mail
>clerk under a system where everyone sends postcards."
This is an excellent observation and in some ways at the crux of the whole
issue. You can't tell mail-handlers to close their eyes while handeling
postcards. I assume regular (paper) mail-handlers have some set of rules
regarding revealing information they may have accidentally acquired... maybe
computer sysadmins should follow similar rules.
However, with regular (paper) mail, people have the option of sending letters
rather than postcards. What we need in the electronic world is an equivalent
to sealed letters... and public-key cryptography can (and will) provide this.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.014632.9019@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 01:46:32 GMT
In article <1992Mar23.064254.22338@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>all books. It would cost the computer center less than $1000 to carry all
>>newsgroups.
>
>Clearly, you have no clue what it *may* or *may not* cost for a computer
>center to carry all newsgroups. When was the last time you prepared a
>computer center budget?
I have. Not that it's relevant... $1000 will buy you 1/2 Gig of SCSI
disk space... plenty to carry a month's worth of Altnet, with space
to spare.
>-- 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 / ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
big*ot, n. An intolerant person... [American Heritage Dictionary]
Clearly hating everyone still makes you a bigot, on top of being an egoist.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.021032.16572@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 92 02:10:32 GMT
In article kenyon@saku.unl.edu (Paul H. Kenyon) writes:
>[wrt. moderated alt.* groups]
>Now seriously, I was unaware of the status of alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
>I am curious, can you name 10 others.
I figured I'd try... but I only found 8! 8-)
% grep '^alt.*Moderated' /local/lib/news/newsgroups
alt.3d Three-dimensional imaging. (Moderated)
alt.dev.null The ultimate in moderated newsgroups. (Moderated)
alt.gourmand Recipes & cooking info. (Moderated)
alt.hackers Descriptions of projects currently under development. (Moderated)
alt.security.index Pointers to good stuff in alt.security. (Moderated)
alt.society.ati The Activist Times Digest. (Moderated)
alt.society.cu-digest Postings about the Computer Underground. (Moderated)
alt.sources.index Pointers to source code in alt.sources.*. (Moderated)
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203240236.AA01023@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 16:36:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
Subject: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <9203232058.AA00975@tmn.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 01:58:05 GMT
<> Gordon Cook 23-MAR-92 20:58
cook@tmn
Although I haven't yet gotten to the point on my tape recording where the
AUP was discussed directly with Steve Wolff. The sense I got from the
hearings was certainly that the NSF should drop the AUP. As I said here
before Steve replied that the NSF believed that it was statutorily
required to have an AUP. He stated that if it were dropped the amount of
backbone traffic would go up dramatically and implied that the government
would be funding a free good for commercial networking where companies
that desired no communication with the research and education community
would be able to get on the internet and balance their checkbooks or send
spreadsheets back and forth all day long.
I think this reasoning is flawed -- as we have seen people say before on
this list many companies with a presence here WOULD NOT use this network
for proprietary enterprise networking for reasons of security and
stability. Those companies that hop on the network and use it would do so
presumably because they had REAL business to conduct with the R&E
community. I have transcribed almost 45 minutes worth of questions from
the hearing. I have heard nothing so far from what I have transcribed
that suggests that either congressman Boucher or Packard would be upset if
the AUP were dropped.
We hear that the NSF is required to have it, but to the best of my
knowledge no one has been able to cite, the statute, the executive order
or the OMB ruling or anything else on which this requirement is based. I
find this very perplexing. Steve has the general counsel at the NSF or
anyone else been able to find anything "scriptual" yet? If they cannot do
so, given the current environment, why not bow to the commercialization of
the network and drop the AUP.
Asking Congress to tell you to drop it is OK. But sheesh asking the
congress to give you NREN took over 4 years. How long would this take
before you got the statutory OK? Why not say we will drop the thing
September 1 unless someone can come up with an overwhelmingly strong
reason by then for our not doing so?
Dropping it would eliminate the tilt that has been given to ANS, because
ANS would no longer have exclusive commercial rights to the backbone. You
could then get on to building the NREN instead of having to fight the
ANS/CIX/MId-level wars. If ANS fells irreparably injured by this action
let it say so and let it pack its bags and go home. Others I am sure
would fill the gap. After all while the NSF fights the AUP wars, ESnet is
preparing to install a *REAL* bleeding edge backbone, it would be nice to
see you with an unhindered path to the same end.
Here's one of the best exchanges from the hearings of March 12th. Mich
cuts to the heart of things when he points out that the NSFnet may not be
able to serve as BOTH the production and the R&D network for NREN.
Congressman Packard: So you suggest that recompetition would be
successful if it were done on a level playing field. What would have to
be done to make it that way?
Mitch Kapor: I could suggest a couple of options. One option would be to
say that the network manager could not also play a commercial role. . . .
. Another possibility is to move to the other end of the spectrum and do
it in such a way that all commercial carriers would have equivalent access
to whatever backbone were put in place. I won't tell you that I know how
to do that today but I will tell you that it is worthwhile to discuss.
****What stands in the way of that today is really the acceptable use
policy and that is why modifying it or dropping it in order to give all
commercial providers equal access to these federally supported and
subsidized regional networks would be another way of leveling the playing
field.**** The distortion comes when you take one or for that matter two
carriers and partially subsidize them and you give them commercial rights
that nobody else has. . . .
Let me mention if I may a third option which is to separate out the idea
of a production backbone, that is the services which occupy 99% of the
users on a day to day basis. Separate this network from investment in
precompetitive ultra high speed broadband networks. My reading of NREN is
that it needs to serve both purposes. To expand the reach and to develop
a high end. . . . to expand the reach let there be subsidy to the
institutions to purchase services on the open market. . . . . At the same
time develop the high end . . . we support this but we don't want to see
it confused with the day to day production network that serves millions of
users today -- millions of whom are already in the commercial sphere.
Sixty percent the institutions on the US internet are commercial
entities. The rate of growth of commercial institutions far outstrips the
rate of growth of educational institutions.
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cosndisc] Comments on "K-12 Connections to the Internet"
Message-ID: <199203240238.AA01088@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 16:38:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.cosndisc
From: rreilly@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Reilly)
Subject: Comments on "K-12 Connections to the Internet"
Message-ID: <199203240135.AA00227@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 01:10:31 GMT
Hello All,
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the "K-12 Connections To
The Internet" paper submitted by Pat Burns and Dave Zachmann to the Consortium
for School Networking Working Group (COSN WG) at the Intenet Engineering
Task Force meeting in San Diego. As you may or may not know our COSN WG
subgroup was given the task of commenting on that paper. I do not know
if the paper itself is available electronically, but I am posting this
commentary here as the folks at the meeting were given copies and several
people FAXed copies back to their organizations. I apologize to those
who have not yet seen that paper. I'm sure that the "horse" will
arrive shortly, but in the meantime here is the "cart".
I would first like to commend Pat Burns and Dave Zachmann on their work
and on their willingness to share their experiences with us. They have
done an excellent job.
I believe that we should construct/evaluate hardware configuration
models based on four conjectures:
1. Servers should be physically located at the school district level (or
there abouts). This will allow local control of the content of their
network feed. This will also obviate the need for current IP sites to
act as hosts. This would releive the existing Internet site of the
responsibility for implement firewalls and otherwise insulating the
school children from certain areas of USENET, the host system, and it
would prevent saturating resources (i.e. dialup lines, disk space, etc).
This would also, hopefully, place the legal responsibility for the
content of the feed on the local schools and not on the "higher level
post-high school and corporate entities".
2. The pre-college school community will rely upon the COSN WG for models
that can be cost effectively and administrivially dropped into their
district and it's schools.
Pre-college school teachers are generally not familiar with
telecommunications, and networking - let alone the Internet. Continuuing
direct support and education to the computer person in each school as well
as to the district computer person will be needed for sometime after a
system is "dropped into" a school system.
Therefore the models for connectivity should be standard and familar to
whatever group is tasked with supporting and educating the school
district's staff and its teachers. The model should be populated by hardware
and software that is used throughout the Internet. The hardware and
software should be usable if the system is upscaled.
3. Few pre-college schools systems are capable of funding the cost of
the hardware and software that is requisite to connect to the Internet. This
suggests that great reliance on corporate partnerships will be seen. This
reliance would make it necessary to have models which do not endorse the
product of one specific company (as much as possible).
4. The model(s) should provide for full Internet access and feature USENET
and/or store and forward capability. The level of technology necessary
required to impliment a scalable network should not be sacrificed for a
"here and now" donated system, or for a "piggy back" or "add in" ride on an
existing network which was not intended for our purposes.
Based on _some_ of these conjectures, I would like to offer some comments on
Burns and Zachmann's paper.
Page 6, "Figure 3 Model 1: Dial-in" shows a well designed model, however, it is
_not_ one that we should recommend. This model even with as few as 4 terminals
does not provide acceptable connecivity. Using an asynchronous switch is not
desirable. The asynch switch creates a "serial race" for the data circuit
with only one winner. The authors have also indicated this on page 2.
I can not envision school situations where this model would be desirable.
The modem is designated as v.32bis Asynch. The v.32 bis modems that I have
surveyed and the two that I purchased were all capable of "asynch" and "synch".
I do not understand why the modem in this example is designated as "asynch".
The others models on pages 8 and 10 have "asynch" or "synch" labels. Again, I
don't understand why this is!
We might consider a model that substitutes a multiplexer (stat mux(?) or a
Telebit QBlazer, etc.) with PPP (or some multiprotocol) in place of the
Asynchronous Switch. But then we would have a model similar to other models
that Burns and Zachmann offer.
Turning to page 7, I would like to refer to "Figure 3 Model 1: Dial In (b)
MAC's Running ARA". This model is based on Appletalk Remote Access (ARA).
ARA must be licensed which may be an administrivial problem but none the
less it does present an additional expense to the school. The lack of
general use of ARA on the Internet does pose a non-trivial problem.
If support or troubleshooting is needed one would need to consult
Apple, Inc. directly! It is critical that any model that we recommend be
efficiently and Internet-widely supportable.
Also, ARA tends _not_ to be robust, and can be "flakey" in some instances.
Turning to page 8, I would now like to comment on "Figure 4 Model 2: Bring The
Network To The Site - Synchronous Dial-In".
This is an excellent model for sites that can budget a good deal of money
to purchase an Ethernet LAN. Also, I do not believe that you need the v.35
interface; RS-232 is workable.
Assuming that all the constituent hardware will not be donated or provided
by corporate giving or governmental funding, I would question the use of an
Ethernet. I wonder how many schools could afford an Ethernet? Also I
would reitterate that, I believe, most v.32bis modems are both synch and
asynch. The model specifically calls for a synchronous modem.
Next I would like to address the model on page 9, "Figure 5 Model 3: Bring
The Network To One School - Dedicated".
This is an excellent model and it quite appropiate, as advertised, for _one_
school. As in the previous model, I would question the reality of a schools
being able to purchase an Ethernet LAN.
Let's move onto page 10 to review "Figure 6 model 4: Bring The Network To The
School District". I would suggest that the Cisco Gateway be replaced by a
Telebit QBlazer with a 56K baud card. The QBlazer is much less expensive
and just as capable (and comes with an Ethernet). I would also question
how Unix can be optional if the intention is to "do mail". This model
is excellent if used as the central server for a school district or the like.
We should consider a model that would have Figure 6 Model 4 as a central
server at the school district, and Figure 5 Model 3 as the model for
the schools to be served by Fig 6 Model 4. In addition to the comments that
I have made, I would also recommend that the model on page 9 have 14.4K baud
dialup lines (with PPP) to the server (instead of 56kbps data circuits). I
would maintain the 56K baud dedicated data circuit from the server to the
Internet even though there would be a slow down created momentarily by
4-14.4K simultaneous transactions.
Here is a model based on the excellent work of Burns and Zachmann.
Individual School
-------------------
:----:
: PC :----- 19.2K ----:
:----: serial line :
:------:
: ---:EtherNet
:----: : N :
: PC :---19.2-------: e :
:----: serial line : t :
: B :
:----: : l :
:IIe :--9600--------: a :
:----: serial line : z :
: e : School District's
:----: : r : Central Server
:MAC :--9600--------: : -------------------
:----: serial line :------: :---:
: EtherNet:------- :
: : N :
: :-------: :-------: : e :
:--:v.32bis:--PPP--:v.32bis:----: t :
:-------: :-------: : B :
: l :
: a :
:-------: : z :
Another school site <----- PPP---:v.32bis:----: e :---56Kbps-->
:-------: : r : CSU/DSU
: :
:-------: : :
Another school site <----- PPP---:v.32bis:----: :
:-------: : :
: :
:-------: : :
Another school site <----- PPP---:v.32bis:----: :
:-------: : :
:---:
I would again commend Burns and Zachmann for their time and effort in
producing an excellent report on thier fine work. Their work has certainly
given me quite a bit of motivation.
I would welcome comments from the authors as well as from others. Hopefully
we can provide k-12 schools with a supportable, cost-effective and
caller-helpful connectivity models.
I would like to indicate that I am, just as Burns and Zachmann (p.4) are,
"not a technologist - I just struggle with technology as a means to the
end of providing Internet connectivity to the many schools".
Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Kurt Lidl of SURA Net for his
invaluable guidance and time.
--
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 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203240241.AA28746@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 14:41:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.232208.6654@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 23:22:08 GMT
In article simong@ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory) writes:
> 1) Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
>to look at the text of an article?
IMHO, no. The postmaster should have the right/ability to look at the
_headers_ of mail messages when failure of automatic delivery makes it
necessary to do so, and nothing further. Unfortunately this is difficult
with today's software... but see below.
> 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?
Given my answer in 1), such a situation should not arise.
> 3) Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
>widely known and accepted?
That would probably be nice.
> 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?
I think that that's the absolute _minimum_ that should be done. To _not_
inform your users that their e-mail privacy is less than complete would be
unethical in the extreme.
In any case, I think this whole issue will disappear quite soon, pending
the widespread acceptance of public-key cryptography standards and the
wide availability of software that can take advantage of such. With such
software, the body of a message would always be encrypted with the
recipient's public key, and privacy would be ensured. Sometimes technology
can pre-empt policy! ;-)
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu (James R. Saker Jr.)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 05:26:39 GMT
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>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.
While this may be possible for most Universities, it would be an unfair
demand placed upon the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. For example, how
many of you knew that right now, UNL's athletic department is trying to
figure out how it can spend University money to defend a football player
accussed of assaulting a young woman earlier this year?
Obviously, free-speech must take a back-seat to the Big Red at UNL.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu .
. /\ .
. Not the Ag and Football campus, but --- .
. the academic and business campus in Nebraska! .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.030709.25452@anomaly.sbs.com>
Date: 24 Mar 92 03:07:09 GMT
floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>Such a shame that Carl won't debate with just interesting opinions,
>and instead keeps throwing out documented facts.
The act of treating a computer as it where a library of information is
hardly a "fact".
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.91906.8818@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 14:19:06 GMT
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>It would cost the computer center less than $1000 to carry all newsgroups.
>>
>>How do you know this computer center can spare this $1000?
>
>Do 100 students read the alt groups? Charge each one $10 for it.
Charge students for news? Yikes!
My site doesn't charge for *anything*, and we don't plan to do so.
If we charge for reading alt.*, should we charge for reading *any* news?
How do we control access to it? Shall we set a group (the Unix group
mechanism, that is) for all those who have paid their bill? With 2000
users, that's going to become a managerial nightmare rather quickly.
>Actually I didn't realize alt was so small, 60 megs is alot less than
>$1000, even for a drive costing $4/meg its still only $240. Charge the
>students $2 to read the alt groups.
Your solution addresses the cost of extra disk space.
What about the original cost of the system? Many sites purchase a
system for use as a news server; others dedicate an owned system to
news.
What about the cost of the maintenance contract? If you have a *real*
news server (a SPARCStation can't serve 2000 people effectively, you
know), the maintenance costs escalate rapidly.
What about the salaries of those people who maintain/upgrade/administer
the news server? Of course, you could turn the news server over to a
group of unpaid students/users, IF the server was dedicated to news. If,
as is usually the case, the news machine has uses other than news, this
may not be a valid option.
What about the cost of the phone line? Many sites pay their local Communi-
cations Office a monthly fee for their network/phone lines.
>The copyright problem maybe a legitimate concern although I don't know if
>this is the responsibility of the college. I would assume the poster is
>responsible for the copyright violation.
If the SPA finds a bootleg copy of WordPerfect on my system, they don't
care where I got it; I'm the one who will pay the penalty.
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.92533.9477@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 92 14:25:33 GMT
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article kenyon@saku.unl.edu (Paul H. Kenyon) writes:
>>Now seriously, I was unaware of the status of alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
>>I am curious, can you name 10 others.
>
>I figured I'd try... but I only found 8! 8-)
>
>alt.3d Three-dimensional imaging. (Moderated)
>alt.dev.null The ultimate in moderated newsgroups. (Moderated)
This one is a joke group; I've never seen *anything* posted to it.
>alt.gourmand Recipes & cooking info. (Moderated)
>alt.hackers Descriptions of projects currently under development. (Moderated)
alt.hackers is not truly moderated; the moderation mechanism is used to
"prove one's worth". You have to be able to forge an Approved: line in
order to post. This is documented in the alt.hackers FAQ list.
>alt.security.index Pointers to good stuff in alt.security. (Moderated)
>alt.society.ati The Activist Times Digest. (Moderated)
>alt.society.cu-digest Postings about the Computer Underground. (Moderated)
This newsgroup, as well as alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, is not truly
moderated. It is used for the distribution of a digest; the only people
who ever post to these groups are the editors of the respective digests.
I suspect that alt.society.ati is one of these as well, but I haven't
seen enough of it to know.
>alt.sources.index Pointers to source code in alt.sources.*. (Moderated)
Again, this is a moderated group with (as far as I've seen) one poster.
You have actually found only 3 moderated alt.* newsgroups to which "regular"
users may post.
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Moderated alt groups (was Re: news story on U. of Nebraska ...)
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.151206.7768@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 15:12:06 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>>alt.society.cu-digest Postings about the Computer Underground. (Moderated)
>This newsgroup, as well as alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, is not truly
>moderated. It is used for the distribution of a digest; the only people
>who ever post to these groups are the editors of the respective digests.
>I suspect that alt.society.ati is one of these as well, but I haven't
>seen enough of it to know.
[...]
What difference does it make if the moderater reposts accepted
articles one at a time under the authors' names or whether the
moderater reposted accepted articles a batch at a time under the
moderator's name?
- 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 24 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: <9203241554.AA01347@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 03:54:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.unix.admin
From: pgd@compuram.bbt.se (Per Lindqvist)
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 16:04:06 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar22.160406.14411@compuram.bbt.se>
simong@ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory) writes:
: 1) Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
: to look at the text of an article?
Yes, definitively. Why?
Now for example I am trying to exterminate a particularly nasty mail-loop.
It is almost like a virus, and it tend to multiply itself. First time
I saw it it was a lot of messages with exactly the same contents.
(maybe hundred)
Since then I started to delete that message, and the count is almost down to
zero now (two weeks later). The method I use is simply to delete the
message in one of the mail queues, when I see it.
For these kind of problems it is neccessary for the postmaster to be
able to read mail. The net is not reliable, and it from time to time
gives all kind of problems like this. The bigger site, and the more
well connected, the bigger problems. You maybe need to have your
mailbox filled with a few hundred rejected letters, sent by others, to
appreciate this point.
--
Per Lindqvist
Internet: pgd@compuram.bbt.se Fidonet: Per Lindqvist @ 2:201/332
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers as libraries of information (was Re: news story ...)
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.160108.8708@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 16:01:08 GMT
*old topic*
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
[...]
>The act of treating a computer as it where a library of information is
>hardly a "fact".
[...]
Indeed, the first two paragraphs of the unofficial, draft Statement on
Computers and Academic Freedom call it a "premise" or "axiom":
"This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It is made up of two kinds of
statements. The first, labeled as principles, are premises. The
second, labeled as interpretations, are conclusions drawn from the
principles.
The two kinds of statements can be thought of as axioms and theorems.
An axiom (principle) is most likely to be criticized for being
unreasonable. A theorem (interpretation) is mostly likely to be
criticized for not following from the principles.
[...]
Principle: The principles of intellectual freedom developed by
libraries should be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
[...]"
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freedom caf-statement
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Computers as libraries of information (was Re: news story ...)
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.161500.9029@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 16:15:00 GMT
This is an annotated biblography of CAF-News articles about the idea
that computers can be libraries of information. It was created from
excerpts of CAF-News abstracts. It is followed by access information.
==========================================
*news/october_1991
Notes 10-12 are about the application of library policy to newsgroups.
10. (Computer administrator at Iowa State:) Having a selection policy
based on Library policy is the proverbial ounce of prevention.
[Iowa State has since rejected library-like policy -cmk]
<1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu>
11. The National Science Foundation's network rules are unclear. The
rules should recognize that the NSF has created an on-line electronic
library system. Enclosed is a copy of the American Library
Association's Diversity Statement (a statement that discusses both
sexual and sexist material).
<1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org>
12. A judge as ruled that CompuServe (a commercial on-line information
provider) isn't liable for some of the contents of its network. The
judge compared CompuServe to a public library or a bookstore that
can't feasibly examine every publication it carries.
<1991Nov1.195246.13037@eff.org>
==========================================
*news/september_1991
The next two notes concern the application of library policy to
computers. The first note reports that the American Library
Association (ALA) says that access restrictions can be censorship. The
note includes the ALA's definitions of censorship and related terms.
<1991Sep23.151518.18589@eff.org> The next note tries to clarify the
analogy between a traditional library and a computer. The note says
that Netnews should compared to a library, rather it should be
compared to the set of publications from which a library selects. The
note also includes the Hypothetical Netnews Bill of Rights, a
modification of the ALA's Library Bill of Rights.
<1991Sep18.152828.6297@eff.org>
==========================================
*news/cafv02n05
Notes 4 and 5 discuss a hypothetical 'Netnews Bill of Rights' based on
the Library Bill of Rights.
4. Carl Kadie: "All computers offering Netnews are forums for
information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should
guide their services: ... "
<1992Jan27.201548.22829@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
5. This is an in-depth critique of Carl Kadie's 'Netnews Bill of
Rights.'
<1992Jan27.165137.14992@ms.uky.edu>
==========================================
*news/cafv02n02
Note 5 provides a reference to a discussion of libraries and
minor-access laws.
5. kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie): "American Library Association
policy forbids libraries from limiting access because of a patron's
age." However, "Only a few states have legal definitions of a
library." Whether a BBS or Usenet site is considered a library might
depend on how it is run.
<1992Jan8.215233.24855@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
==========================================
*news/cafv01n32
[Week ending October 13, 1991
The first five notes are about grade and high school connected to the
net. In the first two notes Houston Chronicle reporter Joe Abernathy
asks how we can keep sexual material out of such schools. He says the
library model won't work. He refers to a case in Peoria, Kansas.
(There is no Peoria, Kansas. He may be thinking of an (unlitigated?)
satellite-TV obscenity case in Florida or Alabama.)
<9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com><199110090244.AA14553@eff.org>
The next note says that net access and use should be supervised by an
instructor.<199110090401.AA17108@eff.org> The fourth notes defends the
library model. It says that "[j]ust as a grade or high school does not
subscribe to all magazines, it will not subscribe to all
newsgroups".<1991Oct8.210210.4733@eff.org> The fifth note says that
schools do not need direct access to the Internet to get many of its
benefits. The note advocates a more controllable Fidonet-type
system.<199110091909.AA12324@eff.org>
==========================================
*news/cafv02n28
The next notes contrast traditional libraries and computer libraries.
The first note list similarities and differences
<1991Sep17.172347.9216@eff.org>. The second note clarifies the
comparison. For example, "Netnews" is not compared to a library, but
to rather a set of publications. It is a Netnews service that compared
to a library. The note also creates a "Hypothetical Netnews Bill of
Rights" by slighting rewriting the "Library Bill of
Rights".<1991Sep18.152828.6297@eff.org>
==========================================
*news/cafv01n27
[Week of September 9, 1991 to September 15, 1991
The first eight notes deal with applying library policy to a Netnews
facility. The first note argues that while academic libraries can
concentrate on educational material, they should interpret the word
"educational" very broadly.<1991Sep9.085026.33361@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
The next note reports that Usenet/Netnews is historically educational
<9109092011.AA00258@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>. The third note defines and
distinguish "censorship" and
"selection"<199109091819.AA26087@eff.org>. The fourth, responding to a
note in CAF-News 1.26, asserts that librarians who keep Playboy under
lock and key really are doing it protect the magazine, not to avoid
controversy.. The fifth note suggests that
computer sites that try to ban "offensive" newsgroups, may be held
responsible when someone is offended by a note that gets through in an
"inoffensive" newsgroup.<199109090239.AA04619@eff.org>
==========================================
*news/cafv01n26
The final notes are about the idea of applying library policy to the
network media such as Netnews. The first note warns that academic
librarians are not as privileged as it may seem. For example, some are
poorly paid.<9109031509.AA21419@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> The next note
argues that sys admins should not select newsgroups the way that
librarians select magazines; rather, they should select newsgroups the
way that airlines select
routes.<9109061947.AA00162@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> The third notes says
that the application of library policy to computer media does not
require a merger of a university's library administration and computer
services administration.<1991Sep6.215531.21421@eff.org> In the final
note, a sys admin opins that librarians who restrict access to Playboy
may say that the restriction is to protect the magazine but really it
is to avoid controversy.<5BCA15E24E81324C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
==========================================
*news/cafv01n23
[This week's note continues the discussion on freedom of expression on
(public) university computers. The first five notes discuss issues in
the abstract. In the first note, a sys admin argues that sys admins
and computers cannot be expected to follow library procedures unless
computers are funded like libraries and sys admins are given academic
status like academic librarians <2F0D768BFC00965B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>.
In the second note a student says that Netnews is much like other
small student publications he has worked on (and so should be treated
like other student publications) .
The next note is an exchange about government funding of personally
objectionable material. The poster says that contributing a small
price to shared channels (roads, libraries, networks) is worthwhile
because it helps "to ensure freedom of communication, movement, and
other activity that ultimately benefits everybody,..."
<1991Aug18.215350.21835@mp.cs.niu.edu>. The fourth note discusses when
an sys admin would be obliged to let a user use a computer for some
expressive purpose <9108211525.AA01871@zerkalo.harvard.edu>. The fifth
note points out the need for an authorative answer to question of
"when is a university-owned computer properly regarded as an
instrument of free expression?" <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>
==========================================
Acess Information:
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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".
=================
news/october_1991
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
news/september_1991
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
news/cafv02n05
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
news/cafv02n02
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
news/cafv01n32
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
news/cafv01n28
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
news/cafv01n27
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
news/cafv01n26
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
news/cafv01n23
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freedom abstracts
send caf-news october_1991
send caf-news september_1991
send caf-news cafv02n05
send caf-news cafv02n02
send caf-news cafv01n32
send caf-news cafv01n28
send caf-news cafv01n27
send caf-news cafv01n26
send caf-news cafv01n23
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/abstracts
pub/academic/news/october_1991
pub/academic/news/september_1991
pub/academic/news/cafv02n05
pub/academic/news/cafv02n02
pub/academic/news/cafv01n32
pub/academic/news/cafv01n28
pub/academic/news/cafv01n27
pub/academic/news/cafv01n26
pub/academic/news/cafv01n23
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bsc835!ehunt@uunet.UU.NET (Eric P. Hunt)
Subject: GLB at Auburn University
Message-ID: <9203241725.AA04239@relay2.UU.NET>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 17:21:09 GMT
The State Attorney General, Jimmy Evans, recently released an official
'opinion' as to the legality of the GLB receiving state funds. He said it's
illegal, period.
A local Birmingham TeeVee station did an unscientific, unofficial poll
asking the residents of the metro Bham area what their opinion was. I think
you know the answer already. In a 4 hr period, there were 800+ calls against
the GLB and 100+ for the group. The station, WVTM 13, has a voice-mail type
system that is used with touchtone phones to record votes.
None of this surprises me, especially now that we have a primitive Baptist
preacher as governor.
Finally, the ACLU of Alabama apparently has papers ready to file in various
courts if the Trustees of Auburn University overturn the administration's
stance on allowing the GLB to have an official charter.
--
Eric Hunt
Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL
bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
eric.hunt@matrix.sbs.com
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203241824.AA11642@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 08:24:13 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: peter@goshawk.lanl.gov
Subject: Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <9203241738.AA18759@goshawk.lanl.gov>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 17:38:25 GMT
Would anyone care to write down a cost/benefit analysis of dropping the
NSF AUP? I am sure there are many pros and at least some cons to such
an action. It might also help if people were to analyze the net result
of such an action.
In light of the emperor's clothes argument, is the real question?:
a) There should be no emperor, just a king, or a baron, or
a ...
b) The emperor/empress should be wearing a 3 piece dress suit, or a
or a casual dress or a pair of stubbies and
heading for the gold coast ...
cheers,
peter
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <9203241827.AA02449@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:27:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: bell@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <24MAR92.09272904@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca>
Date: 24 Mar 92 15:27:29 GMT
I don't want to come off sounding like a prude, but I've been asked
by a colleague whether we have any policy restricting the transmission
and storage of pornographic materials (porno gif files). I can't say
that I've run into this problem as yet, but was wondering how other
academic institutions are handling it. thanks in advance.
p.s. - If this topic has all ready been discussed, could someone tell
me where I can get my hands on archive listings if they are
available, thanks again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bell E-mail: BELL@UWPG02.UWinnipeg.CA
Acting Director V-mail: 204/786-9449
Computer Services S-mail: University of Winnipeg
515 Portage Avenue,
Winnipeg, Manitoba,
Canada R3B 2E9
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: computer law info...
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.130308.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
From: ayeater@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 24 Mar 92 13:03:08 EST
Users:
I am in the early planning stages of my undergraduate thesis. I am strongly
considering doing my thesis work on information systems law: that is, e-mail
free-speech, virus, computer invasions, etc. etc. Does any one have any source
materials to start, interesting cases they've heard of, been involved in, etc?
Also, does anyone know the e-mail address of Mitch Kapur's Electronic Frontier
Foundation, or whatever the fuck its called? I know Hahvahd prof. Lawrence
Tribe is big on this issue, but does anyone know of any other legal scholars?
Precedents? journals? related...Make me aware at ayeater.eagle.wesleyan.edu
Thanks
Scruffy the Rat
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 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: <9203241853.AA02613@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:53:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu")
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <1992Mar23.220017.6558@robobar.co.uk>
Date: 23 Mar 92 22:00:17 GMT
In article <9208008.3821@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> simong@ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory) writes:
> 1) Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
> to look at the text of an article?
The ability, yes, but in general problem fixing a postmaster ought to
just browse the headers of mail and not the content; you should write
tools to help you do this. Also your 'mailmore' command could replace
the Subject: text with xxxxx's.
However I think I'm theonly person who ever did this when filling
in as postmaster one week...
Graham
--
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203241854.AA02627@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:54:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin)
Subject: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.182442.12268@menudo.uh.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 18:24:42 GMT
Descriptions :
I am one of sysadm in Computer Science Department of University of Houston.
Our department has about 25 faculty members and 200 graduate students.
Every semester we find the users who are not enrolled and delete such
users. This was O.K. until one user complained this semester.
Before we delete the users' accounts we e-mail to them a notice
that their accounts will be deleted in 10 days.
We simply used 'mail xx yy zz ...... etc'.
Now a user zz complain that he does not want others (xx zz .... etc) to know
that he is not registered and argues that we simply violated his
privacy.
We are going to mail to each user from now on anyway, but I am still confused.
Does anyone have a similar experience ?
Thanks, in advance.
------
W. Jin
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.185546.24084@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 92 18:55:46 GMT
bell@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca writes:
>I don't want to come off sounding like a prude, but I've been asked
>by a colleague whether we have any policy restricting the transmission
>and storage of pornographic materials (porno gif files). I can't say
>that I've run into this problem as yet, but was wondering how other
>academic institutions are handling it. thanks in advance.
[...]
In the U.S., sexual material (unless it meets the legal definition of
obscene) is Constitutionally protected and is thus not illegal. I
don't know the laws in Canada. In the U.S., many (most?) university
libraries subscribe to Playboy without significant problems. Also,
many students have copies of Playboy in their dorm room without
significant problems.
If you have problems with users taking too much disk space, I suggest
putting quotas on user disk use rather than restrictions on content.
(If a user is using up too much disk space, does it matter if the 500K
GIF is of a model with a shirt on or of a model without a shirt on?)
As for public file areas, you may want to base your policy on library
policy. Like academic computer sites, academic libraries have limited
resources and thus can't store everything. They do, however, try to
based their selection decisions cost and usefulness rather than on
"partisan or doctrinal disapproval".
I'm enclosing information on on-line access to library policy
statements (including one from Canada). This is the kind of
issue often discussed in alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk. I'm
enclosing information about it, too.
=============
=================
README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
access.children.nonprint.ala
=================
"Access for Children and Young People to Videotapes and Other Nonprint
Formats"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.minors.ala
=================
"Free Access to Libraries for Minors"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.policies.ala
=================
"Regulations, policies, and Procedures Affecting Access to Library
Resources and Services"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
access.restrictions.ala
=================
"Restricted Access to Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
bulletin-boards.ala
=================
"Exhibit Spaces and Bulletin Boards"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
censorship.def.ala
=================
The American Library Association's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
challenged-materials.ala
=================
"Challenged Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
confidentiality.1.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Policy on Confidentiality of
Library Records"
=================
confidentiality.2.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Statement Concerning
Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information about Library
Users"
=================
diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
elec.rights1-4
=================
This is the ASCII version of a printed booklet distributed at the
American Library Association conference in July 1991. The program was
sponsored by the Library and Information Technology Association.
Details follow on ordering the full print monograph.
[From ftp.apple.com:alug/rights/elec.rights1-4]
=================
evaluating-collections.ala
=================
"Evaluating Library Collections"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
expurgation.ala
=================
"Expurgation of Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
free-expression.ala
=================
"The Universal Right to Free Expression"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
freedom-to-read.ala
=================
The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association
and Association of American Publishers.
=================
int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
int-freedom.can
=================
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom
=================
labeling.ala
=================
"Statement on Labeling"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library-programs.ala
=================
"Library Initiated Programs as a Resource"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
meeting-rooms.ala
=================
"Meeting Rooms"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
order.form.ala
=================
Information on how to order intellectual freedom material from the
American Library Association. Much of the material is free.
=================
school-libraries.ala
=================
"Access to Resources And Services in the School Library Media Program"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
selection-workbook.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
=================
Last update
Tue Feb 25 16:04:17 EST 1992
==================
Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List
Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles
of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,
due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and
networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the
principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be
defended?
Mitch Kapor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has given the
discussion a home on the eff.org machine. As of Sept, 1991, the list
has 375 members in at least five countries. Thousands more read the
list via newsgroups.
There are four versions of the mailing list.
comp-academic-freedom-talk
- you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day.
comp-academic-freedom-batch
- about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes.
comp-academic-freedom-news
- about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
notes of the week. (Helen O'Boyle or I play the editor for
this one).
comp-academic-freeedom-abstracts
- about one a week you'll receive the abstract of the current
comp-academic-freedom-news (CAF-news). You'll also receive
instructions on how to access the current CAF-news.
To join a version of the list, send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line "add ". (Other commands are "delete
" and "help"). If you have problems, send email to
caf-requests@eff.org.
In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the list
by addressing it to caf-talk@eff.org.
Alternatively, if you may be able to read the mailing lists as newsgroups.
Look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
An abstract and archive of comp-academic-freedom-news is available via
anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. See file "pub/academic/abstracts" and
"pub/academic/README". These files are also available via email (Send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and
"index".)
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
The long version:
When my grandmother attended the University of Illinois fifty-five
years ago, academic freedom meant the right to speak up in class, to
created student organizations, to listen to controversial speakers, to
read "dangerous" books in the library, and to be protected from random
searches of your dorm room.
Today these rights are guaranteed by most universities. These days,
however, my academic life very different from my grandmother's. Her
academic life was centered on the classroom and the student union.
Mine centers on the computer and the computer network. In the new
academia, my academic freedom is much less secure.
It is time for a discussion of computers and academic freedom. I've
been in contact with Mitch Kapor. He has given the discussion a home on
the eff.org machine.
The suppression of academic freedom on computers is common. At least
once a month, someone posts on plea on Usenet for help. The most
common complaint is that a newsgroup has been banned because of its
content (usually alt.sex). In January, 1991, a sysadmin at the
University of Wisconsin didn't ban any newsgroups directly. Instead,
he reduced the newsgroup expiration time so that reading groups such
as alt.sex is almost impossible. In April, 1991, a sysadmin at Case
Western reported that he had removed a note that a student had posted
to a local newsgroup. The sysadmin said the information in the note
could be misused. In other cases, university employees may be reading
e-mail or looking through user files. This may happen with or without
some prior notice that e-mail and files are fair game.
In many of these cases the legality of the suppression is unclear. It
may depend on user expectation, prior announcements, and whether the
university is public or private.
The legality is, however, irrelevant. The duty of the University is
not to suppress everything it legally can; rather it is to support the
free and open investigation and expression of ideas. This is the ideal
of academic freedom. In this role, the University acts a model of how
the wider world should be. (In the world of computers, universities are
perhaps the most important model of how things should be).
If you are interested in discussing this issues, or if you have
first-hand experience with academic surpression on computers or
networks, please join the mailing list.
- Carl Kadie
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.politics.correct,soc.motss,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: GLB at Auburn University
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.191617.13162@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 19:16:17 GMT
[Reposted from reposted email by Eric Hunt (with his permission) - Carl]
I've been following as much as I can of this controversy at Auburn from my
home here in Birmingham.
Here's how it stands so far, with histories, etc.
The GLB applied for an official University charter to the SGA several months
ago. The SGA denied the charter.
One of the Vice-Presidents of the University OVERTURNED the SGA's
denial of a charter, and the GLB now has an official charter from
Auburn allowing them to meet in school buildings, etc. etc. This
overturning was rumoured to have come about because the ACLU of
Alabama indicated that if the GLB was not granted a charter, they
would sue.
Several days after the granting of the charter, 12,000 signatures were
collected and presented to the TRUSTEES of teh college, who apparently
have the FINAL say so over these things. The signatures called for the
removal of the offical charter from the GLB.
Meanwhile, the Alabama legislature, both House and Senate, passed resolutions
denouncing the existence of the group, and calling on the Trustees to remove
their charter.
State Attorney General Jimmy Evans issued an advisory opinion stating that
it was his office's opinion that Auburn University could not legally give
the GLB funds, due to the sodomy laws of the State of Alabama.
Finally, the trustees of the college are now asking that a COURT issue an
official, binding opinion as to the legality of state funds going to the GLB.
They will base their decision to recind the GLB's charter on this. I heard
this on yesterday's news.
But, an this is an important but, the GLB *STILL HAS AN OFFICIAL CHARTER AS A
RECOGNIZED STUDENT ORGANIZATION FROM AUBURN UNIVERSITY*
Finally, it's worth noting that both the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa,
and the University of Alabama at Birmingham have chartered GLB groups on campus.
Why Auburn has been a holdout, who knows? (I do, it's got something to do
with cow fields and such, but that's an inside joke against Auburn. (:)
..
[extranneous stuff deleted not relevant to the GLB at AU]
..
----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Eric Hunt
Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL
bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
eric.hunt@matrix.sbs.com
--
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 24 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: <9203241917.AA02790@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 07:17:59 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: ahlevy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Allan Levy)
Subject: Re: email privacy
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.174048.26295@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 17:40:48 GMT
There have been a number of postings defending the right of system
administrators to look at email. Presumably these are for technical
reasons. I disagree. If we are going to establish a tradition where
people use email like they use regular mail, they must have the
EXPECTATION of privacy. Granted, people know that regular mail can be
intercepted, steamed open and read, but they also know that this is
illegal (unless a warrant has been issued). Unless we establish the same
legal protection for email as regular mail, we relegate it to a situation
where unknown administrators, with unknown rules, and unknown
accountability can take whatever action they feel needed for "technical
purposes." This is a shaky way to establish a new form of communication.
Allan H. Levy
Opinions are mine and not those of the University of Illinois (of course).
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.190401.28809@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 92 19:04:01 GMT
wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) writes:
[...]
>Before we delete the users' accounts we e-mail to them a notice
>that their accounts will be deleted in 10 days.
>We simply used 'mail xx yy zz ...... etc'.
>
>Now a user zz complain that he does not want others (xx zz .... etc) to know
>that he is not registered and argues that we simply violated his
>privacy.
[...]
The Family Education and Privacy Act (Buckley Amendment) may apply.
Here are some excerpts from _College and University Student Records: A
Legal Compendium_, Edited by Joan E. Van Tol, 1989. (The excerpts are
mostly about directory information.)
================== p. 119 ===============
The regulations ... were significantly modified in 1988. ... The
new regulations amend the definition of directory information
and establish a standard for the designation of directory information.
The new definition is:
' ... information contained in an education record of a student which
would not be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if
disclosed. It includes, but is not limited to, the student's name,
address, telephone list, date and place of birth, major field of
study, participation in officially-recognized activities and sports,
weight and height of members of athletic teams, date of attendance,
degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational
agency or institution attended.'
The new standard -- that which would not be considered harmful or an
invasion of privacy if disclosed -- permits the educational
institution to exercise its discretion in the designation and and
release of directory information provided that the eligible student
does not object to the disclosure.
======================== p. 106 ============
[From the regulations: 34 C.F.R., 99.37 (1988)]
99.37 What conditions apply to disclosing directory information?
(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose directory information
if it has given public notice to parents of students in attendance and
eligible student is attendance at the agency or institutional of --
(1) The types of personally identifiable information that the
agency or institution has designed as directory information;
(2) A parent's or eligible student's right to refuse to let the agency
or institution any or all of those types of information about the
student as directory information; and
(3) The period of time within which a parent or eligible student has
to notify the agency or institution in writing that he or she does
not want any or all of those types of information about the student
designed as directory information.
================== p. 155 ================
[from a reprint of an article printed in 1982 in _Computer/Law
Journal_ by a Ms. Hyman.]
... A waiver of FERPA rights made pursuant to section 99.7 must be
exercised by the student {109} and can apply to all FERPA rights
{110}. Wavers must be signed {111}, and are most commonly given
regarding letters of recommendation for admission {112}. Institutions
may request students to waive their right of access to these letters,
but they may not require a waiver as a condition for admission or
services.{113}.
[References]
{110} 34 C.F.R. 99.7(a) (1980)
{113} 34 C.F.R, 99.7(b) (1980) [Which I think cooresponds to this section of the 1988
regulations - cmk]
====================== p. 104 =================
[34 C.F.R. 99.12 (1988)]
99.12 What limitations exist on the right to inspect and review
records? ...
(b) A postsecondary institution does not have to permit a student to
inspect and review educational records that are -- ...
(3) Confidential letters and confidential statement of recommendation
places in the student's records ..., if
(i) The student has waived his or her right to inspect and review
those letters and statements;
...
(c) A waiver under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section is valid only
if --
(i) The educational agency or institution does not require the waiver
as a condition for admission to or receipt of a service or benefit
form the agency or institution;
...
============================================
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.183220.22346@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 18:32:20 GMT
In article <1992Mar24.91906.8818@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>>>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>>It would cost the computer center less than $1000 to carry all newsgroups.
>>>
>>>How do you know this computer center can spare this $1000?
>>
>>Do 100 students read the alt groups? Charge each one $10 for it.
>
>Charge students for news? Yikes!
If its a choice of charging a reasonable fee or not having it charge
a reasonable fee.
>My site doesn't charge for *anything*, and we don't plan to do so.
If the money is available this is the best policy, but lack of money
shouldn't be used as an excuse since the money could be made available
by charging for the service.
>If we charge for reading alt.*, should we charge for reading *any* news?
>How do we control access to it? Shall we set a group (the Unix group
>mechanism, that is) for all those who have paid their bill? With 2000
>users, that's going to become a managerial nightmare rather quickly.
Put all paying users in the "news" group. It isn't worth the $2 to get
around paying by sharing an account.
Charge for whatever news you need to charge for.
>>Actually I didn't realize alt was so small, 60 megs is alot less than
>>$1000, even for a drive costing $4/meg its still only $240. Charge the
>>students $2 to read the alt groups.
>
>Your solution addresses the cost of extra disk space.
The computer is already there.
>What about the original cost of the system?
News is a very disk intensive activity because of the brain damaged way it
is stored, but it is hardly CPU intensive.
>Many sites purchase a
>system for use as a news server; others dedicate an owned system to
>news.
This is going a bit far, any decent computer should be able to handle
news.
>What about the cost of the maintenance contract? If you have a *real*
>news server (a SPARCStation can't serve 2000 people effectively, you
>know), the maintenance costs escalate rapidly.
WPI has 2000 students and its news server is on an extremely overloaded
encore and news runs fine. A SPARCStation is over kill if anything.
>What about the salaries of those people who maintain/upgrade/administer
>the news server?
This site already is getting news, recieving the alt groups doesn't cost
them any for labor.
>Of course, you could turn the news server over to a
>group of unpaid students/users, IF the server was dedicated to news. If,
>as is usually the case, the news machine has uses other than news, this
>may not be a valid option.
This is getting way off the subject, there is really no need for a seperate
news server.
>What about the cost of the phone line? Many sites pay their local Communi-
>cations Office a monthly fee for their network/phone lines.
If this sites on the internet they have a leased line, they pay the same
even if its idle all the time.
>>The copyright problem maybe a legitimate concern although I don't know if
>>this is the responsibility of the college. I would assume the poster is
>>responsible for the copyright violation.
>
>If the SPA finds a bootleg copy of WordPerfect on my system, they don't
>care where I got it; I'm the one who will pay the penalty.
Whats SPA? What if you buy a magazine at a news stand that happens to have
illegally copied an article? The idea that a person recieving news is
responsible for its contents are just plain silly, if this was the case
I think someone would have mailed Jesse Helms a bail of Marijauna a long
time ago :-)
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203241946.AA13788@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 09:46:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: LAWS@ai.sri.com (Ken Laws)
Subject: Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <701465193.0.LAWS@AI.SRI.COM>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 19:26:33 GMT
> From Gordon Cook:
> Those companies that hop on the network and use it would do so
> presumably because they had REAL business to conduct with the R&E
> community.
Yes and no. I agree that companies are not eager to put their
spreadsheets out on the net, although encryption technology can
make this feasible. In the realm of enterprise computing, the most
likely uses of the internet are 1) replacing snail-mail business
correspondence, and 2) replacing phoned-in exchanges between field
personnel and central offices. [I'm no authority, but these seem
reasonable.] Both are Good Things, and we shouldn't begrudge whatever
bandwidth they consume.
My objection to your R&E comment is that it's only true for the
short term. (Very short, given the internet's exponential growth.)
If you remove the AUP, the Internet effectively ceases to exist.
We then have the small-i internet, with no special status for
R&E customers. The number of R&E-related messages will be small
and nearly constant, whereas the number of non-R&E groups on the
net will explode. Once there's a mass audience, advertising and
political/religious/charitable solicitations will dominate net
traffic. (If Clinton were trailing by 1% on election eve, how many
net messages would his campaign be interested in posting?) Companies
will use the net as they now use the mail and phone services, and
reaching R&E customers won't be a consideration. It's only a
consideration now because 1) the AUP makes R&E the only game in
town, and 2) a side effect of the AUP is that there's very little
on the net except R&E customers and their suppliers or associates.
I'm not saying that the AUP should be kept. (I'm grateful to Steve
for permitting my own net activity under the AUP. I don't mean to
use the AUP to keep out potential competitors.) I just think that
we should note that some kind of AUP will be needed when the net
changes character. If it's not provided by policy, it will be
provided by law -- just as laws are now in place to protect people
from automated phone sales pitches. We must police ourselves or
Congress will appoint someone to police us. I can't imagine that
anarchy will long prevail. Announcing that there is no AUP is the
same as announcing that all uses are permissible (unless covered
by interstate communications regulations), and people can be pretty
creative when anonymity is easy to achieve and the cost of flooding
the net is near zero.
-- Ken
-------
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.151438.9174@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 20:14:38 GMT
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>If we charge for reading alt.*, should we charge for reading *any* news?
>>How do we control access to it? Shall we set a group (the Unix group
>>mechanism, that is) for all those who have paid their bill? With 2000
>>users, that's going to become a managerial nightmare rather quickly.
>
>Put all paying users in the "news" group. It isn't worth the $2 to get
>around paying by sharing an account.
After a quick check of my documentation, I find that lines in /etc/group
cannot have more than 255 characters. Since the OS uses the first matching
entry it finds in /etc/group, I can't have multiple lines for a single group.
How shall we manage it? Should I write up a custom program that checks an
access list? Boy, this is turning into a real headache, wouldn't you agree?
By the way, it will be tons o'fun to manage this particular situation; you
didn't see fit to comment on that.
>>Many sites purchase a
>>system for use as a news server; others dedicate an owned system to
>>news.
>
>This is going a bit far, any decent computer should be able to handle
>news.
This is true; however, handling news AND the computing workload of hundreds
(or thousands) of users may be beyond the capacity of the installation.
I've been picking up some network maps from around the world; more and more
often, I see a specific machine marked as a "news server". Many sites have
a single large server running news which, in turn, feeds all the smaller
systems (or lets them use rrn).
>>What about the cost of the maintenance contract? If you have a *real*
>>news server (a SPARCStation can't serve 2000 people effectively, you
>>know), the maintenance costs escalate rapidly.
>
>WPI has 2000 students and its news server is on an extremely overloaded
>encore and news runs fine. A SPARCStation is over kill if anything.
You didn't answer my question. Where is the money for the maintenance
contract?
>>What about the salaries of those people who maintain/upgrade/administer
>>the news server?
>
>This site already is getting news, recieving the alt groups doesn't cost
>them any for labor.
While news is relatively simple to administer, it does require a certain
non-negligible amount of time. Again, you sidestepped the question; I
was asking about a generic site that followed the scenario you described.
>>Of course, you could turn the news server over to a
>>group of unpaid students/users, IF the server was dedicated to news. If,
>>as is usually the case, the news machine has uses other than news, this
>>may not be a valid option.
>
>This is getting way off the subject, there is really no need for a seperate
>news server.
If you like, you can attempt to speak for the entire Usenet. I have read
uucp maps, and I have examined network maps; I can tell you that, des-
pite your assertations, many sites use a single, dedicated news server.
>>What about the cost of the phone line? Many sites pay their local Communi-
>>cations Office a monthly fee for their network/phone lines.
>
>If this sites on the internet they have a leased line, they pay the same
>even if its idle all the time.
I was speaking of the *local* phone lines. Many Usenet sites still get
their feeds via uucp over Mr Bell's invention; those folks are paying by
the call.
>>If the SPA finds a bootleg copy of WordPerfect on my system, they don't
>>care where I got it; I'm the one who will pay the penalty.
>
>Whats SPA? What if you buy a magazine at a news stand that happens to have
>illegally copied an article? The idea that a person recieving news is
>responsible for its contents are just plain silly, if this was the case
>I think someone would have mailed Jesse Helms a bail of Marijauna a long
>time ago :-)
No, but if some unsuspecting (or stupid) user saves a copy of that, both
the user and the systems folks are hosed (if the SPA comes to call).
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203242025.AA03431@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 08:25:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.141230.26597@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 92 19:12:30 GMT
tpm@anat.UMSMED.EDU (Terence P. Ma) writes:
>simong@ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory) writes:
>>
>> 1) Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
>>to look at the text of an article?
>
>The postmaster/systems administrator should have the ability to look
>at the text of electronic mail messages. However, in my opinion,
>doing so is the same as a mail delivery person opening mail and
>reading it. I think it is an unacceptable practice.
You may find it unacceptable, but it happens. I have received several
pieces of postal mail whose covers/envelopes had, somehow, been almost
destroyed. The US Postal Service removed the contents, examined them,
and delivered them to me (they found the proper address on the letter
inside the package). They included an apologetic note, which informed
me that they had been forced to examine the contents of the mail; they
also gave the name and phone number of the person involved at the USPS.
Quite frankly, I would rather receive the mail than wonder where it is.
If the postal service must examine it in detail to determine the address,
what's the problem? They are merely exercising their obligation to deli-
ver the mail.
Now, what's the difference between a mangled envelope and mangled email
headers?
>The ability to
>look at email on the system should be to allow the SysAd to solve
>user problems AT THE INVITATION OF THE USER.
I will not examine the content of electronic mail without the express
permission of the user. I may unintentionlly view the content, but it
is inescapable on occasion.
> [...] asks about a global "postmasters' policy".....
If you can generate a policy that can be applied equally to .edu, .gov,
.mil, .com, and Joe Shmo's PC BBS, I'd like to read it.
--Wes
--
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 24 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: <9203242026.AA03440@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 08:26:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: who@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <15312@gollum.UMCS.Maine.EDU>
Date: 24 Mar 92 17:44:05 GMT
Well, if you really don't want snoops reading your mail,
just ask your friends to mail it encrypted. Some people are nosey and
just love to read other people's email. AT&T come to mind.......
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203242027.AA03458@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 08:27:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID:
Date: 24 Mar 92 19:58:32 GMT
pat@ub.com (Patrick Mulrooney) writes:
>In article <1992Mar24.182442.12268@menudo.uh.edu>, wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) writes:
>>
>> Now a user zz complain that he does not want others (xx zz .... etc) to know
>> that he is not registered and argues that we simply violated his
>> privacy.
>>
>> We are going to mail to each user from now on anyway, but I am still confused.
>> Does anyone have a similar experience ?
>>
>It never stops to amaze me the things people complain about. Tell the folks
>at the start that you will be doing this when you delete the account, and if
>they have any problems with it, they don't get the account. Having an account
>on a system is not a "right", is it?
amen!!
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203242027.AA03449@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 08:27:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: pat@ub.com (Patrick Mulrooney)
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.190243.19625@pippen.ub.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 19:02:43 GMT
In article <1992Mar24.182442.12268@menudo.uh.edu>, wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) writes:
>
> Now a user zz complain that he does not want others (xx zz .... etc) to know
> that he is not registered and argues that we simply violated his
> privacy.
>
> We are going to mail to each user from now on anyway, but I am still confused.
> Does anyone have a similar experience ?
>
It never stops to amaze me the things people complain about. Tell the folks
at the start that you will be doing this when you delete the account, and if
they have any problems with it, they don't get the account. Having an account
on a system is not a "right", is it?
-pat
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203242027.AA03467@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 08:27:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: ranck@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID:
Date: 24 Mar 92 20:11:15 GMT
In article <1992Mar24.190243.19625@pippen.ub.com> pat@ub.com (Patrick Mulrooney) writes:
>In article <1992Mar24.182442.12268@menudo.uh.edu>, wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) writes:
>>
>> Now a user zz complain that he does not want others (xx zz .... etc) to know
>> that he is not registered and argues that we simply violated his
>> privacy.
>It never stops to amaze me the things people complain about. Tell the folks
>at the start that you will be doing this when you delete the account, and if
>they have any problems with it, they don't get the account. Having an account
>on a system is not a "right", is it?
The point here Pat is not about a 'right' to a computer account, but the
right to privacy in a student's affairs. As another poster pointed out
there is a specific piece of legislation that covers this sort of thing.
It basically says that you can publish the typical sort "phone book" type
information about a student unless they specifically object and they should
be given a chance to object before the publication of the information.
In the specific instance we are talking about here it seems to me it
is easy enough to just send a batch of individual notes to users instead
of a single note with a bunch of addressees. Of course, if this went to
court, and I doubt that it ever would, it is hard to say if the judge
would find the Buckley amendment applicable. But again, why not just
send separate notices?
*************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck DoD #0496 RANCK@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU *
* '87 XV535 Virago '73 Norton Commando '73 Honda 350-4 *
* (it gets me there) (it's a classic) (it's hard to explain)*
*************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Network access
Message-ID: <199203242104.AA16806@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 11:04:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: COMSERV1@UCONNVM.BITNET (Bryan Juliano)
Subject: Network access
Message-ID: <199203241945.AA13734@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 19:31:40 GMT
I am researching the policiesof various schools about restrictions and instruct
ion they provide or require before students get access to the networks. I have
heard everything from Nazi attitudes to carefree, don't restrict until problem
s occurr. What I feel is it isn't unfair, and perhaps even a good idea to requ
ire a level of competence before releasing people onto the net. I also feel
it makes sense to have a system of restrictionsin place. How do you feel/handl
e this typeof situation? Flames anyone.....
Bryan Juliano
comserv1@uconnvm.uconn.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203242215.AA04367@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 10:15:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: nadeau@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Nadeau Jean-Claude)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.163536.12444@jsp.umontreal.ca>
Date: 24 Mar 92 16:35:36 GMT
In article 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.
>
I am the system administrator of the JSP network at
University of Montreal. This is an Apollo token ring
network dedicated to the teaching of computer science
with more than a hundred nodes and almost a 1000 users.
>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?
>
In my own opinion, in no reasonable circumstances. The recipient
of a message may ask you to look at it if he want to. I think
this is the only good reason.
> 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?
>
The privacy should not be sacrified. There's others methods to
stop potentialy dangerous people.
> 3) Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
>widely known and accepted?
>
I've never see such a text.
> 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?
>
No.
>Your cooperation would greatly be appreciated,
> Thankyou.
> Simon. Gregory.
>
You're welcome.
--
Jean-Claude Nadeau, ing.
Services informatiques
Universite de Montreal
Tel. (514) 343-6111,ext 5234 Fax (514) 343-2155
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203242217.AA04395@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 10:17:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin)
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.212604.24641@menudo.uh.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 21:26:04 GMT
In article ranck@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck) writes:
>In article <1992Mar24.190243.19625@pippen.ub.com> pat@ub.com (Patrick Mulrooney) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Mar24.182442.12268@menudo.uh.edu>, wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) writes:
>>>
>>> Now a user zz complain that he does not want others (xx zz .... etc) to know
>>> that he is not registered and argues that we simply violated his
>>> privacy.
>
>>It never stops to amaze me the things people complain about. Tell the folks
> ..........
>>on a system is not a "right", is it?
>
>court, and I doubt that it ever would, it is hard to say if the judge
>would find the Buckley amendment applicable. But again, why not just
>send separate notices?
As I mentioned from the start of this subject, we are going to send it
seperately. The reason why we send it using 'mail xx yy zz ..... etc'
is that we want to have a simple proof that we sent to those users
a notice that their accounts would be deleted soon (so be prepared for it).
If we send to each user, then we have to keep bunch of such mails as
proofs.
BTW, the guy just called us this morning and threatened that he will
sue us ?#$&*?!@#$%?
------
W. Jin
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sources, et al.] News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203242226.AA04534@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 10:26:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: mcmahan@fletcher.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner)
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin
Subject: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.150505.18563@rock.concert.net>
Date: 24 Mar 92 15:05:05 GMT
Recently, I've been installing news locally, and the Computer
Center here got involved and are dedicating a VAX to news.
The VMS software, however, has a program which lets you monitor
which groups are being read by whom, if you are running the system.
It was brought to my attention when the guy running it asked if the
UNIX c-news/nntp package had a similar feature.
It had never occurred to me that anyone would be snooping through my
.newsrc looking at what I was reading! And the guy asking didn't think
there was anything wrong with doing it, either, even after I pointed
out changing a couple of lines could turn a general report of what is
being read at your site to a line by line description of what everyone
is reading.
I've never seen this topic discussed on Usenet before, so I'd like to
heighten everyone's awareness of what systems people are capable of
doing, without necessarily your knowlege.
Do any sites regularly do this?
Does anyone actually condone this invasion of privacy?
Ways to keep yourself safe? Don't put your .newsrc in an obvious
place (like ".newsrc"), and even encrypt it between news sessions.
An example of how it can be done in UNIX is this perl script I whipped
up in a very small amount of time. And I don't even really know perl!
It uses the Brute Force method, and I'm sure there are more elegant
ways of doing it. It requires no special privileges to run, but if you
ran it as root you could override everyone's permissions and get a really
accurate total.
If you changed a couple of lines, you could probably get a line-by-line
of who reads what.
Note that this software is presented in the spirit of Crack, the password
cracker utility -- it is designed to raise awareness. *Anybody* could
put this together, and the bad guys (whoever they are is up to your
own interpretation -- the person running your system could be using this).
It isn't designed for malicious purposes, but if you wanted to use it for
them it would be very trivial to concoct this on your own, even easier than
a password cracker!
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
###############################################################################
# newsuse
# Program designed to see which groups are read more on your system.
# Perl's dynamic arrays are used to make this easier.
#
# This software was written in 3-92 by Scott McMahan when he learned about
# how easy it was for systems people to gain an insight into people's private
# business. It is made public in the spirit of Crack, the password cracking
# utility, since if you really wanted one of these utility programs you could
# write it yourelf.
#
# This is designed to show people that it can, and probably *is* done, more
# than for any actual use.
#
###############################################################################
###############################################################################
# User defined variables -- ones to alter to site specifics. #
###############################################################################
$active = ") {
split;
@groupname[$count] = @_[0];
@groupnumber[$count] = 0;
$count++;
}
$max = $count;
close(Active);
if ($verbose == 1) { print "Total groups in active file: $max read in...\n";}
###############################################################################
# Main Loop #
###############################################################################
open(Passwd, $passwd);
while() {
split(/\:/);
$user = @_[0];
$directory = @_[5];
if ($verbose == 1) {
print "Got user $user with HOME = $directory, checking...\n";}
if (-r $directory) {
if (-r "$directory/$newsrc") {
################################################################
# Inner loop to scan newsrc file #
################################################################
if ($verbose == 1) { print "Opening $user's $newsrc file...\nScan: ";}
open(Newsrc, "$directory/$newsrc");
while () {
if (/:/) {
split( /:/ );
if ($verbose == 1) {
print ".";
}
$count = 0;
########################################################
# Loop to look up found newsgroup in array & inc total #
########################################################
while ($count < $max) {
if (@groupname[$count] eq @_[0]) {
@groupnumber[$count] = @groupnumber[$count] + 1;
}
$count++;
}
}
}
close (Newsrc);
if ($verbose == 1) { print "\n"; }
}
################################################################
# End newsrc scan loop #
################################################################
# Go here if newsrc isn't readable
else {
if ($verbose == 1) { print "Can't read $user --> $newsrc file.\n"; }
}
}
# Go here if directory isn't readable
else {
if ($verbose == 1) { print "Can't read $user --> $directory (home directory).\n";}
}
}
close(Passwd);
###############################################################################
# End Main Loop #
###############################################################################
# totals -- output
$count = 0;
printf "%20s %s", "Newsgroup", "No. subscribed";
print "----------------------------------------";
while ($count < $max) {
if (@groupnumber[$count] > 0) {
printf "%20s %s", @groupname[$count], @groupnumber[$count];
}
$count++;
}
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sources, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203242227.AA04556@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 10:27:15 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID:
Date: 24 Mar 92 19:36:33 GMT
>>>>> On 24 Mar 92 15:05:05 GMT, mcmahan@fletcher.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) said:
[etc., about systems administrators being able to go through the files of
individual accounts clipped.]
Scott> Do any sites regularly do this?
Scott> Does anyone actually condone this invasion of privacy?
One of the jobs of a systems administrator (sysadmin) is to know what is
being done on the system they maintain. If you are not activly paying to
use a system, it is not an invasion of privacy for a sysadmin to look into
``your'' directories, for they do not belong to you, the disk space belongs
to whomever purchased the system, the same person or group who is paying
the sysadmin to maintain that system. The sysadmin doesn't even need to
justify looking into your filespace.
If, however, you *are* directly paying for the use of the system, such as
the pay-for-access ``Public Unix Systems,'' then you should expect some
privacy, and notification when someone else goes poking around in the space
you've rented. In this case, the sysadmin should have some reason for going
into your filespace (and it is yours, as long as you pay) and should notify
you when this is done. That's just common courtesey.
--Rat
--
||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||
__ ___
Internet: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu / | /| / / | The Worlds
UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!splinter!ratinox /__ |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET} / | /| / / / | | Association:
USNail: 14 Westdale RD. /__ |/ |/ / / | | I will solve
Holbrook, MA 02343-1031 / | /| / / /___| | any problem
ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W / |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.223859.13735@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 92 22:38:59 GMT
mcmahan@fletcher.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
[...]
>It had never occurred to me that anyone would be snooping through my
>.newsrc looking at what I was reading! And the guy asking didn't think
>there was anything wrong with doing it, either, even after I pointed
>out changing a couple of lines could turn a general report of what is
>being read at your site to a line by line description of what everyone
>is reading.
[...]
I that that computer sites (especially academic sites) should treat
this readership information the way that libraries treat readership
information, i.e. as confidential.
I'm enclosing two American Library Association policy statements from
the Computers and Academic Freedom archive. [For more information
about the mailing list and archive, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
send acad-freedom caf
]
============= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/confidentiality.1.ala ====
POLICY CONCERNING CONFIDENTIALITY OF PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT LIBRARY USERS
The ethical responsibilities of librarians, as well as statutes
in most states and the District of Columbia, protect the privacy
of library users. Confidentiality extends to "information sought
or received, and materials consulted, borrowed or acquired," and
includes database search records, reference interviews,
circulation records, interlibrary loan records and other
personally identifiable uses of library materials, facilities, or
services.
The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of the
press requires that the corresponding rights to hear what is
spoken and read what is written be preserved, free from fear of
government intrusion, intimidation, or reprisal. The American
Library Association reaffirms its opposition to "any use of
government prerogatives which lead to the intimidation of the
individual or the citizenry from the exercise of free expression
. . . [and] encourages resistance to such abuse of government
power. . . ." (ALA Policy 53.4). In seeking access or in the
pursuit of information, confidentiality is the primary means of
providing the privacy that will free the individual from fear of
intimidation or retaliation.
Libraries are one of the great bulwarks of democracy. They are
living embodiments of the First Amendment because their
collections include voices of dissent as well assent. Libraries
are impartial resources providing information on all points of
view, available to all persons regardless of age, race, religion,
national origin, social or political views, economic status, or
any other characteristic. The role of libraries as such a
resource must not be compromised by an erosion of the privacy
rights of library users.
The American Library Association regularly receives reports of
visits by agents of federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies to libraries, where it is alleged they have asked for
personally identifiable information about library users. These
visits, whether under the rubric of simply informing libraries of
agency concerns or for some other reason, reflect an
insensitivity to the legal and ethical bases for confidentiality,
and the role it plays in the preservation of First Amendment
rights, rights also extended to foreign nationals while in the
United States. The government's interest in library use reflects
a dangerous and fallacious equation of what a person reads with
what that person believes or how that person is likely to behave.
Such a presumption can and does threaten the freedom of access to
information. It also is a threat to a crucial aspect of First
Amendment rights: that freedom of speech and of the press
include the freedom to hold, disseminate and receive unpopular,
minority, "extreme," or even "dangerous" ideas.
The American Library Association recognizes that, under limited
circumstances, access to certain information might be restricted
due to a legitimate "national security" concern. However, there
has been no showing of a plausible probability that national
security will be compromised by any use made of unclassified
information available in libraries. Thus, the right of access to
this information by individuals, including foreign nationals,
must be recognized as part of the librarian's legal and ethical
responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the library
user.
The American Library Association also recognizes that law
enforcement agencies and officers may occasionally believe that
library records contain information which would be helpful to the
investigation of criminal activity. If there is a reasonable
basis to believe such records are necessary to the progress of an
investigation or prosecution, the American judicial system
provides the mechanism for seeking release of such confidential
records: the issuance of a court order, following a showing of
good cause based on specific facts, by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
Adopted July 2, 1991, by the ALA Council
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
============= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/confidentiality.2.ala ====
STATEMENT CONCERNING CONFIDENTIALITY OF PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT LIBRARY USERS
The ethical responsibilities of librarians, and statutes in 44
states and the District of Columbia, protect the privacy of
library users. Confidentiality extends to "information sought or
received, and materials consulted, borrowed or acquired," and
includes database search records, reference interviews,
interlibrary loan records and all other personally identifiable
uses of library materials, facilities or services.
The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of the
press requires that the corresponding rights to hear what is
spoken and read what is written be preserved, free from fear of
government intrusion, intimidation or reprisal. Confidentiality
is essential to protect the exercise of these rights from
governmental invasions of privacy.
Libraries are impartial resources providing information on all
points of view, available to all persons regardless of age, race,
religion, national origin, social or political views, economic
status, or any other characteristic. The role of libraries as
such resources must not be compromised by an erosion of the
privacy rights of library patrons.
The American Library Association has received several reports of
visits by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
libraries, where agents allegedly have asked for personally
identifiable information about library patrons. These visits,
whether within the so-called "Library Awareness Program" or not,
reflect an insensitivity to the role confidentiality plays in the
preservation of First Amendment rights, rights which extend also
to foreign nationals while in the United States. The Bureau's
interest in library records reflects a dangerous and fallacious
equation of what a person reads with what that person believes or
how that person is likely to behave. This presumption is a
threat to the freedom to read. It is also a threat to a crucial
aspect of First Amendment rights: that freedom of speech and of
the press include the freedom to hold, disseminate and receive
unpopular, minority, "extreme" or even "dangerous" ideas.
The Intellectual Freedom Committee recognizes that under limited
circumstances, access to certain information might be restricted
due to a legitimate "national security" concern. However, there
has been no showing of a plausible probability that national
security will be compromised by the uses foreign nationals make
of the unclassified information available in libraries.
The Intellectual Freedom Committee also recognizes that law
enforcement agencies and officers may occasionally believe that
library records contain information which would be helpful to the
investigation of criminal activity. If there is a reasonable
basis to believe such records are necessary to the progress of an
investigation or prosecution, our judicial system provides the
mechanism for seeking release of such confidential records: the
issuance of a court order, following a showing of good cause
based on specific facts, by a court of competent jurisdiction.
January 10, 1989
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: jwtlai@jeeves.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.222712.9345@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 92 22:27:12 GMT
In article <1992Mar23.185115.23237@wpi.WPI.EDU> entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Mar22.175845.29563@ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>>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.
>
>Actually I didn't realize alt was so small, 60 megs is alot less than
>$1000, even for a drive costing $4/meg its still only $240. Charge the
>students $2 to read the alt groups.
It gets even better if one sets the expiry to, say, three days, for the alt
groups. Assuming that cuts it to 3/7 of the storage, alt.* takes up only
about 25 Mb. And trashing the 6 scanned image groups would trim it to a
mere 16 Mb. Seems like the university is too lazy to administrate their
news properly if it's purely a size problem.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 15:42:17 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.154217.29611@anomaly.sbs.com>
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>I have. Not that it's relevant... $1000 will buy you 1/2 Gig of SCSI
>disk space... plenty to carry a month's worth of Altnet, with space
>to spare.
Its always fun to watch a clueless, suck-off-the-public-teat .edu
student attempt to justify news costs.
On top of the disk storage, there is the cost of the bandwidth.
(Oooops, I forgot, you .edu students think that bandwidth grows on
trees, since its handed to you.) NNTP connections don't materialize
out of thin air.
Then there is the cost of Administration. Spending time cleaning up the
useless newgroup messages for 17,000 weekly alt.news.groups.puke.puke.puke
costs money.
Then there is news processing time. A CPU only has X number of cycles.
Getting the alt.* groups makes the assumption that the current processing
load has enough cycles left to process the alt groups without exhausting
resources.
These are just some of the additional costs. There are numerous other
hidden costs which a site may or may not encounter.
You may now return to your dorm room and pout.
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Bruce Brown)
Subject: COLLABERATION
Message-ID: <9203242327.AA12729@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:21:19 GMT
The Graphic Communications Association Presents
COLLABORATION '92:
Learning to Team, Teaming to Learn
June 1-3, 1992
San Francisco
Ritz Carlton Hotel
Conference Chair: Christopher Locke, CIMLINC, Inc.
"Business is finally recognizing that division of labor is
increasingly ineffective as the basis for an organization in an
environment of constant rather than occasional change....
Management control is replaced by management coordination of the
work of others who may know more than the manager, and decision
making occurs in the team rather than in the hierarchy."
Peter G.W. Keen, Shaping the Future: Business Design Through
Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, 1991.
"The growing emphasis on high-technology production means greater
demands on the competence of each individual employee. And so
the element of comprehensive, life long learning for all members
of the enterprise will probably turn out to be the most
characteristic feature of work in the 21st century."
Robert B. McKersie and Richard E. Walton, "Organizational
Change," in The Corporation of the 1990s, Oxford University
Press, 1991.
"Genuine knowledge resides and proliferates where people live and
work, not in some abstract formal realm. Good tools should
support and augment that knowledge as it is rather than
attempting to 'engineer' it to fit some model-theoretic framework
entirely divorced from the work itself. We desperately need more
and better software tools whose design reflects this fundamental
insight, and that will therefore aid our best people in
articulating, modifying and improving their understanding of the
work environments they inhabit. Most crucially, we need tools
that will substantially assist knowledge workers -- and today
this category should include nearly all workers -- in sharing
their understanding across the currently rigid boundaries of
functional specialization."
Christopher Locke and John West, "Concurrent Engineering in
Context," Concurrent Engineering, November-December, 1991.
OVERVIEW
Battered by the new realities of global competition and the
demonstrated failure of many high technologies that were heralded
as saviors in the 1980s, American business is in the throes of a
critical sea change. Symptoms and partial solutions are reported
from every quarter -- the mass media, academic think tanks and
Fortune 500 companies. However, the business community has not
yet reached any meaningful consensus on the full implications of
this genuine paradigm shift.
COLLABORATION '92 will bring together a broad and eclectic
spectrum of business leaders, management consultants, academic
researchers, editorial observers, technology analysts and
commercial developers to address the scope and significance of
the radical changes taking place in organizations today.
The fundamental premise of COLLABORATION '92 is that these
sweeping challenges and changes are being driven neither by
technological developments alone, nor by strictly economic
considerations. Instead, the pivotal factor determining the
competitive viability of today's businesses is their ability or
inability to effectively develop and deploy their human capital.
A considerable constellation of buzzwords and hot buttons has
recently evolved, each of which points to this shift to this new
focus on human understanding in contemporary business
organizations:
concurrent engineering, organizational redesign,
total quality, lean production, flexible specialization,
the learning organization, the "boundaryless" organization,
the "informated" organization, employee involvement,
participatory management, self-directed work teams,
collaboration technologies, workgroup computing.
While none captures the essence of the transformation currently
underway, each suggests the emergence of a coherent and powerful
new vision of human work and a more humanized workplace. Taken
as a whole, these terms also converge toward an implicit
agreement that the real barriers to this vision are primarily
cultural rather than technological. The necessary but difficult
cultural changes taking place in business organizations can be
either nurtured or obstructed depending on the computer and
communications systems adopted today. This intersection of
corporate culture and information technology constitutes the
primary theme of COLLABORATION '92.
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS
Keynote talks will be delivered by Michael Schrage, columnist for
the Los Angeles Times and author of Shared Minds: The New
Technologies of Collaboration, and Charles Garfield, author of
Second to None: How Our Smartest Companies Put People First. A
complimentary copy of both these author's widely acclaimed books
will be sent to all registered participants in advance of the
conference to provide an initial reference point for further
discussion.
CONFERENCE OUTLINE
Each of the three days of COLLABORATION '92 will focus on a
single broad aspect of the overall theme: Principles, Practices
and Programs.
DAY 1: PRINCIPLES. Speakers will focus on the external factors
influencing this global shift in perspective and priorities, and
the fundamental principles which must be grasped and adopted to
realize such a vision. Speakers will put current organizational
change into historical perspective by examining why previous
corporate structures and styles of management are inadequate to
present demands. They will also describe the advantages of newly
emergent organizations based on human initiative, local autonomy
and group learning, and the resulting potential for continuous
improvement. Confirmed speakers include:
Jill Janov Founder, Jill Janov Associates
Jack Orsburn Co-author of Self-Directed Work Teams: The
New American Challenge
Thomas Stewart Associate Editor, Fortune
Jon Van Technology Writer, Chicago Tribune, author of
"Recrafting America" series
RESEARCH PANEL:
John Seely Brown Director, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
Etienne Wenger Institute for Research on Learning, co-author
of Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation
Terry Winograd Professor of Computer Science, Stanford
University, co-author Understanding Computers
and Cognition
DAY 2: PRACTICES. Speakers will focus on initiatives and methods
which can be adopted to support necessary cultural change and
operational practices within new high-performance business
organizations. Confirmed speakers include:
John Hillkirk USA Today, co-author (with Donald E.
Petersen, ex-Chairman & CEO, Ford) of A
Better Idea: Redefining the Way Americans
Work
Gerald Michalski New Science Associates (Intelligent Document
Management and Continuous Information
Environments services)
Kenneth Paterson Publisher, Motorola University Press
George Robson GE Aircraft Engines, author of Continuous
Process Improvement: Simplifying Work Flow
and Systems
Richard F. Hilbert Manager, Business Process Improvement,
GE Corporate Business Development
Charles Savage Digital Equipment Corporation, author of
Fifth Generation Management: Integrating
Enterprises through Human Networking
MEDIA PANEL: John Markoff New York Times (moderator)
John Hillkirk USA Today
Michael Schrage Los Angeles Times
Thomas Stewart Fortune
Jon Van Chicago Tribune
These noted media analysts will voice their own concerns relating
to the conference theme, and will provide "instant-replay"
commentary on the presentations made up to this point.
DAY 3: PROGRAMS. Speakers will focus on software technologies
capable of supporting and propagating human understanding,
workgroup coordination, apprenticeship training and continuous
learning within redesigned workplaces. Confirmed speakers
include:
David Auer VP, North American Operations, CIMLINC, Inc.
(Linkage)
Mark Penrose Director, Information Systems, GTE Research
and Development (in-house multimedia
information systems)
Michael Pliner President, Verity, Inc. (Topic)
Lou Reynolds President, Electronic Book Technologies
(DynaText)
Howard Rheingold Editor, Whole Earth Review (The WELL)
Haviland Wright President, Avalanche Development Corporation
(FastTag)
WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
COLLABORATION '92 represents an opportunity to network across the
industry, organizational and disciplinary boundaries that tend to
divide us all. We hope the audience will represent as many
differing perspectives and areas of professional involvement as
the speakers we are bringing together here. Because old ideas of
functional specialization are counterproductive today, we hope
that conference participants will reflect a highly heterogeneous
set of professional experience and concerns. Cross-disciplinary
discourse and recombinant collaboration are not just passive
themes, but active goals of this conference. In the spirit of
learning to speak each other's languages, we invite:
business managers and team facilitators
total quality managers and "concurrent engineers"
information vendors and "lean producers"
human resource managers and research analysts
software developers and customer service representatives
management consultants and computer scientists
government administrators and corporate change managers
environmentalists and marketing directors
financial analysts and labor leaders
information systems managers and unmanageable "end users"
In short, we invite anyone and everyone who plans to play a
substantive role in shaping the new human-centered corporations
of the 1990s.
COLLABORATION IN ACTION
GCA has established an electronic forum on the WELL (Whole Earth
'Lectronic Link) so that participants can get to know each other
before the conference, and keep in touch until COLLABORATION '93
(microcomputer and modem required). We hope that this ongoing
electronic discourse will spawn a powerful virtual community
whose boundaries will extend far beyond the geographic and
temporal limitations typical of traditional conferences. For
details contact conference Chair:
Christopher Locke
CIMLINC, Inc.
1222 Hamilton Parkway
Itasca, IL 60143
Voice: (708) 250-0090 ext. 1661
Fax: (708) 250-8513
The Well: clocke
Internet: clocke@well.sf.ca.us or
well!clocke@apple.com
REGISTRATION INFORMATION
Contact: Mr. Marion Elledge
Vice President, Information Systems
Graphic Communications Association
100 Daingerfield Road
Alexandria, VA 22314-2804
Voice: (703) 519-8160
Fax: (703) 548-2867
The Well: mern
Internet: mern@well.sf.ca.us or
well!mern@apple.com
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203242340.AA05087@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 11:40:46 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: cjh@phx.mcd.mot.com (Chris Hutchings)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.214907.16263@phx.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 24 Mar 92 21:49:07 GMT
In article 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?
>
Only the postmaster should have access rights to email messages. I can't think of any reason for others to read transient messages.
The ONLY reason I can think of for a pstmaster to have to read email messages
would be in the event of a message landing the dead.letter box and you want
try to forward it to it's intended designation.
> 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?
>
Protect the systems he/she is responsible for, notifying colleagues of
any potential damage and don't worry about students cheating. It happens
all the time and will probably never be stopped.
> 3) Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
>widely known and accepted?
>
Probably.
> 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?
>
If someone tells you that you are about to be raped, would that make you
bend over and take it?
>Your cooperation would greatly be appreciated,
> Thankyou.
> Simon. Gregory.
>
Good Luck.
cjh
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <9203242341.AA05096@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 11:41:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: cjh@phx.mcd.mot.com (Chris Hutchings)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.215728.16349@phx.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 24 Mar 92 21:57:28 GMT
In article <24MAR92.09272904@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca> bell@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca writes:
>I don't want to come off sounding like a prude, but I've been asked
>by a colleague whether we have any policy restricting the transmission
>and storage of pornographic materials (porno gif files). I can't say
>that I've run into this problem as yet, but was wondering how other
>academic institutions are handling it. thanks in advance.
>p.s. - If this topic has all ready been discussed, could someone tell
> me where I can get my hands on archive listings if they are
> available, thanks again.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Bell E-mail: BELL@UWPG02.UWinnipeg.CA
>Acting Director V-mail: 204/786-9449
>Computer Services S-mail: University of Winnipeg
> 515 Portage Avenue,
> Winnipeg, Manitoba,
> Canada R3B 2E9
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
Without offering my opinion as to whether I personally agree or
disagree, Motorola considers display of pornographic gif files
(very loosely defined) unacceptable. they feel that there is too
much room for creation of a hostile environment for those members
of company who may be offended.
Regards,
Chris Hutchings
cjh@phx.mcd.mot.com
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.233714.17598@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:37:14 GMT
ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
[...]
>One of the jobs of a systems administrator (sysadmin) is to know what is
>being done on the system they maintain. If you are not activly paying to
>use a system, it is not an invasion of privacy for a sysadmin to look into
>``your'' directories, for they do not belong to you, the disk space belongs
>to whomever purchased the system, the same person or group who is paying
>the sysadmin to maintain that system. The sysadmin doesn't even need to
>justify looking into your filespace.
[...]
First, I note that universities routinely recognize privacy rights
even within the university. For example, my university forbids itself
from making unreasonable searches of dorm rooms and assigned office
space. They do this partly out of respect for academic freedom and
partly because the law requires it (esp. for state universities).
Second, I think there is a difference between university ownership of
the disks and university ownership of the information on the disks.
If a university owns all the information on its disks then it must
manage that information in accordance with the Family Education Rights
and Privacy Act (aka FERPA, aka Buckley Amendment). In many cases,
FERPA would make it illegal for a university to allow a user to look
at his or her "own" files. FERPA applies to virtually all
universities, even private ones.
Third, even though students seldom contract for computer resources,
they do have a general (and formal) contract with their university.
They are not charity cases; they are consumers.
None of this says that sys admin's can look at .newsrc files. But if
they can, it is not for the reasons you give.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/ferpa
=================
Excerpts from _College and University Student Records: A Legal
Compendium_, Edited by Joan E. Van Tol, 1989. Details the Family
Education Rights and Privacy Act's (Buckley Amendment's) provisions on
directory information.
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law ferpa
send acad-freedom caf
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/ferpa
pub/academic/caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203242354.AA05191@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 11:54:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID:
Date: 24 Mar 92 22:02:44 GMT
wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) writes:
>In article ranck@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar24.190243.19625@pippen.ub.com> pat@ub.com (Patrick Mulrooney) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Mar24.182442.12268@menudo.uh.edu>, wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) writes:
>>>>
>>>> Now a user zz complain that he does not want others (xx zz .... etc) to know
>>>> that he is not registered and argues that we simply violated his
>>>> privacy.
>>
>>>It never stops to amaze me the things people complain about. Tell the folks
>> ..........
>>>on a system is not a "right", is it?
>>
>>court, and I doubt that it ever would, it is hard to say if the judge
>>would find the Buckley amendment applicable. But again, why not just
>>send separate notices?
>As I mentioned from the start of this subject, we are going to send it
>seperately. The reason why we send it using 'mail xx yy zz ..... etc'
>is that we want to have a simple proof that we sent to those users
>a notice that their accounts would be deleted soon (so be prepared for it).
>If we send to each user, then we have to keep bunch of such mails as
>proofs.
>BTW, the guy just called us this morning and threatened that he will
>sue us ?#$&*?!@#$%?
wow! the things people will do to keep everyone from knowing they're not smart
enough to earn a living. i have to agree with pats initial reason for using only
the one post. keeping track of all the mailings about different things to
different users, shoot ya need a database to keep track of it all.
ok if your really concerned then give everybody a number, and number the nodes
and do it like you do your grades. lets get real i've seen people complain
about this kind of s*** and they do it via -r so now the whole list
gets to see all the dirty laundry. sounds like the guy is pretty touchy
i mean it's not like your announcing that he hassent paid his visa in 6 months.
it's only a notice that his account is dieing. hey back to something i've said
elsewhere put it in writing and make them sign the paper to get access to the
machine. spell it out and then there can be no suprises, no 'but i didn't know'
ya gotta be up front about what you expect and how you'll react. specific
enough to get the point across general enough to not hem you in as an all
inclusive rulebook.
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203242355.AA05205@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 11:55:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <24.03.92.180050.219@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 92 23:00:50 GMT
In article <1992Mar24.212604.24641@menudo.uh.edu> wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) writes:
>
>As I mentioned from the start of this subject, we are going to send it
>seperately. The reason why we send it using 'mail xx yy zz ..... etc'
>is that we want to have a simple proof that we sent to those users
>a notice that their accounts would be deleted soon (so be prepared for it).
>If we send to each user, then we have to keep bunch of such mails as
>proofs.
Sorry, that wouldn't be "proof" of anything. Sure you might be able
to get some of the other recipients to testify that they received mail; but
it isn't all that hard to fake sending mail to one user while sending it to
all of the rest. So no "proof". I admit it seems a little picky to be
upset about other people knowing that you are losing your account, but it
isn't that much harder to do this so the recipients remain private. Besides
if you get in the habit of keeping (fairly) trivial things like this
private, you'll be more likely to deal carefully with the important cases.
The ones where you might actually lose if they were to sue you...
Bill Bogstad
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: jad@expert.cc.purdue.edu (John Dormer)
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <42073@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 92 23:26:24 GMT
Also, doesn't ECPA come into play when you want to read someone's files as a
sysadmin? I know it's ok if it's for maintaining the system itself. However,
joyriding in the filesystem is distinctly a no-no here at PUCC at least. I
can kind of understand monitoring a program's usage with something like
umonitor(8L), but why make lots of useless information?
Plase note I took alt.sources out of the Newsgroups: on my followup. This is
not source code to anything but an idea.
: John Dormer
: Purdue Daemons
: jad@expert.cc.purdue.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.235154.11463@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:51:54 GMT
cjh@phx.mcd.mot.com (Chris Hutchings) writes:
[...]
>Without offering my opinion as to whether I personally agree or
>disagree, Motorola considers display of pornographic gif files
>(very loosely defined) unacceptable. they feel that there is too
>much room for creation of a hostile environment for those members
>of company who may be offended.
[...]
A university might ban the display of nonclass-related sexual pictures
in a classroom without banning Playboy from the library.
Also, in the U.S., sexual harassment laws for students are much
different than for employees.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.000345.21907@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 00:03:45 GMT
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu writes:
[...]
>i mean it's not like your announcing that he hassent paid his visa in 6 months.
>it's only a notice that his account is dieing. hey back to something i've said
>elsewhere put it in writing and make them sign the paper to get access to the
>machine. spell it out and then there can be no suprises, no 'but i didn't know'
>ya gotta be up front about what you expect and how you'll react. specific
>enough to get the point across general enough to not hem you in as an all
>inclusive rulebook.
[...]
If the FERPA applies, then you'd have to do more than just have them
sign a paper. I think it would be easier to just keep the information
private.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203250206.AA22899@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 16:06:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <9203242310.AA03250@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 13:10:53 GMT
>From experience here I'll add to your list of likely applications of
the internet by businesses and then make some points:
1. Catalogs, programs to view the catalogs either
directly or downloaded. Quantum Books does that here.
2. On-line ordering, particularly of small-ticket items.
Methods will be established to make this reasonably secure,
it's not that hard (e.g. establish an account with a charge
card or PO number by some ordinary means, phone/fax/mail.)
3. Software patch files from computer vendors and
other product updates and info (hints etc.) See,
for example, what ftp.apple.com keeps on line.
4. Discussion forums, BBS-like programs devoted to
particular products. These already exist in the POTS
sphere (e.g. PC-Pursuit's BBS at 1-800-546-1000.)
5. Re-selling of various information products (e.g. access
to patent databases, the sort of info discussed in GOVDOC-L,
postscript of tax forms, etc.)
I once counted over 13,000 information vendors in my copy
of DataPro's On-Line Services.
6. Various publishing activities (e.g. send us your XYZ
file and we'll return it as 35mm slides for $X/per.) I know
of one vendor (Pageworks) who has a 56Kb netlink and does
this right now.
I could name a dozen other activities that I don't know any examples
of but don't see why they wouldn't appear (e.g. bid/asked RFP
broadcast brokering for easier company purchases like: "We need 50
#207 Steelcase desks and #4451 chairs -- XYZ, Inc., Purchasing Dept.,
please send responses to purchasing@xyz.com".)
And, yes, I think you're on the mark about donation solicitation.
I wonder if charitables aren't independent of AUP? I don't think I'd
want to face that question in a courtroom equal-access suit.
I'd guess someone like United Way could make quite an argument for
access to solicit or perform other activities given the real nature of
usage rather than the hypothetical.
Let's face it, we've built a world-wide postal system with basically
flat per-year rates which only really constrains the common citizen of
modest means (and even that's breaking down thank to people like me
:-), but is wide open and cheap cheap cheap for organizations (e.g.
under $20K/year for unlimited communications access to millions, I'll
guess that UW spends more than that per day on communications.)
It's a brave new world.
I don't think laws or regulations per se (like AUP) are quite the
right head-on approach, they should exist to cover the periphery of
activity only, restricting that which is truly undesireable under all
conditions.
I'd like to see harder thinking about installing the time-honored
feedback loop: $$$. Works for the post office and phone company...
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203250207.AA22963@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 16:07:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: jcurran@nic.near.net (John Curran)
Subject: Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <9203250026.AA18361@psi.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 14:26:01 GMT
--------
From: Barry Shein
Subject: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 18:10:53 -0500
...
Let's face it, we've built a world-wide postal system with basically
flat per-year rates which only really constrains the common citizen of
modest means (and even that's breaking down thank to people like me
:-), but is wide open and cheap cheap cheap for organizations (e.g.
under $20K/year for unlimited communications access to millions, I'll
guess that UW spends more than that per day on communications.)
It's a brave new world.
I don't think laws or regulations per se (like AUP) are quite the
right head-on approach, they should exist to cover the periphery of
activity only, restricting that which is truly undesireable under all
conditions.
I'd like to see harder thinking about installing the time-honored
feedback loop: $$$. Works for the post office and phone company...
It doesn't quite work for the phone company; note the recent rash of laws
regarding telemarketing despite the fact that many of the calls are long-
distance and thus a proportional expense incurred by the telemarketer.
A feedback loop is definitely needed if the current damping (read: AUP) is
lifted. One might claim that paying an additional annual fee for commercial
access (as is proposed by one backbone service provider) provides such a
system, particularly if the proceeds are used to increase the infrastructure.
A more granular system for cost recovery may not result in more responsible
behavior, since the actual of cost of delivering a single mail message is
quite low and getting less expensive each day. If the Internet community
wants certain "content-based" behaviors, such as no bulk solicitations, some
form of acceptable usage policy will remain long after the commercial use
issues have been settled.
/John
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:50:54 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.235054.24323@lmpsbbs.mot.com>
In article <1992Mar23.160743.2594@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu writes:
)floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
)
)>Such a shame that Carl won't debate with just interesting opinions,
)>and instead keeps throwing out documented facts.
)
)Carl's "documented facts" consist of policy statements from library groups,
)conduct codes, and a few court decisions of debateable applicability. In
)this area there are few absolutes (your "documented facts"). Unless he can
)make his arguments more interesting, few people will bother reading his
)polemics.
I'd be interested in court decisions that you (or anyone else, for that
matter) felt were more applicable. I recognize that I am perhaps only
getting one side of the picture here, but I found the court decisions very
illuminating and worth reading.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203250407.AA24580@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 18:07:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <9203250249.AA23992@lokkur>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 02:49:14 GMT
A few thoughts on acceptable use and this whole topic...
Maybe we should all get in the habit of distinguishing between NSFNet
and the Internet? NSFNet is now a subset of the Internet, and saying
things like "Internet AUP" are just plain silly.
In case nobody noticed, the post office and the telcos do have
acceptable use policies. One critical difference between them and the
Internet is that the phone/post office have the same AUP across the
whole "network". Local corporations with internal phone systems may
have internal AUPs (like no using company longlines to call your Mom)
but they don't have any effect on the outside world.
Heretical statement: I have no problem with the NSFNet AUP. What I
have problems with is apparent use of the AUP as a marketing tool by
ANS ("Them commercial folks can't hook you to nsfnet, but we can...").
Faugh. How about treating everybody by the same rules, guys.
IMHO, NSFNet ought to disconnect *ALL* commercial clients, including
ANS. If they don't want to be the national backbone, that's fine and
understandable. NSFNet sites who want to deal with commercial groups
should (read: can easily and affordably) buy a commercial link from a
commercial networking company.
The commercial networks should build their own backbone(s), doing all
of (a) co-operative unmetered arrangements like the CIX, (b) private
interconnects between two mutually agreeable parties, (c) buying from a
3rd-party backbone supplier at some mutually-agreed upon rate for
packets and/or bandwidth and/or whatever. Let the market decide what
kind of arrangement is best. It's working for phones -- almost all
the complaints I hear about the telephone system today have to do with
the still-regulated parts.
The only reason NSFNet/ANS matters is because they own the backbone.
If, as has been said here, a backbone could be built cheaper and better
with existing off-the-shelf equipment, then let's put our money and
work where our mouths are and DO IT. Universities etc are *extremely*
price-sensitive, and will switch to commercial carriers if they can
save bucks. The AUP will become not merely irrelevant, but an active
hindrance to those who use NSFNet.
--
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 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203250410.AA06502@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 16:10:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.025419.17101@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 02:54:19 GMT
In article <1992Mar23.170730.9286@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
)n13@krypton.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (Leonard J. Schmidt) writes:
)
)| Those who are responsible for the system (such as the Postmaster or
)|the sysadmin, should always have the ABILITY to look at mail. That is, if you
)|have the proper system privs, it is possible to look at mail. I would think
)|it unwise from a sysadmin point of view, to restrict yourself in any way from
)|anything on your machine. If you _have_ to get to something, you should
)|be able to.
)| As for the "RIGHT" of the sysadmin to look at mail...see below.
)
)I think PEM will eventually solve this problem. Postmasters will not be
)able to look at the "inside of the envelope" no matter how hard they
)try. They should get used to only being able to see headers, because
)regardless of the ethics involved, technically it will be impossible.
)
)Sean
)
)--
) |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
)Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
)sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
)U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
We have a form of this here (xsend,xget,enroll) but to set up a key you need
to run enroll, which asks you for a key... when I execute enroll, I get
the following message:
/usr/spool/secretmail/technews.key : permission denied.
--
Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well.
technews@iitmax.iit.edu kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
My Employer Disagrees.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203250416.AA06531@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 16:16:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.security
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <92Mar24.211858est.144351@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 02:19:22 GMT
ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
>If you are not activly paying to use a system ...
>The sysadmin doesn't even need to justify looking into your filespace.
Many people, including myself, find this view unethical. The sysadmin does
have to keep the system running, but this doesn't excuse gratuitous snooping.
You're curious about my files, but please respect my personal space.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203250417.AA06540@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 16:17:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin
From: warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Kennedy)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.031439.5317@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 03:14:39 GMT
In article <1992Mar24.150505.18563@rock.concert.net> Scott McMahan writes:
--> ... The VMS software, however, has a program which lets you monitor
--> which groups are being read by whom, ... It had never occurred to me
--> that anyone would be snooping through my .newsrc looking at what I was
--> reading! And the guy asking didn't think there was anything wrong with
--> doing it, either, ...
I'm going to respond to the USENET portion of Scott's post and then go on
a nice, wide tangent and vent myself on some privacy concerns that I find
particularly unrealistic. I tried to stay on track, but beware. (: If
you have a problem with someone feeling that it's an invasion of privacy
to read the contents of someone's file but allowing for the possibility of
an administrator needing to do just that, deal with it. This, of course,
assumes you have an administrator with roughly my values or better. (:{
In the world of privacy invasion and filesystems, my line gets mushy right
around filenames and certainly file contents. I doubt that everyone would
feel comfey knowing that the world at large knew they were subscribed to
alt.sex.*, etc etc.
In this specific instance (IE, if you try to infer any other behavior on
what I might and might not do elsewhere, you might as well fail to post), I
*have* been known to count up the instances of .newsrc *files* on the system.
I regard it as a fairly inaccurate way to judge how many people use USENET,
while leaving what they use it for alone. If I cared about accuracy, I'd
do it without going into the user's file tree. The internals of this task is
left up to the reader.
As with any statistical analysis, what you do with the data can make or
break it. For instance, I wouldn't consider it to be an invasion of privacy
(assuming I gathered the data in a way I didn't consider an invasion of
privacy) to give statistics on what percentage of the users used USENET.
Of that percent, it might be useful to know what percentage of the alt groups
(I wouldn't go below toplevel, probably, and certainly not specific groups)
are read (x% of alt is read by %y of the users). To do this, I'd need some
way to uniquely identify each user (somehow, depending on data gathering
methods) and what groups they read, yes. It's presumably laying about
somewhere, although not available to the public. Someone (the user who gathers
the statistics) might conceivably see the raw data. Said user might
conceivably give a sh*t. IMHO, people who are security/invasion/privacy
freaks are hopelessly idealistic, paranoid as hell, or guilty of something.
In most cases they place an absurd weight into their net worth (IE, they
are the only person on earth who thinks it would be worth looking at their
files). Everyone has their own little problems.
If I had my way, I'd take the paranoid types and lock them in a soundproof
little room with a floppy-based PC. Anything larger runs the risk of having
their privacy invaded, and we wouldn't want that to happen. Take the far
greater amount of people who realize that their admins might do things that
they might consider as an invasion of privacy for reasons that they might
not personally understand. Deal with it.
A user to me is a number and a block count. Occasionally, they become a
percentage of CPU. On (very) rare occasions they become a list of files
that needs processing (backups, recoveries, people who have damaged their
account beyond their ability to fix themselves). Sometimes they give input.
Anything more is conceit.
--
John Kennedy/KC6RCK/warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu "IBM, You BM, We All BM for IBM!"
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.045939.28354@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 04:59:39 GMT
In article <1992Mar24.151438.9174@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>>Of course, you could turn the news server over to a
>>>group of unpaid students/users, IF the server was dedicated to news. If,
>>>as is usually the case, the news machine has uses other than news, this
>>>may not be a valid option.
>>
>>This is getting way off the subject, there is really no need for a seperate
>>news server.
>
>If you like, you can attempt to speak for the entire Usenet. I have read
>uucp maps, and I have examined network maps; I can tell you that, des-
>pite your assertations, many sites use a single, dedicated news server.
And how does that relate to why a site handles, or doesn't,
the alt groups?
The dedicated server is because they have multiple machines on
their network, and it saves money and resources to run news on one
instead of many.
The significant points should be "what is saved by dropping the
alt groups?". None of this misguided garbage about what it costs
to run usenet has a thing to do with the alt groups being included
or not. If the news server is going to be there anyway and be used
as a news server there is only one significant question: what does
it cost to include the alt groups.
I think the answer was pointed out at the beginning of the discussion:
less than $1000. Peanuts compared to the total cost of having
usenet news.
--
Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, Alaska
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.03240.6850@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 05:32:40 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
|Its always fun to watch a clueless, suck-off-the-public-teat .edu
|student attempt to justify news costs.
|On top of the disk storage, there is the cost of the bandwidth.
|(Oooops, I forgot, you .edu students think that bandwidth grows on
|trees, since its handed to you.) NNTP connections don't materialize
|out of thin air.
[etc etc...]
Perhaps students should get down on their knees and supplicate
themselves. Geez what an attitude. Most campus computing centers exist
as service organizations, not as "beg and maybe we'll help you broaden
your education" centers.
I had sure hoped this had gone out with the 80s.
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:27:12 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.072712.28187@clarinet.com>
While I agree that any individual news readership information should be
private, is it a great evil to collect statistics, erasing the individual
information?
Indeed, this is necessary if you are going to have on-demand subscription
in a system like dynafeed.
Yes, it means that people can then tell, "somebody at that site reads
alt.sex." The only alternative is to get all alt groups so that nobody
can tell what you read.
Of course I can go into any small public library and find out some things
about the tastes of the community. Is that bad?
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: tfs@gravity.gmu.edu (Tim Scanlon)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.075022.7358@newshost.lanl.gov>
Date: 25 Mar 92 07:50:22 GMT
So? I've been reading this thread and don't quite follow it's
relivant nature. It doesn't seem to me that wether or not a group is
moderated or not is any particular justification of it's worth. All that
seems to me to be is an indication of a desire amongst the groups participants
for soem form of moderation.
I don't belive, or see how it is possible to place a value on the
content of a newsgroup or on a set of newsgroups. There are plenty of people
who think Usenet news in general is a waste of time. Those opinions are based
on ignorance to soem extent, and are also personal opinions. The bottom line
is that a forum of communication and the exchange of news is being censored.
For whatever justification. The way I understand the Constitution, the idea is
that if you don't want to read something *you just don't read it*. And that
enjoining people against publication, participation, and reception of printed
material is considered a very bad thing.
In that alot of newsgroups in the rest of the catagories started out
in alt, and ended up in other areas, (from what I know) it would seem to me
that the loss of oppertunity to participate in the incipent rise of an issue
vastly outweighs any relavence of wether or not a group is moderated.
Look it seems to me that the issue is wetehr or not we as a community
at large are willing to treat USENET NEWS as an area of communication fully
protected by the Constitution. Any other argument thrown in on it is quibbling.
I cant' see how we can "Have this be relivant but not that" or make
judgments that "This group is relivant but not that group" or "This group is
ok when we have enough space", or "This group is relivant on every third
tuesday when the moon is full".
I can see the relivance of dealing with space & physical concerns,
but this stuff should be resolved based on readership localy, not on someones
summary value judgement on the importantce or relivance of the communication.
If ANYTHING what to carry should be decided based on local readership
figures, and NOT based on the content analysis of people whose jobs have
*nothing* to do with making judgements about the importance of a particular
set or subset of communication. As I understand it, these guys are the local
hardware and software administrators. Nor have I seen anything anywhere to
suggest they *even bothered* to ask soem of thier vastly more educated faculty
about any of this.
Tim Scanlon
--
Live Free, Promote Freedom, or you Tim Scanlon
are just selling out. If one ignores tfs@gravity.gmu.edu
ones rights, they dissipate. If one gentry@access.digex.com
ignores freedom, it evaporates. If one
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Mar 92 05:26:48 GMT
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu wrote:
>>Now seriously, I was unaware of the status of alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
>>I am curious, can you name 10 others.
>
>I figured I'd try... but I only found 8! 8-)
Bzzt, make that 3. alt.dev.null==bogus; alt.gourmand==long since passed
into rec-dom; alt.hackers==false moderation [the whole point];
alt.society.ati and cu-digest are both newsletters whose newsgroups
exist simply to widen their distribution, and are in no "Usenet" sense
moderated, beyond having a "m".
--
Brendan Kehoe, Sun Network Manager brendan@cs.widener.edu
Widener University Chester, PA
Nothing's worse than saying ``This is damn fine coffee!'', only to realize
you just blew your lenten fast.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu")
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.011801.11240@robobar.co.uk>
Date: 24 Mar 92 01:18:01 GMT
In article <1992Mar23.064254.22338@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
:
: >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.
:
: Clearly, you have no clue what it *may* or *may not* cost for a computer
: center to carry all newsgroups. When was the last time you prepared a
: computer center budget?
You can run quite a respectable news service on a $1000 300Mb disk, thank you.
I would accept the 'lack of space' argument if the sys admins would explicitly
accept any group that anyone asked for, laving out the dross by default.
Graham
PS Why *bother* deleting junk like alt.swedish.schef.bork.bork.bork etc
since they do no harm if you don't read them and use minimal disk space.
I'm *sure* this is a political act to get rid of 'questionable' alt
groups without making it look too specific...
--
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.101311.8450@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 15:13:11 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>mcmahan@fletcher.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>
>[...]
>>It had never occurred to me that anyone would be snooping through my
>>.newsrc looking at what I was reading! And the guy asking didn't think
>>there was anything wrong with doing it, either, even after I pointed
>>out changing a couple of lines could turn a general report of what is
>>being read at your site to a line by line description of what everyone
>>is reading.
>[...]
>
>I that that computer sites (especially academic sites) should treat
>this readership information the way that libraries treat readership
>information, i.e. as confidential.
I think we all agree that the information, when gathered, should be
kept confidential. I think that Mr. McMahan is more concerned with
the actual gathering of the information. I will attempt to address
that point.
When a site is running arbitron (or a similar script), they often use
the derived statistics to configure their news feed. If, for example,
a site discovers that only one person (of, say, 1000 users) is reading
a particular newsgroup, they may decide to eliminate that newsgroup.
Of course, if *no one* is reading a particular newsgroup, the deletion
decision is that much easier.
If news becomes a problem in disk space consumption (and it often does!),
the "readership info" can help the news admin determine which groups are
widely read; the less frequently read groups would be candidates for de-
letion.
If you prevent your news admin from reading your .newsrc (through pro-
tection, renaming, compression, et cetera), you are effectively renoun-
cing your right to "vote" in the newsgroup maintenance process. Pic-
ture, if you will, the following scenario:
Newsadmin: Well, arbitron reports that no one is reading
alt.love.puppy, and it's getting somewhat large;
since no one is reading it, I'll delete it.
(2 or 3 days pass....)
Users: Hey! alt.love.puppy was my favorite group, and it's gone!
Newsadmin: Well, why didn't your readership show up in the stats?
Users: Oh, we don't want you to know what we read, so we all
renamed/compressed/encrypted our .newsrc!
Newsadmin: (Immediate and near-total loss of sympathy)
Most newsadmins try to serve their readers as much as possible. Your
.newsrc (or its complement for ANU News/nn/trn/whatever) is your "voting
list" for the newsgroups you like. Why give up your voice in the matter?
I agree that readership information for specific users should be kept
confidential. I'll be the first one to lambaste any newsadmin who
starts generating or distributing "lists of alt.sex readers" (or the
like). However, I maintain that there is a real need for scripts such
as arbitron; they are an extremely valuable tool in news site/feed
management.
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <199203251621.AA01662@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 06:21:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: marc@MIT.EDU (Marc Horowitz)
Subject: Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Message-ID: <9203250740.AA28795@deathtongue.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:40:13 GMT
>> IMHO, NSFNet ought to disconnect *ALL* commercial clients, including
>> ANS. If they don't want to be the national backbone, that's fine and
>> understandable.
The problem here is that clients don't connect to the NSFnet.
Midlevels connect to the NSFnet. What you're suggestting cannot
happen, because the NSFnet can't order the regionals around. Well,
they could pull funding (which would probably result in them dropping
the "expensive" R&E sites, not the paying commercial ones), or pull
the NSFnet connection (which, again, only hurts the R&E sites). The
only other option would be for NSF to directly connect all sites. It
is clear to me that the correct answer to this is to open up the net,
and fund R&E institutions directly.
The crux of the problem is that the center of the net has an AUP, but
the parts which actually connect to the users in most cases do not.
So, the regionals have signed up lots of commercial customers, who are
the people really keeping the net in existence. If the AUP were
"reasonable", then the regionals wouldn't mind having it, and it would
be a moot point. Barry's feedback loop is already in existence. This
list, and all the flamage about the ANS agreements and the AUP, are a
direct result of it. This monetary feedback loop is screaming for the
AUP to be dumped, and I think it will happen, soon.
I have no problem with having an AUP. I have a big problem with an
AUP that heavily restricts exactly the uses wanted by the large
majority of the people spending money on this network.
Earlier, Ken Laws said:
>> I can't imagine that anarchy will long prevail. Announcing that there
>> is no AUP is the same as announcing that all uses are permissible
>> (unless covered by interstate communications regulations), and people
>> can be pretty creative when anonymity is easy to achieve and the cost
>> of flooding the net is near zero.
Anarchy has worked for a long time on the USENET. When people abuse
it, the reaction is swift and effective. I disagree that anonymity is
easy to achieve. Flood the Internet (or the internet), and you're
going to annoy lots of wizards. "Do not meddle in the affairs of
wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup." I imagine people
who would try to abuse the system will find more resistance than they
expect.
I suppose what I'm saying is that we'll have an AUP, but it will be
one which is more of a convention than legislated from On High.
Marc
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.104621.13981@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 15:46:21 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>cjh@phx.mcd.mot.com (Chris Hutchings) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Without offering my opinion as to whether I personally agree or
>>disagree, Motorola considers display of pornographic gif files
>>(very loosely defined) unacceptable. they feel that there is too
>>much room for creation of a hostile environment for those members
>>of company who may be offended.
>[...]
>
>A university might ban the display of nonclass-related sexual pictures
>in a classroom without banning Playboy from the library.
>
>Also, in the U.S., sexual harassment laws for students are much
>different than for employees.
>
If the laws are "much different", how can we adequately manage a single
point of service that reaches faculty, staff, and students alike, i.e.
Netnews?
This peels another layer from the onion of "global Netnews policy". I
once mentioned the difficulty of designing a policy that could equally
apply to governmental, corporate, educational, and private institutions.
I can see now that any such policy will also have to be extremely specific
in its dealings with individual groups of users at some institutions (namely,
educational sites).
This would seem to reinforce my comment that a "global netnews policy"
or "netnews bill of rights" is essentially impossible.
Comments?
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Is this a privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.105640.15751@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 15:56:39 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu writes:
>> [....discussing deletion of accounts and the announcement thereof....]
>
>If the FERPA applies, then you'd have to do more than just have them
>sign a paper. I think it would be easier to just keep the information
>private.
>
Hmmmm....this brings a particular "real world" situation to mind.
Accounts on my systems are only issued to faculty/staff/students in the
College of Engineering.
When accounts are removed (due to graduation/suspension/transfer/whatever),
I usually see a significant amount of email bouncing, as people "out in
netland" try to contact the deleted accounts. I have seen many cases where
those "out in netland" folks dump *megabytes* of email (sometimes over a
period of several months) to my machines in their attempts to "get through"
to a nonexistent user. If the "ex-user" was subscribed to mailing lists,
the level of garbage traffic goes even higher.
I was considering changing the mailer's error message in these cases from
"user unknown" to "This individual is no longer affiliated with the College
of Engineering; this user no longer exists." Hopefully, the user(s) on the
other end (or their postmasters) would see the message and cease the dumping.
Would you consider this message a violation of the ex-user's privacy?
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
From: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu (George Ferguson)
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.155344.5474@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 15:53:44 GMT
Could you please move this thread out of alt.sources.
Thanks,
George
--
George Ferguson ARPA: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu
Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: rutgers!rochester!ferguson
University of Rochester VOX: (716) 275-2527
Rochester NY 14627-0226 FAX: (716) 461-2018
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.170044.2876@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 17:00:44 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>A university might ban the display of nonclass-related sexual pictures
>in a classroom without banning Playboy from the library.
>
>Also, in the U.S., sexual harassment laws for students are much
>different than for employees.
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>If the laws are "much different", how can we adequately manage a single
>point of service that reaches faculty, staff, and students alike, i.e.
>Netnews?
[...]
As far as I know, merely making offensive-to-some information
available has never been found to create an illegal hostile
environment. It it did, only students would be allowed to use the
library (And professors would have to return all those books they keep
checked out for years :-) )
The real difference seems to be what a person can be punished for
saying. As a staff member, you can be punished for making some types
of offensive comments in the context of your job to another employee
(or student). If you make too many of them and your employer does
nothing to stop you, then your employer might be liable for a "hostile
environment". As a student at a state university, I can't be punished
for making offensive comments. (Exception: at U. of California
schools, fighting words are prohibited.)
[I'm not sure this is quite right, I'll double check.]
- 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 25 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: <9203251705.AA09288@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 05:05:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: email privacy
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.234702.4564@eskimo.celestial.com>
Date: 24 Mar 92 23:47:02 GMT
If it is illegal to tamper with s-mail that is in transit, or s-mail
that has been left in a P.O. box, or even the mail box I might have
along the road. A box might be considered a storage facility, just as
/usr/spool/mail is a storage directory, what is the difference?
In transit or in a mail box mail is only to be opened by the owner, so
how can that extension include e-mail in transit but not in a holding
directory like /usr/spool/news? That directory has directories or files
specific to a user with permissions set accordingly.
Also since it is illegal to tamper with or tap phone calls, and much
e-mail is carried over phone lines, couldn't there be a protective
extension there also.
That's my ideas on that thread.
--
+-(c)--------------------------+ Information is the root of knowledge.
| delisle@eskimo.celestial.com | Action is the root of experience.
+------------------------------+ Illusion is the root of reality.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sources, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203251707.AA09336@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 05:07:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.075422.11590@netlabs.com>
Date: 25 Mar 92 07:54:22 GMT
In article <1992Mar24.150505.18563@rock.concert.net> mcmahan@fletcher.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
: It had never occurred to me that anyone would be snooping through my
: .newsrc looking at what I was reading! And the guy asking didn't think
: there was anything wrong with doing it, either, even after I pointed
: out changing a couple of lines could turn a general report of what is
: being read at your site to a line by line description of what everyone
: is reading.
:
: I've never seen this topic discussed on Usenet before, so I'd like to
: heighten everyone's awareness of what systems people are capable of
: doing, without necessarily your knowlege.
:
: Do any sites regularly do this?
That sort of dredging is what basically what the Arbitron listings are
based on, as it happens. So lots of sites do it...
: Does anyone actually condone this invasion of privacy?
Do you have a guilty conscience? :-)
There's actually a use for this. Suppose you post an article to your
favorite corporate newsgroup, and you want to make sure everyone who
ought to read it reads it. How do you know who isn't properly keeping
up on their news?
: Ways to keep yourself safe? Don't put your .newsrc in an obvious
: place (like ".newsrc"), and even encrypt it between news sessions.
There are several other ways to find out what newsgroups you read, if
your system administrator is nosey. If you're really worried about root,
you'd better consult the Orange Book. And there's always the Copper Room
approach, but that makes for some slight connectivity problems...
Personally, if I were going to read a scurrilous newsgroup, I'd cd into
the spool directory and say "less *".
: An example of how it can be done in UNIX is this perl script I whipped
: up in a very small amount of time. And I don't even really know perl!
: It uses the Brute Force method, and I'm sure there are more elegant
: ways of doing it. It requires no special privileges to run, but if you
: ran it as root you could override everyone's permissions and get a really
: accurate total.
:
: If you changed a couple of lines, you could probably get a line-by-line
: of who reads what.
:
: Note that this software is presented in the spirit of Crack, the password
: cracker utility -- it is designed to raise awareness. *Anybody* could
: put this together, and the bad guys (whoever they are is up to your
: own interpretation -- the person running your system could be using this).
: It isn't designed for malicious purposes, but if you wanted to use it for
: them it would be very trivial to concoct this on your own, even easier than
: a password cracker!
Oddly enough, I published a similar program in Unix World a few months ago.
If you want blackmail fodder, run this over alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.
#!/usr/bin/perl
die "Usage: readership newsgroup\n" unless @ARGV == 1;
$ngtodo = shift;
open(ACTIVE, "/usr/lib/news/active") || die "Can't open active file: $!\n";
while () {
($ngname, $max, $min, $flags) = split(/\s+0*/);
last if $ngname eq $ngtodo;
}
die "Invalid newsgroup: $ngtodo" unless $ngname eq $ngtodo;
$available = $max - $min + 1;
print STDERR "$available articles available\n";
while (($login,$pw,$uid,$gid,$quota,$comment,$gcos,$dir,$shell) = getpwent) {
next unless $shell =~ /sh/;
next if $dir eq '/';
$who = sprintf("%-15s", $login);
if (!open(NEWSRC, "$dir/.newsrc")) {
print "$who no .newsrc\n";
next;
}
while () {
last if /^$ngtodo:/o;
}
if (!s/^$ngtodo:\s*//o) {
print "$who not subscribed\n";
next;
}
s/^1-/$min-/;
s/-/../g;
eval "\@read = ($_)";
print "$who ", int(@read * 100 / $available), "%\n";
}
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203251736.AA09558@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 05:36:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: stehman%citron.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jeff Stehman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.161711.9992@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 16:17:11 GMT
From article <24.03.92.180050.219@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>, by wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad):
> In article <1992Mar24.212604.24641@menudo.uh.edu> wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) writes:
>>
>>If we send to each user, then we have to keep bunch of such mails as
>>proofs.
>
> Sorry, that wouldn't be "proof" of anything. Sure you might be able
> to get some of the other recipients to testify that they received mail; but
> it isn't all that hard to fake sending mail to one user while sending it to
> all of the rest. So no "proof"...
Perhaps not in court, but it would be for my boss. "Are you sure you sent
it?" "Yes, here's a copy." He assumes I don't opperate out of malice and
that I'm honest about my mistakes.
Actually, he seems willing to back me on my memory alone. I've known my
memory to fail and I'd hate to leave him hanging, so the email 'proofs' I
keep are really for me. That way I can double check my memory. So they are
proof to me -- I know I didn't forge them (or that I did :-)
--
Jeff Stehman Systems Staff, G-18A Jordan
stehman@cs.clemson.edu Dept. of Computer Science
(803)656-2639 Clemson University
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.180208.4528@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 18:02:08 GMT
I asked Prof. Louise Fitzgerald of the U. of Illinois to look over my
last posting on this. She is a professor of educational psychology and
psychology who stuides the effects of sexual harassment. With her
permission, here is her email response, followed by the note I sent to
her.
======================================
>>From: Louise Fitzgerald
>>Message-Id: <199203251736.AA18378@s.psych.uiuc.edu>
>>Subject: Re: Playboy in the University library
>>To: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
>>Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 11:36:55 CST
It sounds generally right, but I think that students can indeed be
punished for making offensive comments to someone privately, i.e.,
pursuing someone who wants you to leave them alone, saying sexually
offensive stuff, and so forth......but you are correct that you can
make pretty much whatever comments you want in a classroom context
(as can professors) if they are related to the subject at hand....
The availability of all kinds of materials in libraries is completely
protected....now, that's a TRUE First Ammendment issue!
LFF
=========================
>From kadie Wed Mar 25 12:00:37 1992
To: l-fitzgerald1@uiuc.edu
Subject: Playboy in the University library
This is part of a note I just wrote to a computer newsgroup. Does
it sound right?
=================
As far as I know, merely making offensive-to-some information
available has never been found to create an illegal hostile
environment. It it did, only students would be allowed to use the
library (And professors would have to return all those books they keep
checked out for years :-) )
The real difference seems to be what a person can be punished for
saying. As a staff member, you can be punished for making some types
of offensive comments in the context of your job to another employee
(or student). If you make too many of them and your employer does
nothing to stop you, then your employer might be liable for a "hostile
environment". As a student at a state university, I can't be punished
for making offensive comments. (Exception: at U. of California
schools, fighting words are prohibited.)
[I'm not sure this is quite right, I'll double check.]
--
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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: francis@styracosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis)
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 17:37:01 GMT
In article <1992Mar25.104621.13981@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Also, in the U.S., sexual harassment laws for students are much
>different than for employees.
If the laws are "much different", how can we adequately manage a single
point of service that reaches faculty, staff, and students alike, i.e.
Netnews?
Interesting addendum: Someone here brought up the possibility that
sexaul harassment laws might have an impact on what our *lab users*
could display on their machines, in that some of our *employees* who
work in those labs are female. Comments?
--
R David Francis (Alternate addresses): rdf+@osu.edu
osu-cis!francis
B:If you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what can you believe?
R:Oh, Bullwinkle! B:It's enough to destroy a young moose's faith.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.184759.5643@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 18:47:59 GMT
francis@styracosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) writes:
[...]
>Interesting addendum: Someone here brought up the possibility that
>sexaul harassment laws might have an impact on what our *lab users*
>could display on their machines, in that some of our *employees* who
>work in those labs are female. Comments?
[...]
They might. To broaden the question, consider these sceneros:
Clerical worker is assigned to deliver a message to an art student
in a life drawing class that is using a nude model.
Janitor is assigned to the art building in which paintings and
photocollages of nudes are on display.
Janitor is assigned to empty trash cans in dorm rooms, some
of which have Playboy centerfolds on display.
Computer staff member is assigned to a computer lab in a building that
has a nude statue in front of it.
Computer staff member is assigned to computer lab in which an art
student is creating a nude picture as part of a class assignment.
Computer staff member is assigned to computer lab in which an art
student is creating a nude picture as a way to learn how to use the
computer's drawing program.
... computer science student is creating a nude picture as a way to
learn how to use the computer's drawing program.
... art student is looking at images of classic art, some of which are
nudes, from a CDROM.
... computer science student ...
.... student is looking at GIFs of nudes as part of research for paper
"Why GIFs of nudes should be banned".
... "Why GIFs of nudes should be protected."
... student is looking at GIFs of nudes to see what all the fuss is about.
... student is looking at GIFs of nudes just for fun.
Student prints out GIF and tapes it to the computer staff person's
chair.
- 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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203251849.AA10139@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 06:49:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: lhermens@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (Leonard Hermens - CS)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.160357.22255@serval.net.wsu.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 16:03:57 GMT
In article ranck@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck) writes:
>In article <1992Mar24.190243.19625@pippen.ub.com> pat@ub.com (Patrick Mulrooney) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Mar24.182442.12268@menudo.uh.edu>, wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin) writes:
>>>
>>> Now a user zz complain that he does not want others (xx zz .... etc) to know
>>> that he is not registered and argues that we simply violated his
>>> privacy.
>
>>It never stops to amaze me the things people complain about. Tell the folks
>>at the start that you will be doing this when you delete the account, and if
>>they have any problems with it, they don't get the account. Having an account
>>on a system is not a "right", is it?
>
> The point here Pat is not about a 'right' to a computer account, but the
>right to privacy in a student's affairs.
At most universities and colleges, it is possible to ask the registrar if
someone is registered for classes. You can't find out which courses, but
you can find out that the student is or is not registered. The student
can sign a form indicated that he or she doesn't want such information
released, and the registrar must comply. This case is not a violation of
privacy.
LAH
--
---------------------------
Leonard Hermens lhermens@eecs.wsu.edu
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sinus
Washington State University
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203251849.AA10148@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 06:49:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: who@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <15318@gollum.UMCS.Maine.EDU>
Date: 25 Mar 92 17:41:26 GMT
Well, next time don't send a letter. Just remove the accounts.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Kennedy)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.190313.14417@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 19:03:13 GMT
In article <1992Mar25.101311.8450@ms.uky.edu> Wes Morgan writes:
--> If you prevent your news admin from reading your .newsrc (through pro-
--> tection, renaming, compression, et cetera), you are effectively renoun-
--> cing your right to "vote" in the newsgroup maintenance process. ...
Today's arbitrary fondness would be for everyone to have their own, personal
crypter/compressor (crypt for their privacy, compress for smiles from their
disk-bound admins) so the question of forcing your admins to look at your files
would be moot. I think some lawyer brains would kick in if they had to brute-
force their way into files using CBW, etc. It would probably add other problems
but it's nothing that can't be done now with a little bit of effort.
--> Most newsadmins try to serve their readers as much as possible. Your
--> .newsrc (or its complement for ANU News/nn/trn/whatever) is your "voting
--> list" for the newsgroups you like. Why give up your voice in the matter?
I don't think tuning your expire files to .newsrc contents is a good way to
do it, and I have reasons! (: Our site, for instance, has vast, silent hordes
of mac users via NNTP. Also, if you trim your expire down so you don't carry
groups that nobody reads, what happens when someone tries to subscribe? If
you have highly intelligent news gurus for readers, more power to you! (:
Mine, statisticly, see zero articles and freak out and unsubscribe again.
(this happens to be based on experience gathered over the time it took me to
figure out I wasn't updating the min fields in my active file... subscribe,
searches for a while and reports no articles.)
The interests of the mac & !mac people at my site are diverse enough to make
any statistics I might gather via .newsrc files unrealistic, at best.
Unfortunately, I have no constructive comments to make on how to deal with
reader voting. I go on a request basis myself, and stay visible.
--
John Kennedy/KC6RCK/warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu "IBM, You BM, We All BM for IBM!"
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.201547.7715@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 20:15:47 GMT
In article <1992Mar22.063422.16518@anomaly.sbs.com> 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.
The problem is that, while the university may be articulating its decision
in terms of educational goals, it is almost certainly based on fear of
news coverage and/or legislative disapproval of the availability of
material with sexual or otherwise disturbing content. Hence the reference
to state pornography laws in the story, in spite of the fact that the
textual material in the alt.sex hierarchy is almost certainly not a
violation of applicable obscenity laws.
>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 doesn't the address the issue. Universities do make choices about
what books to purchase for their libraries, but the University of Nebraska
has not chosen to ban all material dealing with (say) sex or drugs from
its libraries. If the university merely applied the same criteria to
Usenet that it applies to its libraries, it is likely that there'd be
little or nothing to complain about. If the University of Nebraska carries
books by Norman Mailer, D.H. Lawrence, Erica Jong, or Bret Easton Ellis in
its libraries, it is inconsistent for it to object to the textual content
of the alt.sex hierarchy.
If universities are supposed to be loci of freedom of expression and
freedom of inquiry, it is inconsistent with their mission to ban the alt
hierarchy for fear that something sexual will be expressed or asked about.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis
mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --Marcel Proust
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.104544.29443@resonex.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 10:45:44 GMT
In article <1992Mar25.101311.8450@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>mcmahan@fletcher.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>>>It had never occurred to me that anyone would be snooping through my
>>>.newsrc looking at what I was reading! And the guy asking didn't think
>>>there was anything wrong with doing it, either, even after I pointed
>>>out changing a couple of lines could turn a general report of what is
>>>being read at your site to a line by line description of what everyone
>>>is reading.
>>
>>I that that computer sites (especially academic sites) should treat
>>this readership information the way that libraries treat readership
>>information, i.e. as confidential.
>
>I agree that readership information for specific users should be kept
>confidential. I'll be the first one to lambaste any newsadmin who
>starts generating or distributing "lists of alt.sex readers" (or the
>like). However, I maintain that there is a real need for scripts such
>as arbitron; they are an extremely valuable tool in news site/feed
>management.
One point the Wes doesn't bring up is that 'arbitron' doesn't even
give you a by-user breakdown, only totals. (It doesn't even tell you
which users are reading news, and which are not.) You have to
actively change the script to get username information. In it's
unaltered form, arbitron is a very *useful* tool, as Wes described.
On the other hand, if an admin were to fish for any more information,
then that would be trespassing in private areas, and would, at least
here, be likely to result in stiff penalties or even loss of a job.
--
Michael Bryan michael@resonex.com
This offer law where prohibited by void.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: peyote@umiacs.umd.edu (Gary W. Flake)
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <51939@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 20:10:37 GMT
People, please watch the cross-posts. You may notice that I removed
alt.sources from the Newsgroups line. Alt.sources is a computer sources
newsgroup *only*. Please respect our wishes and help us keep our archives
clean. Much of the newsgroup is automatically archived and when you
post discussion here the discussion sneaks into the archive.
Again, check the Newsgroups line.
Consider setting an appropriate Followup-To line as well.
--
Spoken: Gary W. Flake Domain: peyote@umiacs.umd.edu UUCP: uunet!mimsy!peyote
Phone: +1-301-405-6757 USPS: UMIACS, U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: spl@alex.uucp (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Mar 92 20:23:49 GMT
In article <1992Mar25.072712.28187@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Of course I can go into any small public library and find out some things
>about the tastes of the community. Is that bad?
No, that's not bad. What is bad is for the FBI or the Secret
Service to go into a library and ask, say, who's been checking out the
books on Marxism and explosives lately.
spl (the p stands for
plain brown wrapper,
please)
--
"And it is doubtful if even your manure will be rich enough
To keep grass/Over your grave." - Ezra Pound, "Monumentum Aere, Etc."
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@dim.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <9203252033.AA10822@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 08:33:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: seip@aludra.usc.edu (Avenging Angel)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: DIE FAGS!
Date: 23 Mar 1992 23:40:11 -0800
Message-ID:
You all disgust me. You should be put in jail or at least a mental
instutution. It's not natural. Thank God for AIDS
Avenging Angel >:->
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <9203252033.AA10831@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 08:33:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: madjdsad@aludra.usc.edu (Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: DIE FAGS!
Date: 24 Mar 1992 18:36:10 -0800
Message-ID:
aja@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dan E Steele) writes:
>In article seip@aludra.usc.edu (Avenging Angel) writes:
>>
>>You all disgust me. You should be put in jail or at least a mental
>>instutution. It's not natural. Thank God for AIDS
>>
>>
>> Avenging Angel >:->
> The account that posted this msg is owned by Jeremy Seip.
> (A.K.A. Avenging Angel)
> I just love that name. Seip. Jeremy Seip.
>
> Wait, I have to say it one more time. Jeremy Seip.
> What a cute name.
>Hey 19
I should point out that this individual ("Avenging Angel") has been positing
hate mail throughout the net (he also has posted to soc.culture.iranian
stating his belief that all individuals from the Middle East should be dead).
Because of this, I am going to be pursuing a complaint against him at USC for
violating our principles of community. If there are any individuals here who
can provide any commentary of his postings, please forward them to me at
madjdsad@aludra.usc.edu; your assistance in this will be appreciated.
Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi
>
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <9203252034.AA10840@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 08:34:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: Mike_Steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <14057@claris.com>
Date: 24 Mar 92 19:29:01 GMT
In article , seip@aludra.usc.edu (Avenging Angel) writes:
>
>
> You all disgust me. You should be put in jail or at least a mental
> instutution. It's not natural. Thank God for AIDS
Here we go again! Another anal-retentive homophobe stalks our midsts.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <9203252035.AA10849@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 08:35:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.064846.14813@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 06:50:00 GMT
In article <69025@ut-emx.uucp>, mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes...
>In article seip@aludra.usc.edu (Avenging Angel) writes:
>>
>>You all disgust me. You should be put in jail or at least a mental
>>instutution. It's not natural. Thank God for AIDS
>>
>
>Grow up, Jeremy, and get a life (as well as a clue). Despite the
>fact that you are a frosh, haven't you got anything better to do than
>this? And if not, what's the matter? No subtlety? I would expect
>this kind of behavior from a five-year-old, not from a college
>freshman. Save your bigotry for people who give a damn.
>
>Dipshit.
>
I sent an insulting message to the asshole who posted this
originally and this guy Jeremy replied that his account had
been cracked and the post was bogus, apologizing for it.
Dunno if it's true, but thought I'd mention it.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <9203252035.AA10867@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 08:35:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Subject: Re: DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.184534.12431@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 18:45:34 GMT
madjdsad@aludra.usc.edu (Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi) writes:
>I should point out that this individual ("Avenging Angel") has been positing
>hate mail throughout the net (he also has posted to soc.culture.iranian
>stating his belief that all individuals from the Middle East should be dead).
>Because of this, I am going to be pursuing a complaint against him at USC for
>violating our principles of community.
"Principles of community"? Is this a nice label for speech-suppression
regulations? Give it a rest.
>If there are any individuals here who
>can provide any commentary of his postings, please forward them to me at
>madjdsad@aludra.usc.edu; your assistance in this will be appreciated.
How about first investigating that he really made the postings? This has
all the signs of a forgery or cracked account designed to crispy-fry the
account holder.
/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)
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.205435.31172@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 20:54:35 GMT
madjdsad@aludra.usc.edu (Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi) writes:
[...]
>I should point out that this individual ("Avenging Angel") has been positing
>hate mail throughout the net (he also has posted to soc.culture.iranian
>stating his belief that all individuals from the Middle East should be dead).
>Because of this, I am going to be pursuing a complaint against him at USC for
>violating our principles of community. If there are any individuals here who
>can provide any commentary of his postings, please forward them to me at
>madjdsad@aludra.usc.edu; your assistance in this will be appreciated.
[...]
State universities have no authority (i.e. it is illegal for them) to
punish students for hate speech. (They can, of course, punish people
for breaking into other people's computer accounts.) The way to fight
such bad speech is with good speech. A premise of our democracy is
that good speech will out compete bad speech in a free marketplace of
ideas. It is unnecessary and even dangerous to let the government
decide which speech is "bad" and to suppress that speech. Part of the
price we pay for being a (mostly) free and (mostly) sovereign people
is that we will sometimes hear speech that offends us.
I'm enclosing references to the two federal court decisions on state
university speech codes.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom caf
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sources, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203252128.AA11165@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 09:28:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.110946.29795@resonex.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 11:09:46 GMT
In article <1992Mar25.075422.11590@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:
>Personally, if I were going to read a scurrilous newsgroup, I'd cd into
>the spool directory and say "less *".
Interestingly enough, there was a user here doing just that. Since we
have a UUCP news feed, I try to limit the newsgroups to those that are
actually used. My policy is "If you ask for it, I'll get it. If it
isn't being read for several weeks, I'll drop it (especially if it's
high volume.)" Based on arbitron reports, I found that a few groups
hadn't been read, so I dropped the feed for them.
Within a week, the user called up and wanted to know why the group no
longer existed. The user described what they had been doing, and I
explained why that could result in a group being removed even though
it was being "read". They then changed to reading it via trn so that
it would show up in my Arbitron report. An explanation that I never
got told *who* was reading a group, just a count of users, was enough
for them.
I also run arbitron with root id, so the user was able to protect the
.newsrc against all non-root users. That way they maintain total
privacy, and I get the information I need to periodically adjust the
news feed. I never see the individual names, and would never attempt
to collect such information. It is important for me to know the news
groups actually being read. There are several other alternatives I can
think of, all of them worse for one reason or another:
1) Get a full news feed.
Can't do this due to transfer and storage costs.
2) Drop the news feed entirely.
Rather drastic, and would generally be unliked.
3) Ask users to periodically tell me what groups they
are reading, and remove those that aren't being read.
This is even worse than running arbitron, as it
will collect the same information, in addition
to the usernames.
4) Try to "guess" at an appropriate set of groups.
If coupled with my policy of getting anything that
is requested, this would work for awhile. But
eventually this would start incurring too much
cost for newsgroups that nobody reads anymore.
Case in point, over the last month I've trimmed
down groups resulting in a weekly savings of
about 10MB, which is non-trivial for us.
In short, I feel running arbitron is necessary to perform a reasonable
job of system administration. If we could afford a full feed, I'd
say great and throw arbitron out the window. But we can't, and so it
is a way to allow me to tune my system so that we can have a reasonable
news feed, yet still be able to use the system for work.
--
Michael Bryan michael@resonex.com
This offer law where prohibited by void.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.162757.22655@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 21:27:57 GMT
spl@alex.uucp (Steve Lamont) writes:
|No, that's not bad. What is bad is for the FBI or the Secret
|Service to go into a library and ask, say, who's been checking out the
|books on Marxism and explosives lately.
This has actually happened, which is why libraries are in the habit of
deleting patron information as soon as it isn't necessary. That's
really bad.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <9203252135.AA11200@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 09:35:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: DIE FAGS!
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.202245.11970@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 20:22:45 GMT
In article madjdsad@aludra.usc.edu (Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi) writes:
>I should point out that this individual ("Avenging Angel") has been positing
>hate mail throughout the net (he also has posted to soc.culture.iranian
>stating his belief that all individuals from the Middle East should be dead).
>Because of this, I am going to be pursuing a complaint against him at USC for
>violating our principles of community. If there are any individuals here who
>can provide any commentary of his postings, please forward them to me at
>madjdsad@aludra.usc.edu; your assistance in this will be appreciated.
Even if Avenging Angel has been using there real account I don't think you
would get very far. The post are still protected under the first admendment
so no legal action can be taken (unless some where personal threats).
On the other hand legal action can be taken against crackers expecially
since this cracker seriously defamed the person whose account he cracked.
A more constructive approach would be to push the computer center to do a
full investigation of the incident. This is definitly a case of malicious
cracking and not your run of the mill explorer.
--
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 25 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: <1992Mar25.212314.13973@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 21:23:14 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>>And rec does [fit into the educational goals of the University]?
>The rec hierarchy has certain guidelines for newsgroup creation. Alt,
>however, has none, and the System Administration may have decided that it
>is easier not to get alt at all rather than put up with the bullshit of
>deleting 17,000 alt.newsgroups.puke.puke.puke every semester.
That didn't answer the question. And still, they could go for manual
newgrouping for the alt directory.
And still, you are blatently overstating the per semester posting of
joke newgroup messages.
>-- 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 25 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: <1992Mar25.213314.14376@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 21:33:14 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>alt.dev.null The ultimate in moderated newsgroups. (Moderated)
>This one is a joke group; I've never seen *anything* posted to it.
Of course not! It's alt.dev.null! You can't read a null device!
Still, it is very useful. I use it sometimes when I make a post from
which I don't care for any followups. I set Followup-To: alt.dev.null.
Followups will never appear.
>>alt.sources.index Pointers to source code in alt.sources.*. (Moderated)
>Again, this is a moderated group with (as far as I've seen) one poster.
What's so wrong with that? It keeps unauthorized posters from
cluttering the group!
> 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
--
/// ____ \\\ | 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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Privacy perfect news management (was Re: News Group Readership)
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.221003.10783@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 22:10:03 GMT
Disclaimer: This is just speculation. It is a refinement of an idea I
posted to CAF-Talk a long time ago. I'm not advocating it. I realized
that there is no easy way to implement it. I realize that
/usr/spool/news is often on a different disk than /usr/home.
Many sys admins don't seem to like part of the news admin job:
newsgroup selection. Could we create a system in which users did
selection and in which sys admins would no more need to worry about
the contents of what is selected that they worry about the contents of
email?
As a first cut:
Newsgroups are expired by disk use rather than time.
Users are given a quota of /usr/spool/news disk space that they
can allocate as they wish to newsgroups.
Users can subscribe to a newsgroup themselves (if they allocate
disk to it.)
Two newsgroups will be set up (and site sponsered) to allow users
to discuss disk allocation. One will allow pseudonyms.
[Disclaimer: the following is a overly broad claim designed to
generate comment.]
Such a system is *perfect*. It would *totally* meet the goal of
lowering resource use by sharing. It would *guarantee* total user
privacy. It would take news admins *completely* out of the hot seat.
If you can't see this, you must be *stupid*.
- 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 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [rec.radio.noncomm] Re: Safe Harbor and college radio
Message-ID: <9203252249.AA11506@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 10:49:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: rec.radio.noncomm
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 16:46:49 -0500
From: Steven Lloyd Auterman
Subject: Re: Safe Harbor and college radio
Previously posted...this goes far to explicitly define indecent,
obscene and safe harbor, as well as the FCC's actions recently
about safe harbor. Good guidelines for any station to follow
(if broadcasting in the US, that is).
-----------
"Court Strikes Down 24-hours-a-day Indecency Ban"
reprinted without permission from June-July 1991 issue of IBS
Station Manager's Newsletter
The U.S. Court of Appeals has declared unconstitutional the FCC's 24-hour-
a-day ban on the broadcast of any material considered to be "indecent" under
the FCC definition of the term. The May 17th ruling sided with the appeal
filed by Pacifica, IBS and others who opposed the complete ban under First
Amendment reasonable access provisions for adults. The appeal had stayed the
new rules and prevented the 24-hour ban from taking effect pending court
action.
Safe Harbor
In striking down the Commission's ban, the court ordered the FCC to establish
a reasonable "safe harbor" period, presumably during late evening and
overnight,
when so-called "indecent" material could be aired. During this time, the
number of children in the audience would be minimal. In fact, the whole
point of "channeling" this material to late night hours is to provide
protection for children while preserving reasonable access for adults.
An informal "safe harbor" guideline of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. had been used by the
FCC until 1988, when the starting time was changed to 12 Midnight. That
change prompted objections from IBS and others who challenged the Commission
in the courts. At that time, the court upheld the concept of channeling
such material to hours when there was less likelihood children would be
listening, bur required the FCC to justify the basis for changing the starting
time for safe harbor to 12 Midnight.
24-Hour Ban
While the FCC worked at justifying this change, Congress passes and then-
President Reagan signed a bill imposing a 24-hours-a-day ban on the broadcast
of material defined as indecent. Under this mandate, the Commission abandoned
their work on justifying a safe harbor time period and instead wrote rules to
implement the 24-hours-a-day ban. The appeal filed by Pacifica, IBS and others
stayed that ban from taking effect, pending court action.
The latest action by the court is based on their earlier 1988 decision
supporting the use of channeling and a safe harbor period, but requiring the
FCC to justify the times specified for the safe harbor. Essentially, this
puts things back to 1988, before the 24-hour ban became law.
Current Safe Harbor
In the interim, previous safe harbor times are still in effect. Some have
argued this means an effective starting time of 12 Midnight. Others have said
it starts at 10 p.m., and still others have said earlier. From a station's
point of view, at the moment, a 12 Midnight starting time seems to be the
safest to avoid legal problems, at least until the FCC comes up with a
definitive safe harbor designation.
Broadcast industry trade magazine reports indicate that the FCC Chairman,
Alfred Sikes, was disappointed by the court's ruling. Sikes has been known
for his anti-indecency stand. As to whether or not the FCC would appeal, he
said, "We will continue to study the court's action and we will be
discussing any future action with the Solicitor General's office." That
action could include either filing an appeal or compliance with the court's
directive.
Predicting the FCC reaction is tricky. Their choice may involve political
considerations as much as their chances of winning an appeal. For example,
even if their chances for an appeal being granted were not especially good,
the Commission's very pursuit of such an appeal might win some points with
conservative supporters of the administration.
Another issue involves getting the FCC to define the age group of "children"
it wants to protect and the "reasonable risk" of exposing children to
indecent material. Right now, "children" are defined differently for
different purposes.
Indecency vs. Obscenity
The court ruling apparently upholds the FCC's definition of "indecent"
material. Indecent language is defined by the FCC as:
"language or material that depicts or describes, in terms patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the
broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or ograns."
Keep in mind that the FCC has said _it_ will determe what are "contemporary
community standards for the broadcast medium" -- not the local community.
_Indecent_ material may be broadcast only during the safe harbor period and
only if preceded by an appropriate warning announcement.
On the other hand, _obscene_ material may not be broadcast at any time. To
be obscene, according to the FCC, "material must meet a three-prong test:
(1) An average person, applying contemporary community standards,
must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interest and;
(2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state
law; and
(3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary,
artistic, political or scientific value.
_See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)._"
Since the 24-hours-a-day ban never actually went into effect, this latest
ruling should not mean any immediate cahnges for school and college radio
stations.
------------------
Steve "the Roach" Auterman Disemboweled
sa1y+@andrew.cmu.edu Gutteral
General Manager, WRCT Pittsburgh Noise
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.010649.9049@unixland.natick.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:06:49 GMT
michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
>On the other hand, if an admin were to fish for any more information,
>then that would be trespassing in private areas, and would, at least
>here, be likely to result in stiff penalties or even loss of a job.
Interesting. Where I work, System Managers *specifically* search
through user directories to ensure that disk contents are work-related.
This is by Management directive.
--
bill@unixland.natick.ma.us ...!uunet!{think,world}!unixland!bill
Public Access UNIX / USENET / E-MAIL Accounts are available! (508) 655-3848
5 lines - Located in Natick, MA USA Supporting V.32/PEP/V.42bis, etc.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <9203260310.AA13009@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 15:10:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:57:30 GMT
Imagine if you will that a MUD server (Multi User Dimension - an adventure,
chat, programming, etc virtual experience) was running at your site. This
server was being run with your knowledge and permission, and hadn't caused
you any problems. Then one day, someone sends you, the network manager,
and the administrative contact for your site the following message:
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Random User - Podunk University
To: Administrative Contact
Subject: Interactive INTERNET games
I'd like to bring to your attention a growing problem on the internet.
An increasing number of machines at organizations everywhere (including
your own) are running these interactive 'games' called MUDs. A person
can "connect" to these games using TELNET by attaching to a specific
socket (port) on the host machine. Then, a 2-way interactive session is
established with that user. Not only is the game interactive with that
one user, but any other users attached to that same socket are also playing
interactively. Currently, I know of nearly 300 of these games running on
systems everywhere. From experience, I know how much it can slow down
legitemate access to a machine. Games can be fun, and are good as a
stress reliever, but when they start to degrade the service of a network
that is used by people for important research or work, then it's time to
reconsider whether they belong. I'm also sending a list of all the
MUD games that I currently am aware of. Since you are receiving this file,
it means that at least one of your organizations' machines is running one
of the games.
This list has been compiled through the efforts of several
people. It is not by any means complete, as there are many
of these games that remain "hidden" from low use. (or are simply
unknown to any person at this site)
...list of sites...
----------------------------------------------------------------
What would you do?
(Please followup to both groups)
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | "Like beauty and sadness/It's hard
(805) 893-4113 | to love/With so much to hate/I'm
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | feeling worthless" -Life Talking
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <9203260310.AA13018@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 15:10:55 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Mar 92 01:57:52 GMT
I presume that by "your site" you are implying operator status. In
that case, I would, of course, excerpt the pertinent parts of the letter,
insert my own statements to the effect that MUDs are harmless and beneficial,
to say nothing of being the most advanced text-based, object-oriented virtual
reality systems currently in existence. [Buzzwords help, IMHO].
If this happened to you, good luck explaining, and don't forget that
the fact these people hired you implies that they _might_ actually be more
likely to believe you than some twitty user they've never heard of before. :)
-shag
--
_________-_________
______-_---_-______ Freedom belongs to only those
____-----_-----____ Without video screens for eyes and mouth
__---_-_---_-_---__ You have no voice to be heard, my son
_-______---______-_ No one can hear when you're Screaming in Digital
_______-----_______ -Queensryche-
______-_---_-______
________---________ Screaming in Digital - the Queensryche NetDigest
_________-_________
_________-_________ birchall@pilot.njin.net Shag birchall@njin
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <9203260311.AA13027@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 15:11:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.024654.6169@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 02:46:54 GMT
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>Imagine if you will that a MUD server (Multi User Dimension - an adventure,
>chat, programming, etc virtual experience) was running at your site. This
>server was being run with your knowledge and permission, and hadn't caused
>you any problems. Then one day, someone sends you, the network manager,
>and the administrative contact for your site the following message:
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Joe Random User - Podunk University
>To: Administrative Contact
>Subject: Interactive INTERNET games
>[..message deleted..]
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>What would you do?
It's obvious that this outside user is purely out to make trouble. There is
no way he could have a legitimate interest in your site's load. If he is,
perhaps, concerned about users at his site using his site's resources to
connect to your MUD, then he should take care of the problem on his end.
If your higher-ups knew about the existance of the MUD, I can't see how you
would need to do anything. I'm sure they're smart enough to realize that
J.R.U. has no right to complain about what goes on at your site. If they
didn't know, they trusted you enough to hire you, so they should trust your
judgement about the MUD.
--
Thomas Aaron Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
s-mail: URH 227 Saunders, 906 W. College, Urbana IL 61801
I speak for myself, and not for the State or University of Illinois.
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." -- Edward R. Murrow
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203260311.AA13036@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 15:11:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992
From: david@rosalyn.stat.uga.edu (David Gundlach)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.022430.18659@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 92 02:24:30 GMT
And then in <15318@gollum.UMCS.Maine.EDU>, who@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU said...
%
% Well, next time don't send a letter. Just remove the accounts.
Actually, this isn't such a bad idea. Here at the UGA CS department,
there are 'majors' and 'temps' (amongst others...); the temps are for
the quarter only. During the last week of class or so, the message of
the day (which is displayed automatically at login time) says
'Everyone with a temp account will be without one after date X; pull
your stuff to floppies before it explodes.' Everyone sees it
(whoops-- we're on Sun systems, but I think that there's an analogous
feature for all *NIX systems) except those smart enough to figure out
how to avoid it-- and they usually know what's coming.
This will certainly work in the case of the average student who won't
be in a CS class next quarter, and could, with little modification,
work for all who are graduating or leaving ('if you won't be here,
then blah blah...'). This leaves only the abnormal exit case-- the
expelled student, the person who drops out suddenly-- and that can be
taken care of individually-- and often in person.
Hope this is of interest. Comments?
:-D
--
David Gundlach david@marie.stat.uga.edu
System Support and Integration david@rolf.stat.uga.edu
UGA Statistics david@castor.cs.uga.edu
University of Georgia david@groucho.dev.uga.edu
404/542-3289 or 404/542-5232 BITNET: statuga@uga
"I think, therefore I am wrong." -- me
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9203261426.aa07757@s.s.ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 14:25:58 GMT
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: morgan
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Moderated alt groups (was Re: news story on U. of Nebraska ...)
References: <1992Mar24.151206.7768@eff.org>
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.92555.7749@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 14:25:55 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
X-Bytes: 1992
Lines: 42
In article <1992Mar24.151206.7768@eff.org> kadie@eff.ORG (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>[...]
>>>alt.society.cu-digest Postings about the Computer Underground. (Moderated)
>
>>This newsgroup, as well as alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, is not truly
>>moderated. It is used for the distribution of a digest; the only people
>>who ever post to these groups are the editors of the respective digests.
>>I suspect that alt.society.ati is one of these as well, but I haven't
>>seen enough of it to know.
>[...]
>
>What difference does it make if the moderater reposts accepted
>articles one at a time under the authors' names or whether the
>moderater reposted accepted articles a batch at a time under the
>moderator's name?
The difference is that no articles are posted to the moderated group
in question EXCEPT those digests of OTHER material posted by the moderator.
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, for example, carries no traffic except digests
of the traffic in a completely different newsgroup, alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk.
alt.society.cu-digest doesn't carry any traffic other than issues of CuD,
which is an EMAIL-based digest.
Contrast this with comp.sources.misc. The c.s.m moderator receives postings
TO THAT GROUP, which he reviews and posts. The newsgroups I mentioned earlier
(a.c.a-f.news, alt.society.cu-digest, and alt.society.ati), on the other hand,
doesn't receive any posts; the only items posted there are selections from
other newsgroups/mailing lists.
Most moderated groups are moderated forums; several, such as cu-digest and
acad-freedom.news, are one-way distributions of previously prepared material
from other newsgroups.
--
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 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9203261504.aa11755@s.s.ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:04:56 GMT
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: morgan
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
References: <1992Mar21.193024.9707@unlinfo.unl.edu>
<1992Mar25.201547.7715@eff.org>
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.100110.11401@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:01:10 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
X-Bytes: 4614
Lines: 86
mnemonic@eff.ORG (Mike Godwin) writes:
>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.
>
>The problem is that, while the university may be articulating its decision
>in terms of educational goals, it is almost certainly based on fear of
>news coverage and/or legislative disapproval of the availability of
>material with sexual or otherwise disturbing content. Hence the reference
>to state pornography laws in the story, in spite of the fact that the
>textual material in the alt.sex hierarchy is almost certainly not a
>violation of applicable obscenity laws.
I believe that Mike is referring to the specific case under discussion;
however, I'd like to apply his comments to a general situation.
Suppose that a news admin makes a simple statement, such as:
"We cannot carry every newsgroup; we are limited by both our
resources (or shortage thereof) and our academic mission.
Therefore, we will not carry the soc.*, rec.*, or alt.* hierarchies."
Will the Usenet community laud this admin for his adherence to his
site's mission/goals? I don't think so; I think we'd see dozens of
posting screaming about "censorship", "fascist admins", and "the user's
right to a full feed".
>If the university merely applied the same criteria to
>Usenet that it applies to its libraries, it is likely that there'd be
>little or nothing to complain about.
A university creates/maintains a library for a specific purpose. While
many universities share their resources (through interlibrary loans, for
example), there are certainly some that do not.
Usenet, on the other hand, is not "created" by a particular site. It is
an amorphous conglomerate that, by default, spans every sector of society.
Usenet includes commercial sites, educational institutions, government agen-
cies, and private systems (the 486 PC in a friend's house is the perfect
example). It spans the jurisdiction of almost every US state, as well as
those of dozens of nations. It travels over phone lines controlled/paid
for by government networks, regional networks, and individual sites.
I don't believe that we can create a "Usenet policy" that can be equally
applied to these widely variant networks/sites/contributors.
>If the University of Nebraska carries
>books by Norman Mailer, D.H. Lawrence, Erica Jong, or Bret Easton Ellis in
>its libraries, it is inconsistent for it to object to the textual content
>of the alt.sex hierarchy.
If we are discussing obscenity, it is important to address the "community
standards" portion of the relevant definition. Standards of obscenity
vary widely with jurisdictions; for example, the state of Indiana recently
banned nude dancing, even though many other states do not restrict it. I
can easily envison a Usenet posting (or a book, or a movie) which would be
tolerated in one jurisdiction and treated as obscenity in another; in fact,
I think we've all seen such postings/books/movies.
The transient nature of Usenet makes comparisons to printed materials
difficult, if not impossible. I can examine a novel by Mailer and make
a qualified judgement of its "obscenity", according to my understanding
of the local jurisdiction's interpretation of the term. I can read several
issues of a magazine and make a qualified judgement of its "style"; I can
estimate the likelihood of that magazine's tresspass into the local version
of "obscenity". I cannot make a similar judgement of a Usenet newsgroup; I
cannot "preview" its contents, nor can I estimate future "style" or content
by examination of "past issues".
Library selection policies are based, in part, on the notion that the
materials in question are somewhat fixed in nature. I don't think that
anyone will come into my library and render my copy of Faulkner "obscene".
I don't think that _National Review_ will suddenly become a magazine for
pedophiles. Usenet, on the other hand, is an embodiment of fluctuation.
How can I apply "library selection policies" to something which is constantly
changing?
--
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 26 00:00:00 1992
From: mfa@aux.eng.hou.compaq.com (Michael Angelo)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.144448.1035@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>
Date: 26 Mar 92 14:44:48 GMT
> Interesting addendum: Someone here brought up the possibility that
> sexaul harassment laws might have an impact on what our *lab users*
> could display on their machines, in that some of our *employees* who
> work in those labs are female. Comments?
Yup, they can or will have an impact. It has nothing to do with
sex however. The way the laws are written if someone in your lab feels
uncomfortable by being in the work place because of the pictures they can
file a suit. Note: It is the same with racially oriented jokes, sexually
explicit comments etc.
ps. It is not the person who is at risk in a sexual harassment suit, but
the company, or college. ie. The computers are resources of the company /
college. As such it is their responsibility to see that they are not used in
an 'illegal' manner.
**** My Opinion *****
As a side note: work is work, my free time is mine. It is my opinion
that if people want to look at material that is not work related they shouldn't
do it at work. ie. If they must look at sexually explicit material, then
why can't the spend the money and buy the sex books themselves. If they
can't wait till they get home, or on their own time, then they should seek
professional help.
--
Michael F. Angelo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compaq Computer Corporation | Internet:mfa@compaq.com
P.O. Box 692000 - M050701 | UUCP(hme):rice.edu!uller!mfa
Houston, TX 77269-2000 | PHNE:(wrk): (713) 374-8141
Senior Software Engineer | PHNE:(fax): (713) 374-7305
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those
of my employer.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.102742.17453@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:27:42 GMT
gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>>alt.sources.index Pointers to source code in alt.sources.*. (Moderated)
>
>>Again, this is a moderated group with (as far as I've seen) one poster.
>
>What's so wrong with that? It keeps unauthorized posters from
>cluttering the group!
There isn't anything "wrong" with it; however, you can't place it at the
same level as, say, comp.sources.misc. The c.s.m moderator receives post-
ings from users, examines them, and posts the ones which meet his criteria.
(I haven't seen any "rejection rates" for c.s.m or the like; I'd be interes-
ted in such information) alt.sources.index, on the other hand, is one person's
project; there is no participation from other users; in fact, it may very well
be automated!
The same rationale applies to alt.society.cu-digest and alt.comp.acad-
freedom.news; they are not participatory moderated groups. They are
used by one person (or a group of editors) to post their own materials;
others users do/can not make submissions to those newsgroups directly.
--
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 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9203261521.aa15322@s.s.ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:21:06 GMT
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom,comp.unix.admin
Path: morgan
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: [comp.unix.admin] Is this privacy violation ?
References: <9203241854.AA02627@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.102100.15263@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:21:00 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
X-Bytes: 2701
Lines: 66
>From: wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin)
>
>Before we delete the users' accounts we e-mail to them a notice
>that their accounts will be deleted in 10 days.
>We simply used 'mail xx yy zz ...... etc'.
>
>Now a user zz complain that he does not want others (xx zz .... etc) to know
>that he is not registered and argues that we simply violated his
>privacy.
>
>We are going to mail to each user from now on anyway, but I am still confused.
>Does anyone have a similar experience ?
I've been thinking about user deletions for some time; here's the method
I've developed (and will be implementing in a day or so):
When I delete accounts, I won't send advance email. The users are told,
upon receipt of their userid/password, that their accounts are only valid
while they are affiliated with the College.
I'll change their login shell to a program that merely prints out something
like this:
According to our records, you are no longer affiliated with the
College of Engineering. Therefore, your access to Engineering
systems has been terminated.
Your files will not be deleted until . If you would
like to transfer your files to another system, or if you would
like to have a tape containing your files, contact
at .
If you believe that this action has been taken in error, please
contact in as soon as
possible.
If the user doesn't contact me within the prescribed time period, his/her
files are written to a master backup (the "Spring 1992 Deletions" tape, for
example), and then their directories are removed.
I think this addresses the most important concerns:
- User privacy is (supposedly) assured; the only way to see this
message is to use the proper login/password.
- Mail hackers (if they exist) won't get advance notice that an
account is to be terminated.
- The user is informed that he can transfer his files or make a
backup tape for personal use; his files are maintained during
the availability of this service.
- The management is rather easy; when the time window is closed,
a simple shell script will find all affected users, collect their
files in a single location, and archive them to tape. (I've already
written/tested this shell script, by the way).
Comments?
--
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 26 00:00:00 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.160124.27043@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 92 16:01:24 GMT
In article <1992Mar26.010649.9049@unixland.natick.ma.us> bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
>Interesting. Where I work, System Managers *specifically* search
>through user directories to ensure that disk contents are work-related.
>This is by Management directive.
Your employer has the right to do so on their privately owned
machines, of course, but at the very least they should (and should,
IMHO, be required to) make this policy very clear.
And, of course, you have the right to choose your employer. (Yeah, I
know, there's a depression going on in the USA, but then, you don't have
``a right to work'' in this country.)
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.162713.9886@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 92 16:27:13 GMT
In article francis@styracosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) writes:
>Interesting addendum: Someone here brought up the possibility that
>sexaul harassment laws might have an impact on what our *lab users*
>could display on their machines, in that some of our *employees* who
>work in those labs are female. Comments?
Whether your employees are female, male, or other, has *absolutely*
*nothing* to do with this. The assumption that it does is at the
very core of sexism.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Global Policy (was "Network distribution of Pornographic material")
Message-ID: <9203261819.AA01240@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 06:19:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
From: bbh@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Global Policy (was "Network distribution of Pornographic material")
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.055741.17971@mtek.com>
Date: 26 Mar 92 05:57:41 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>This peels another layer from the onion of "global Netnews policy". I
>once mentioned the difficulty of designing a policy that could equally
>apply to governmental, corporate, educational, and private institutions.
>I can see now that any such policy will also have to be extremely specific
>in its dealings with individual groups of users at some institutions (namely,
>educational sites).
>This would seem to reinforce my comment that a "global netnews policy"
>or "netnews bill of rights" is essentially impossible.
It is important to *not* interchange "policy" and "procedure", since the
latter merely implements the former, which must come first. Different
procedures can equally accomplish the same policy objectives, so unitary
global policy neither bars diversity of local (i.e., "specific")
procedure, nor need dictate its particular contents.
For example, it is difficult to imagine that there should be much debate
about whether policy should prohibit a user from subverting the local --
or any other -- computing system. The local procedural action that might
be taken against a violator, however, might vary broadly from site to
site, depending on the mission of the owning organization, and the
constituencies it serves.
Policy should be fully independent of procedure.
This kind of portability should be viewed as a feature of well-crafted
policy, and certainly *not* a bug. ^^^^^^^
--
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
"Everyone can be taught to sculpt: Michelangelo would have had to be taught how
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9203261839.AA01354@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 06:39:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
From: dave@galaxia.newport.ri.us (David H. Brierley)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.035019.13864@galaxia.newport.ri.us>
Date: 26 Mar 92 03:50:19 GMT
In article <1992Mar24.222704.11488@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Check out the "bcc:", or blind carbon copy, feature of your mailer.
>This is an easy way to send one note to a list of people without the
>recipients "seeing" each other. Set "To:" to a dummy address like
Better test this out thoroughly before you try it! The specifications for the
Bcc header only guarantee that the normal recipients wont see the contents of
the Bcc list, they do not guarantee that multiple Bcc recipients will not see
each other listed as recipients. This very subject was discussed not too long
ago in one of the comp.mail.* groups (probably comp.mail.sendmail).
--
David H. Brierley
Home: dave@galaxia.newport.ri.us; Work: dhb@quahog.ssd.ray.com
Send comp.sources.3b1 submissions to comp-sources-3b1@galaxia.newport.ri.us
%% Can I be excused, my brain is full. **
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203261838.AA01344@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 06:38:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
From: elw@netx.com (Edwin Wiles)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <934@netxcom.netx.com>
Date: 26 Mar 92 15:44:53 GMT
In article <1992Mar23.232208.6654@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article simong@ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory) writes:
>> 1) Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
>>to look at the text of an article?
>
>IMHO, no. The postmaster should have the right/ability to look at the
>_headers_ of mail messages when failure of automatic delivery makes it
>necessary to do so, and nothing further. Unfortunately this is difficult
>with today's software... but see below.
While in principle I agree that a postmaster should not read the
contents of mail, I've found that in a commercial environment, when
mail fails, you HAVE to read the contents for two reasons: 1) They've
so totally munged the headers that you cannot figure out from the headers
who it's supposed to go to, and 2) is it an important enough message [from
a buisness point of view] for me to take time to straighten it out, or
can I just blow it away.
While some of you will no doubt scream that #2 is totally unacceptable,
please keep in mind that this is a _commercial_ environment with many
other demands on a SysAdmin/Postmaster's time, and s/he simply CANNOT
afford to 'waste' time on frivolous/non-critical mail.
>In any case, I think this whole issue will disappear quite soon, pending
>the widespread acceptance of public-key cryptography standards and the
>wide availability of software that can take advantage of such. With such
>software, the body of a message would always be encrypted with the
>recipient's public key, and privacy would be ensured. Sometimes technology
>can pre-empt policy! ;-)
>--
>Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
>Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
>Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
>South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
--
ONLY: elw@netx.com Edwin Wiles
NetExpress Inc., Suite 300,
Who? Me?!? Responsible!?! Surely You Jest! Vienna, VA, USA 22182
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.185853.1263@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 18:58:53 GMT
greg@dickens.com (Greg Guldenschuh) writes:
[...]
>If someone is not a registered student, then it logically follows that they
>are not "really" a student and therefore are not covered by the legislation.
[...]
Except that the law specially talks about former students.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.192447.1344@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 19:24:47 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>I believe that Mike is referring to the specific case under discussion;
>however, I'd like to apply his comments to a general situation.
>Suppose that a news admin makes a simple statement, such as:
> "We cannot carry every newsgroup; we are limited by both our
> resources (or shortage thereof) and our academic mission.
> Therefore, we will not carry the soc.*, rec.*, or alt.* hierarchies."
>Will the Usenet community laud this admin for his adherence to his
>site's mission/goals? I don't think so; I think we'd see dozens of
>posting screaming about "censorship", "fascist admins", and "the user's
>right to a full feed".
[...]
You are less likely to be criticized for making that simple statement
if it is true and if people have reason to believe it is true. In the
case of UNL, many people don't believe that the justification given
was their true motivation. Moreover, there is no reason to believe
that it is true because the policy was made in secrete and because
some of the committee members have since given other justifications.
[...]
>A university creates/maintains a library for a specific purpose. While
>many universities share their resources (through interlibrary loans, for
>example), there are certainly some that do not.
>Usenet, on the other hand, is not "created" by a particular site. It is
>an amorphous conglomerate that, by default, spans every sector of society.
I don't think "university library" is analogous to "Usenet", however,
I do think that "university library" is analogous to "Usenet/Netnews
facility on a university computer". I think "Usenet/Netnews" is
analogous to "books and magazines".
>Usenet includes commercial sites, educational institutions, government agen-
>cies, and private systems (the 486 PC in a friend's house is the perfect
>example). It spans the jurisdiction of almost every US state, as well as
>those of dozens of nations. It travels over phone lines controlled/paid
>for by government networks, regional networks, and individual sites.
Books and magazines are read at commercial sites, educational
institutions, government agencies, and in private homes. They are read
and created in the jurisdiction of almost every US state, as well as
almost every national. They travel over roads and via mail systems
controlled/paid for by the government. They are also distributed in
via UPS and book stores. They are shared person to person.
>I don't believe that we can create a "Usenet policy" that can be equally
>applied to these widely variant networks/sites/contributors.
I don't believe that we can create a "book and magazine policy" that
can be equally applied to these widely variant distribution methods
and sites.
I do, however, believe that we can create a academic library policy
(and academic Usenet facility policy).
>>If the University of Nebraska carries
>>books by Norman Mailer, D.H. Lawrence, Erica Jong, or Bret Easton Ellis in
>>its libraries, it is inconsistent for it to object to the textual content
>>of the alt.sex hierarchy.
>If we are discussing obscenity, it is important to address the "community
>standards" portion of the relevant definition.
The community standards are the same for the library and for Usenet.
> Standards of obscenity
>vary widely with jurisdictions; for example, the state of Indiana recently
>banned nude dancing, even though many other states do not restrict it.
The Court did not say that nude dancing was obscene; they said nude
dancing wasn't expression.
>The transient nature of Usenet makes comparisons to printed materials
>difficult, if not impossible. I can examine a novel by Mailer and make
>a qualified judgment of its "obscenity", according to my understanding
>of the local jurisdiction's interpretation of the term.
Actually, this is very hard to do.
> I can read several
>issues of a magazine and make a qualified judgment of its "style"; I can
>estimate the likelihood of that magazine's trespass into the local version
>of "obscenity".
This is even harder to do.
> I cannot make a similar judgment of a Usenet newsgroup; I
>cannot "preview" its contents, nor can I estimate future "style" or content
>by examination of "past issues".
It may be a harder for Usenet, but I don't think it is significantly
harder. Moreover, very little material is legally obscene. No textual
material has been found obscene since _Miller_. The pictures in
_Playboy_ and _Penthouse_ are, as far as I know, legally protected in
all 50 states. I've never heard of a university or library getting in
trouble for obscene material.
Your inability to check out every article can protect you. In _Cubby
v. Compuserv_ the judge decided that CompuServe wasn't responsible for
defamatory statements on its computer, saying "CompuServe has no more
editorial control over such a publication than does a public library,
bookstore or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for
CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially
defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do
so."
[I'll address the last paragraph of Wes Morgan's article in another article.]
- 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 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Moderated "alt" groups (was Re: news story on U. of Nebraska)
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.195149.1735@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 19:51:49 GMT
The UNL newspaper article suggested (but didn't explicitly say) that
one justification for removing "alt" groups was that most other groups
were moderated while all "alt" groups were all free speech forums.
The suggestion has been disputed at two levels. First, as to the
facts.
Are most other groups moderated? No, most other groups are free
speech forums.
Are all "alt" groups free speech forums? No. Several are moderated.
Wes Morgan points out that most of these are not classic moderated
groups. For example, you can post a reply to
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, but instead of going to me or another
CAF-News editor, it will appear in alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk first.
In any case, not all "alt" groups are free speech forums. If a
university felt compelled to eliminate free speech forums, removing
the "alt" groups would not be the most effective way to do it.
The suggestion was also disputed on a second level. Even if the "alt"
groups are a haven for free speech, in what way does that justify
removal?
- 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 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Status of UDel's Responsible Computing Policy
Message-ID: <199203261954.AA01778@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 09:54:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: richard@RAVEL.UDEL.EDU (Richard Gordon)
Subject: Status of UDel's Responsible Computing Policy
Message-ID: <199203261710.AA28512@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 06:54:08 GMT
Some of you may recall seeing my postings to ethics-l or a talk at
NCCV, or articles other places about the saga of the development of a
Policy for Responsible Computing at the University of Delaware. Seems
like last year at this time, I said that we were about to get on
Faculty Senate's agenda. The policy will FINALLY be on Faculty
Senate's agenda on May 4, 1992.
Our document has evolved considerably over the past 58 months and is
now in pretty good shape--well, I think so. BTW, even though the
policy has not been adopted here yet, those of us working on these
documents are amused that several colleges and universities in Canada
and the U.S. have adapted parts of either our policy statement or the
implementation guidelines for use on their campuses. (If you choose to
do so at your location, just let us know.)
Here is the notice I posted this morning to a local bulletin board; it
includes anon ftp locations of the files. Holler if you are unable to
ftp the files but wish to examine them and I'll e-mail 'em to you. As
always, comments are welcome, particularly on the implementation
guidelines.
Best,
Richard
-----
Article 1238 of udel.general:
From: richard@ravel.udel.edu (Richard Gordon)
Subject: Responsible Computing Policy on May Faculty Senate Agenda
On Monday, May 4, 1992, at 4:00 pm, The University of Delaware Faculty
Senate is tentatively scheduled to take up the Policy for Responsible
Computing at the University of Delaware. The policy statement under
consideration is in the file "pub/udel.policy_draft", available via
anonymous ftp from zebra.cns.udel.edu.
Staff in CNS have prepared a companion document, Recommended Guidelines
for Units Implementing the Policy for Responsible Computing at the
University of Delaware. A copy of the most recent draft of this
document is in the file "pub/udel.guidelines_draft", available via
anonymous ftp from zebra.cns.udel.edu.
All faculty senators will have printed copies of both documents
made available to them prior to the May 4 meeting.
The current draft of the policy statement and recommended guidelines
are the result of work done by staff in CNS; the Faculty Senate
Committee on Instructional, Computing, and Research Support Services;
and an ad hoc subcommittee of the Committee on Information Resource
Planning and Management (CIRPM). Furthermore, CNS staff and the
committees' members have directly solicited comments from other staff,
faculty, administrators, and students. Finally, the Faculty Senate
committee held an open hearing on this matter on February 14, 1992.
We thank the chairs of the Faculty Senate Committee over the past three
years--1989-90: David Usher (LHS), 1990-91: Madeline Lambrecht
(Nursing), and 1991-92: Bob Wilson (Urban Affairs); the chair of the
CIRPM subcommittee, Jean Brown (University Archives); and the members
of those committees for the hard work done on the policy over the past
several years.
--
Richard Gordon richard@brahms.udel.edu
CNS User Services, Smith Hall or gordon@udel.edu
University of Delaware or acs02244@udelvm.bitnet
Newark, DE 19716 USA (302-831-1717) or richard.gordon@mvs.udel.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Is this a privacy violation ?
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 20:46:01 GMT
[moving to comp.admin.policy, since it's a general admin issue]
Wes> == Wes Morgan
Wes> I was considering changing the mailer's error message in these
Wes> cases from "user unknown" to "This individual is no longer
Wes> affiliated with the College of Engineering; this user no longer
Wes> exists." Hopefully, the user(s) on the other end (or their
Wes> postmasters) would see the message and cease the dumping.
Wes> Would you consider this message a violation of the ex-user's privacy?
I wouldn't, but some might. My personal solution to this would be to
change the error message to "this user no longer exists", removing the
clause about affiliation. I know that the one implies the other, but in
this case, you're probably better off pulling a CYA... *sigh*
--
Christopher Davis | ECONOMIC OBSERVATIONS DEPARTMENT
System Manager & Postmaster | "There's always something going out of
Electronic Frontier Foundation | business in Central Square."
+1 617 864 0665 NIC: [CKD1] | -Rita Marie Rouvalis
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Status of UDel's Responsible Computing Policy
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.220726.4986@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 22:07:26 GMT
Recommended Guidelines
for
Units Implementing
The Policy for
Responsible Computing
at the
University of Delaware
Draft
March 23, 1992
Prepared by staff in
Computing and Network Services
University of Delaware
-----
Table of Contents
Preface ii
Definition of Terms iii
Policy for Responsible Computing 1
at the University of Delaware
User Responsibilities 3
System Administrator Responsibilities 4
Misuse of Computing and Information Resource Privileges 5
User Confidentiality and System Integrity 6
Judicial Process for Cases of Alleged Misuse of Computing 7
and Information Resource Privileges and Penalties for
Misuse of Computing and Information Resource Privileges
Academic Honesty 8
Works Consulted 9
-----
Preface
The computer has become a common denominator that knows no
intellectual, political, or bureaucratic bounds; the Sherwin Williams
of necessity that covers the world, spanning all points of view. . . .
I wish that we lived in a golden age, where ethical behavior was
assumed; where technically competent programmers respected the privacy
of others; where we didn't need locks on our computers. . . .
Fears for security really do louse up the free flow of information.
Science and social progress only take place in the open. The paranoia
that hackers leave in their wake only stifles our work.
-Cliff Stoll, in The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a spy through
the maze of computer espionage
One of the interesting facets of Cliff Stoll's The Cuckoo's Egg is his
growing awareness of the responsibilities all computer users have to
each other. It is our hope that this set of Guidelines can foster that
same understanding in the University of Delaware community.
It is imperative that all users of the University's computing and
information resources realize how much these resources require
responsible behavior from all users. Simply put, we are all
responsible for the well-being of the computing, network, and
information resources we use.
Universities do try to promote the open exchange of ideas; however, an
open, cooperative computing network can be vulnerable to abuse or
misuse. As more and more schools, colleges, universities, businesses,
government agencies, and other enterprises become attached to the
world-wide computing and information networks, it is more important
than ever that this University educate its students, faculty, and staff
about proper ethical behavior, acceptable computing practices, and how
"computer vandalism" interferes with the exchange of ideas that is
integral to a modern education.
The first item in the body of this document is the Policy for
Responsible Computing at the University of Delaware, approved by the
Faculty Senate of the University of Delaware on (date will go here).
The remainder of this document consists of recommended guidelines for
implementing this policy. If you have any questions about the policy
or the guidelines, please consult with your system administrator, with
the staff in Computing and Network Services, or with your dean, project
director, supervisor, chair, or advisor.
-----
Definition of Terms
Administrative Officer: vice-president, dean, chair, or director to
whom an individual reports.
Computer Account: the combination of a user number, username, or
userid and a password that allows an individual access to a mainframe
computer or some other shared computer.
Data Owner: the individual or department that can authorize access to
information, data, or software and that is responsible for the
integrity and accuracy of that information, data, or software.
Specifically, the data owner can be the author of the information,
data, or software or can be the individual or department that has
negotiated a license for the University's use of the information, data,
or software.
Desktop Computers, Microcomputers, Advanced Workstations: different
classes of smaller computers, some shared, some single-user systems.
If owned or leased by the University or if owned by an individual and
connected to a University-owned, leased, or operated network, use of
these computers is covered by the Policy for Responsible Computing.
Information Resources: In the context of these Guidelines, this phrase
refers to data or information and the software and hardware that makes
that data or information available to users.
Mainframe Computers: "central" computers capable of use by several
people at once. Also referred to as "time-sharing systems."
Network: a group of computers and peripherals that share information
electronically, typically connected to each other by either cable or
satellite link.
Normal Resource Limits: the amount of disk space, memory, printing,
etc. allocated to your computer account by that computer's system
administrator.
Peripherals: special-purpose devices attached to a computer or
computer network--for example, printers, scanners, plotters, etc.
Project Director: person charged with administering a group of
computer accounts and the computing resources used by the people using
those computer accounts.
Server: a computer that contains information shared by other computers
on a network.
Software: programs, data, or information stored on magnetic media
(tapes, disks, diskettes, cassettes, etc.). Usually used to refer to
computer programs.
System Administrator: staff employed by a central computing agency such
as Computing and Network Services whose responsibilities include
system, site, or network administration and staff employed by other
University departments whose duties include system, site, or network
administration. System administrators perform functions including, but
not limited to, installing hardware and software, managing a computer
or network, and keeping a computer operational. If you have a
computer on your desk, you may be acting, in whole or in part, as that
system's system administrator.
User: someone who does not have system administrator responsibilities
for a computer system or network but who makes use of that computer
system or network. A user is still responsible for his or her use of
the computer and for learning proper data management strategies.
-----
Policy for Responsible Computing at the University of Delaware
Preamble
In support of its mission of teaching, research, and public service,
the University of Delaware provides access to computing and information
resources for students, faculty, and staff, within institutional
priorities and financial capabilities.
The Policy for Responsible Computing at the University of Delaware
contains the governing philosophy for regulating faculty, student, and
staff use of the University's computing resources. It spells out the
general principles regarding appropriate use of equipment, software,
and networks. By adopting this policy, the Faculty Senate recognizes
that all members of the University are also bound by local, state, and
federal laws relating to copyrights, security, and other statutes
regarding electronic media. The policy also recognizes the
responsibility of faculty and system administrators to take a
leadership role in implementing the policy and assuring that the
University community honors the policy.
Policy
All members of the University community who use the University's
computing and information resources must act responsibly. Every user
is responsible for the integrity of these resources. All users of
University-owned or University-leased computing systems must respect
the rights of other computing users, respect the integrity of the
physical facilities and controls, and respect all pertinent license and
contractual agreements. It is the policy of the University of Delaware
that all members of its community act in accordance with these
responsibilities, relevant laws and contractual obligations, and the
highest standard of ethics.
Access to the University's computing facilities is a privilege granted
to University students, faculty, and staff. Access to University
information resources may be granted by the owners of that information
based on the owner's judgement of the following factors: relevant laws
and contractual obligations, the requestor's need to know, the
information's sensitivity, and the risk of damage to or loss by the
University.
The University reserves the right to limit, restrict, or extend
computing privileges and access to its information resources. Data
owners--whether departments, units, faculty, students, or staff--may
allow individuals other than University faculty, staff, and students
access to information for which they are responsible, so long as such
access does not violate any license or contractual agreement;
University policy; or any federal, state, county, or local law or
ordinance.
University computing facilities and accounts are to be used for the
University-related activities for which they are assigned. University
computing resources are not to be used for commercial purposes or
non-University-related activities without written authorization from
the University. In these cases, the University will require payment
of appropriate fees. This policy applies equally to all University-
owned or University-leased computers.
Users and system administrators must all guard against abuses that
disrupt or threaten the viability of all systems, including those at
the University and those on networks to which the University's systems
are connected. Access to information resources without proper
authorization from the data owner, unauthorized use of University
computing facilities, and intentional corruption or misuse of
information resources are direct violations of the University's
standards for conduct as outlined in the University of Delaware Policy
Manual, the Personnel Policies and Procedures for Professional and
Salaried Staff, the Faculty Handbook, University collective bargaining
agreements, and the Official Student Handbook and may also be
considered civil or criminal offenses.
Implementation
Appropriate University administrators should adopt guidelines for the
implementation of this policy within each unit and regularly revise
these guidelines as circumstances, including--but not limited
to--changes in technology, warrant. The Associate Vice President for
Computing and Network Services shall, from time to time, issue
recommended guidelines to assist departments and units with this
effort.
Enforcement
Alleged violations of this policy shall be processed according to the
judicial processes outlined in the University of Delaware Policy
Manual, the Personnel Policies and Procedures for Professional and
Salaried Staff, the Faculty Handbook, University collective bargaining
agreements, and the Official Student Handbook. The University of
Delaware treats access and use violations of computing facilities,
equipment, software, information resources, networks, or privileges
seriously and may also prosecute abuse under Title 11, 931-939 of the
Delaware Code, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, or other
appropriate laws.
March 5, 1992
-----
User Responsibilities
If you use the University's computing resources or facilities, you have
the following responsibilities:
- Use the University's computing facilities and information
resources, including hardware, software, networks, and computer
accounts, responsibly and appropriately, respecting the rights
of other computing users and respecting all contractual and
license agreements.1
- Use only those computers and computer accounts for which you
have authorization.
- Use mainframe accounts only for the purpose(s) for which they
have been issued. Use University-owned microcomputers and
advanced workstations for University-related projects only.
- Be responsible for all use of your accounts and for protecting
each account's password. In other words, do not share computer
accounts. If someone else learns your password, you must
change it.
- Report unauthorized use of your accounts to your project
director, instructor, supervisor, system administrator, or
other appropriate University authority.
- Cooperate with system administrator requests for information
about computing activities. Under certain unusual
circumstances, a system administrator is authorized to access
your computer files.
- Take reasonable and appropriate steps to see that all hardware
and software license agreements are faithfully executed on any
system, network, or server that you operate.
Each user is ultimately responsible for his or her own computing and
his or her own work using a computer. Take this responsibility
seriously. For example, users should remember to make backup copies of
their data, files, programs, diskettes, and tapes, particularly those
created on microcomputers and those used on individually- or
departmentally-operated systems. Furthermore, users with desktop
computers or other computers that they operate themselves must remember
that they may be acting as the system administrators for those
computers and need to take that responsibility very seriously.
If you are a project director for a group of mainframe computing users,
a supervisor whose staff use computers, or a faculty member whose
students use computers, you must help your project members, staff, or
students learn more about ethical computing practices. You should also
help your project members, staff, or students learn about good
computing practices and data management.
-----
System Administrator Responsibilities
This document uses the phrase system administrator to refer to all of
the following University personnel:
- staff employed by a central computing agency such as Computing
and Network Services whose responsibilities include system,
site, or network administration
- staff employed by other University departments whose duties
include system, site, or network administration.
A system administrator's use of the University's computing resources is
governed by the same guidelines as any other user's computing
activity. However, a system administrator has additional
responsibilities to the users of the network, site, system, or systems
he or she administers:
- A system administrator manages systems, networks, and servers
to provide available software and hardware to users for their
University computing.
- A system administrator is responsible for the security of a
system, network, or server.
- A system administrator must take reasonable and appropriate
steps to see that all hardware and software license agreements
are faithfully executed on all systems, networks, and servers
for which he or she has responsibility.
- A system administrator must take reasonable precautions to
guard against corruption of data or software or damage to
hardware or facilities.2
- A system administrator must treat information about and
information stored by the system's users as confidential.
As an aid to a better understanding of responsible computing practices,
all departments that own or lease computing equipment are encouraged to
develop "Conditions Of Use" or "Guidelines for Responsible Computing"
documentation for all systems that they operate and to make these
documents available to users. These documents should be consistent
with the "Policy for Responsible Computing at the University of
Delaware" (reprinted on pages 1-2 of these Guidelines) and should be
approved by the department's administrative officer or other individual
designated by that administrative officer.
-----
Misuse of Computing and Information Resource Privileges
The University characterizes misuse of computing and information
resources and privileges as unethical and unacceptable and as just
cause for taking disciplinary action. Misuse of computing and
information resources and privileges includes, but is not restricted
to, the following:
- attempting to modify or remove computer equipment, software, or
peripherals without proper authorization
- accessing computers, computer software, computer data or
information, or networks without proper authorization,
regardless of whether the computer, software, data,
information, or network in question is owned by the University
(That is, if you abuse the networks to which the University
belongs or the computers at other sites connected to those
networks, the University will treat this matter as an abuse of
your University of Delaware computing privileges.)
- circumventing or attempting to circumvent normal resource
limits, logon procedures, and security regulations
- using computing facilities, computer accounts, or computer data
for purposes other than those for which they were intended or
authorized
- sending fraudulent computer mail, breaking into another user's
electronic mailbox, or reading someone else's electronic mail
without his or her permission
- sending any fraudulent electronic transmission, including but
not limited to fraudulent requests for confidential
information, fraudulent submission of electronic purchase
requisitions or journal vouchers, and fraudulent electronic
authorization of purchase requisitions or journal vouchers
- violating any software license agreement or copyright,
including copying or redistributing copyrighted computer
software, data, or reports without proper, recorded
authorization
- violating the property rights of copyright holders who are in
possession of computer-generated data, reports, or software
- using the University's computing resources to harass or
threaten other users
- taking advantage of another user's naivete or negligence to
gain access to any computer account, data, software, or file
that is not your own and for which you have not received
explicit authorization to access
- physically interfering with other users' access to the
University's computing facilities
- encroaching on others' use of the University's computers (e.g.,
disrupting others' computer use by excessive game playing;
sending frivolous or excessive messages, either locally or
off-campus [including electronic chain letters and unauthorized
electronic "bulk" mailings]; printing excess copies of
documents, files, data, or programs; modifying system
facilities, operating systems, or disk partitions; attempting
to crash or tie up a University computer; damaging or
vandalizing University computing facilities, equipment,
software, or computer files)
- disclosing or removing proprietary information, software,
printed output or magnetic media without the explicit
permission of the owner
- reading other users' data, information, files, or programs on a
display screen, as printed output, or via electronic means,
without the owner's explicit permission.
-----
User Confidentiality and System Integrity
If a system administrator is an eyewitness to a computing abuse;
notices an unusual degradation of service or other aberrant behavior on
the system, network, or server for which he or she is responsible; or
receives a complaint of computing abuse or degradation of service, he
or she should investigate and take steps to maintain the integrity of
the system(s). If a system administrator has evidence that leads to a
user's computing activity as the probable source of a problem or abuse
under investigation, he or she must weigh the potential danger to the
system and its users against the confidentiality of that user's
information.
While investigating a suspected abuse of computing; a suspected
hardware failure; a disruption of service; or a suspected bug in an
application program, compiler, network, operating system, or system
utility, a system administrator should ordinarily ask a user's
permission before inspecting that user's files, diskettes, or tapes.
The next two paragraphs outline exceptions to this rule.
If, in the best judgement of the system administrator, the action of
one user threatens other users or if a system or network for which the
system administrator is responsible is in grave, imminent danger of
crashing, sustaining damage to its hardware or software, or sustaining
damage to user jobs, the system administrator should act quickly to
protect the system and its users. In the event that he or she has had
to inspect user files in the pursuit of this important responsibility,
he or she must notify, as soon as possible, his or her own
administrative officer or other individual designated by that
administrative officer of his or her action and the reasons for taking
that action. The administrative officer needs to be certain that one
of the following are also notified: the user or users whose files were
inspected; the user's supervisor, project director, administrative
officer, or academic advisor. It is a departmental responsibility that
this notification occur, not a personal responsibility of the system
administrator.
In cases in which the user is not available in a timely fashion, in
which the user is suspected of malicious intent to damage a computer
system, or in which notifying the user would impede a sensitive
investigation of serious computer abuse, the system administrator may
inspect the information in question so long as he notifies his or her
own administrative officer or other individual designated by the
administrative officer of his or her actions and the reasons for taking
those actions. The administrative officer needs to be certain that the
user's supervisor, project director, administrative officer, or
academic advisor is notified of the situation. In the case of
suspected malicious intent, the administrative officer may also need to
refer the matter to the appropriate University judicial body or to the
Department of Public Safety.
A system administrator may find it necessary to suspend or restrict a
user's computing privileges during the investigation of a problem. The
system administrator should confer with his or her administrative
officer or other person designated by that administrative officer
before taking this step. A user may appeal such a suspension or
restriction and petition for reinstatement of computing privileges
through the University's judicial system, through the grievance
procedures outlined in University collective bargaining agreements, or
by petition to the Dean of Students.
In general, then, a system administrator should
- protect the integrity of the system entrusted to his or her
care
- respect the confidentiality of the information users have
stored on the system
- notify appropriate individuals when the above two aims have
come into conflict
- assist his or her administrative officer in referring cases of
suspected abuse to the appropriate University judicial process.
-----
Judicial Process for Cases of
Alleged Misuse of Computing and Information Resource Privileges and
Penalties for Misuse of Computing and Information Resource Privileges
If staff in the Department of Public Safety or system administrators
have a preponderance of evidence that intentional or malicious misuse
of computing resources has occurred, and if that evidence points to the
computing activities or the computer files of an individual, they have
the obligation to pursue any or all of the following steps to protect
the user community:
- Take action to protect the system(s), user jobs, and user files
from damage.
- Notify the alleged abuser's project director, instructor,
academic advisor, dean, or administrative officer of the
investigation.
- Refer the matter for processing through the appropriate
University judicial system. If necessary, staff members from a
central computing agency such as Computing and Network Services
as well as faculty members with computing expertise may be
called upon to advise the University judicial officers on the
implications of the evidence presented and, in the event of a
finding of guilt, of the seriousness of the offense.
- Suspend or restrict the alleged abuser's computing privileges
during the investigation and judicial processing. A user may
appeal such a suspension or restriction and petition for
reinstatement of computing privileges through the University's
judicial system, through the grievance procedures outlined in
University collective bargaining agreements, or by petition to
the Dean of Students.
- Inspect the alleged abuser's files, diskettes, and/or tapes.
System administrators must be certain that the trail of
evidence leads to the user's computing activities or computing
files before inspecting any user's files. (See "User
Confidentiality and System Integrity" on page 6 of these
Guidelines for more information.)
Ordinarily, the administrative officer whose department is responsible
for the computing system on which the alleged misuse occurred should
initiate judicial proceedings. As the case develops, other
administrative officers may, by mutual agreement, assume part of the
responsibility for prosecuting the case.
Abuse of computing privileges is subject to disciplinary action.
Disciplinary action may include the loss of computing privileges and
other disciplinary sanctions up to and including non- reappointment,
discharge, and/or dismissal. An abuser of the University's computing
resources may also be liable for civil or criminal prosecution.
It should be understood that nothing in these guidelines precludes
enforcement under the laws and regulations of the State of Delaware,
any municipality or county therein, and/or the United States of
America. For example, if a user is found guilty of committing a
computer crime as outlined in Title 11 $932-$936 of the Delaware Code,
he or she could be subject to the penalties for a class B felony.
-----
Academic Honesty
Faculty and students are reminded that computer-assisted plagiarism is
still plagiarism. Unless specifically authorized by a class
instructor, all of the following uses of a computer are violations of
the University's guidelines for academic honesty and are punishable as
acts of plagiarism:
- copying a computer file that contains another student's
assignment and submitting it as your own work
- copying a computer file that contains another student's
assignment and using it as a model for your own assignment
- working together on an assignment, sharing the computer files
or programs involved, and then submitting individual copies of
the assignment as your own individual work
- knowingly allowing another student to copy or use one of your
computer files and to submit that file, or a modification
thereof, as his or her individual work.
For further information on this topic, students are urged to consult
the University of Delaware Official Student Handbook, to consult with
their individual instructors, and to refer to the pamphlet "Academic
Honesty & Dishonesty: Important information for faculty and students."
Faculty members are urged to develop specific policies regarding all
aspects of academic honesty and to communicate those policies to their
students in writing.
-----
Works Consulted
Augustine, Charles. The Pieces of a Policy: Categories for Creation of
a Computer Ethics Policy. Capitalizing on Communication: Proceedings
of ACM SIGUCCS User Services Conference XVII. 1989.
Baylor University. Computer Policies. 1989. Copy located in the
computer file ethics/Baylor.policy on ariel.unm.edu.
Catholic University of America, The. Statement of Ethics in the Use of
Computers. 1988. [Reprinted in ACM SIGUCCS Newsletter. Volume 19,
Number 1. 1989.]
Chapman, Gary. CPSR [Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility]
Statement on the Computer Virus. Communications of the ACM. Volume
32, Number 6. 1989.
Colgate University. Agreement for use of Computing Facilities. 1989.
Copy located in the computer file ethics/ColgateU.policy on
ariel.unm.edu.
Columbia University. Administrative Policies [of the Center for
Computing Activities]. No date. Copy located in the computer file
ethics/ColumbiaU.policy on ariel.unm.edu.
Corporation for Research and Educational Networking. Acceptable Use of
CSNET and BITNET. 1990. Received via electronic mail from Bernard A.
Galler, March 23, 1990.
Delaware Code (Annotated). Computer Related Offenses. Title 11,
$931-$939. 1987.
Delaware Code (Annotated), 1989 Supplement. Computer Related
Offenses. Title 11, $937. 1989.
EDUCOM and ADAPSO. Using Software: A guide to the ethical and legal
use of software for members of the academic community. EDUCOM. 1987.
Eichin, Mark W. and Jon A. Rochlis. With Microscope and Tweezers: An
Analysis of the Internet Virus of November 1988. Paper presented at
1989 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy. Copy located
in the file pub/virus/mit.PS on bitsy.mit.edu.
Ermann, M. David; Mary B. Williams; and Claudio Gutierrez. Computers,
Ethics, and Society. Oxford University Press. 1990.
Faculty Senate of the University of Delaware. Ethetical [sic] Conduct
in Computing. Unpublished draft statement discussed by Faculty Senate
in 1989.
Farber, David J. NSF [National Science Foundation] Poses Code of
Networking Ethics. Communications of the ACM. Volume 32, Number 6.
1989.
Fraser Valley College. DRAFT: Fraser Valley College Computing and
Ethics Policy, April 23, 1991. Copy received via electronic mail,
April 24, 1991, from Paul Herman, Fraser Valley College.
Hafner, Katie and John Markoff. Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the
Computer Frontier. Simon and Schuster. 1991.
Hoffman, W. Michael and Jennifer Mills Moore, eds. Ethics and the
Management of Computer Technology: Proceedings of the Fourth National
Conference on Business Ethics Sponsored by the Center for Business
Ethics, Bentley College. Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain. 1982.
Indiana University, Academic Computing Policy Committee, Subcommittee
on Ethical Use of Computers. Computer Users' Privileges and
Responsibilities: Indiana University. 1990. Copy received via
electronic mail April 25, 1990, from Mark Sheehan, Indiana University
Computing Services.
Internet Activities Board. Ethics Policy Statement. 1988. [Reprinted
in Purdue University's PUCC Newsletter. March 1989.]
Internet Engineering Task Force. Site Security Handbook: RFC 1244.
P. Holbrook and J. Reynolds, eds. July 1991. Copy located in the
file pub/ssphwg/rfc1244.txt on cert.sei.cmu.edu.
Johnson, Deborah G. Computer Ethics. Prentice Hall. 1985.
Lees, John. [Michigan State University] College of Engineering
Computer Use Policy - DRAFT. 1990. Received via electronic mail April
23, 1990, from John Lees.
Mason, Margaret Loy. Students, Ethics & Electronic Communication: An
Adventure in User Education. New Centerings in Computing Services:
Proceedings of ACM SIGUCCS User Services Conference XVIII. 1990.
National Science Foundation. NSFNET Interim Conditions of Use Policy.
LINK LETTER. Volume 3, Number 3. 1990. Also available in the file
nsfnet/netuse.txt on nis.nsf.net.
Parker, Donn B.; Susan Swope; and Bruce N. Baker. Ethical Conflicts in
Information and Computer Science, Technology, and Business. QED
Information Sciences, Inc. 1990.
Ryland, Jane N. Security--Sleeper Issue Comes into its Own.
CAUSE/EFFECT. Volume 12, Number 4. 1989.
Software Publishers Association. Software Use and the Law: A guide for
individuals, educational institutions, user groups, and corporations.
No date.
Spafford, Eugene H. Some Musings on Ethics and Computer Break-Ins.
1989. Copy located in the file pub/virus/spaf.PS.Z on bitsy.mit.edu.
Stoll, Cliff. The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a spy through the maze of
computer espionage. Doubleday. 1989.
Syracuse University. Computer Use Policy. No date.
Temple University. Rules of Conduct for Using Computing Resources at
Temple University. 1988.
University of Delaware. Academic Honesty & Dishonesty: Important
information for faculty and students. 1989.
University of Delaware. Code of Conduct. Official Student Handbook.
1991.
University of Delaware. Code of Ethics. Personnel Policies and
Procedures for Professional and Salaried Staff. 1989.
University of Delaware. Computer Software. University of Delaware
Policy Manual. Policy 6-9. 1989.
University of Delaware. Misconduct in Research. University of
Delaware Policy Manual. Policy 6-11. 1989.
University of Delaware. University of Delaware Faculty Handbook. 1990
[on-line edition consulted].
University of Delaware. 1989-1990 Residence Halls Handbook. 1989.
University of Delaware Libraries. Circulation Procedures and
Services. No date.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Think About It: The Proper Use of
Information Resources, Information Technology, and Networks at the
University of Michigan. No Date.
University of New Mexico. UNM Ethics Code for Computer Use [Draft].
1989. Copy located in the computer file ethics/UofNewMexico.policy on
ariel.unm.edu.
Weissman, Ronald F. E. Ethical and Responsible Computing. The OPEN
WINDOW (Brown University), Volume 3, Number 1. 1989. [Cited in
Ryland's article.]
-----
Notes
1 The software made available by the University has been licensed by
the University for your use. As a result, its use may be subject to
certain limitations.
2 The University is not responsible for loss of information from
computing misuse, malfunction of computing hardware, malfunction of
computing software, or external contamination of data or programs. The
staff in central computing units such as Computing and Network Services
and all other system administrators must make every effort to ensure
the integrity of the University's computer systems and the information
stored thereon. However, users must be aware that no security or
back-up system is 100.00% foolproof.
--
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 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Status of UDel's Responsible Computing Policy
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.220813.5049@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 22:08:13 GMT
Policy for Responsible Computing at the University of Delaware
Preamble
In support of its mission of teaching, research, and public service,
the University of Delaware provides access to computing and information
resources for students, faculty, and staff, within institutional
priorities and financial capabilities.
The Policy for Responsible Computing at the University of Delaware
contains the governing philosophy for regulating faculty, student, and
staff use of the University's computing resources. It spells out the
general principles regarding appropriate use of equipment, software,
and networks. By adopting this policy, the Faculty Senate recognizes
that all members of the University are also bound by local, state, and
federal laws relating to copyrights, security, and other statutes
regarding electronic media. The policy also recognizes the
responsibility of faculty and system administrators to take a
leadership role in implementing the policy and assuring that the
University community honors the policy.
Policy
All members of the University community who use the University's
computing and information resources must act responsibly. Every user
is responsible for the integrity of these resources. All users of
University-owned or University-leased computing systems must respect
the rights of other computing users, respect the integrity of the
physical facilities and controls, and respect all pertinent license and
contractual agreements. It is the policy of the University of Delaware
that all members of its community act in accordance with these
responsibilities, relevant laws and contractual obligations, and the
highest standard of ethics.
Access to the University's computing facilities is a privilege granted
to University students, faculty, and staff. Access to University
information resources may be granted by the owners of that information
based on the owner's judgement of the following factors: relevant laws
and contractual obligations, the requestor's need to know, the
information's sensitivity, and the risk of damage to or loss by the
University.
The University reserves the right to limit, restrict, or extend
computing privileges and access to its information resources. Data
owners--whether departments, units, faculty, students, or staff--may
allow individuals other than University faculty, staff, and students
access to information for which they are responsible, so long as such
access does not violate any license or contractual agreement;
University policy; or any federal, state, county, or local law or
ordinance.
University computing facilities and accounts are to be used for the
University-related activities for which they are assigned. University
computing resources are not to be used for commercial purposes or
non-University-related activities without written authorization from
the University. In these cases, the University will require payment
of appropriate fees. This policy applies equally to all University-
owned or University-leased computers.
Users and system administrators must all guard against abuses that
disrupt or threaten the viability of all systems, including those at
the University and those on networks to which the University's systems
are connected. Access to information resources without proper
authorization from the data owner, unauthorized use of University
computing facilities, and intentional corruption or misuse of
information resources are direct violations of the University's
standards for conduct as outlined in the University of Delaware Policy
Manual, the Personnel Policies and Procedures for Professional and
Salaried Staff, the Faculty Handbook, University collective bargaining
agreements, and the Official Student Handbook and may also be
considered civil or criminal offenses.
Implementation
Appropriate University administrators should adopt guidelines for the
implementation of this policy within each unit and regularly revise
these guidelines as circumstances, including--but not limited
to--changes in technology, warrant. The Associate Vice President for
Computing and Network Services shall, from time to time, issue
recommended guidelines to assist departments and units with this
effort.
Enforcement
Alleged violations of this policy shall be processed according to the
judicial processes outlined in the University of Delaware Policy
Manual, the Personnel Policies and Procedures for Professional and
Salaried Staff, the Faculty Handbook, University collective bargaining
agreements, and the Official Student Handbook. The University of
Delaware treats access and use violations of computing facilities,
equipment, software, information resources, networks, or privileges
seriously and may also prosecute abuse under Title 11, 931-939 of the
Delaware Code, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, or other
appropriate laws.
March 5, 1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Status of UDel's Responsible Computing Policy
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.220927.5131@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 22:09:27 GMT
This is a critique/review of the U. of Delaware computer policy proposal.
I. Participation
The proposed policy was created in the open. Users and other have been
able to look at drafts of the policy and make comment. Drafts have
also been presented at conferences and via electronic mailing lists.
Before being finalized, the proposal will be presented to the faculty
senate. The result is all this openness and participation is the most
refined and detailed policy I have seen.
II. Due process
Due process is provided by processing alleged rule violations via
regular university channels.
I do have some concern about punishment before "conviction". The
"Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students" says:
"Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be
altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend
classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or
emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety
and well-being of students, faculty, or university property."
In contrast, the U. of Delaware policy says:
"A system administrator may find it necessary to suspend or restrict a
user's computing privileges during the investigation of a problem. The
system administrator should confer with his or her administrative
officer or other person designated by that administrative officer
before taking this step. A user may appeal such a suspension or
restriction and petition for reinstatement of computing privileges
through the University's judicial system, through the grievance
procedures outlined in University collective bargaining agreements, or
by petition to the Dean of Students."
And:
"If staff in the Department of Public Safety or system administrators
have a preponderance of evidence that intentional or malicious misuse
of computing resources has occurred, and if that evidence points to the
computing activities or the computer files of an individual, they have
the obligation to pursue any or all of the following steps to protect
the user community:
...
Suspend or restrict the alleged abuser's computing privileges
during the investigation and judicial processing. A user may
appeal such a suspension or restriction and petition for
reinstatement of computing privileges through the University's
judicial system, through the grievance procedures outlined in
University collective bargaining agreements, or by petition to
the Dean of Students."
The two quotes from the proposed policy don't seem to agree on when a
user should be suspended from the computer. The first quote doesn't
provide guidance as to when a sys admin may find suspension
"necessary". The second quote seems to authorize punishment for an
offense before it has been established that an offense as occurred.
I think the policy could be improved by reconciling these two quotes
and by making it clear that suspension before "conviction" is only
allowed when it is necessary to protect university property; it should
not be used to punish.
III. Privacy
The policy acknowledges that a user, not the University, is the owner
of his or her own data:
"Data Owner: the individual or department that can authorize access to
information, data, or software and that is responsible for the
integrity and accuracy of that information, data, or software.
Specifically, the data owner can be the author of the information,
data, or software or can be the individual or department that has
negotiated a license for the University's use of the information,
data, or software."
The policy says "Under certain unusual circumstances, a system
administrator is authorized to access your computer files." And: "A
system administrator must treat information about and information
stored by the system's users as confidential."
The circumstances when a inspection/search of user files is permitted
is detailed later in the policy:
"While investigating a suspected abuse of computing; a suspected
hardware failure; a disruption of service; or a suspected bug in an
application program, compiler, network, operating system, or system
utility, a system administrator should ordinarily ask a user's
permission before inspecting that user's files, diskettes, or tapes.
The next two paragraphs outline exceptions to this rule.
If, in the best judgment of the system administrator, the action of
one user threatens other users or if a system or network for which the
system administrator is responsible is in grave, imminent danger of
crashing, sustaining damage to its hardware or software, or sustaining
damage to user jobs, the system administrator should act quickly to
protect the system and its users. In the event that he or she has had
to inspect user files in the pursuit of this important responsibility,
he or she must notify, as soon as possible, his or her own
administrative officer or other individual designated by that
administrative officer of his or her action and the reasons for taking
that action. The administrative officer needs to be certain that one
of the following are also notified: the user or users whose files were
inspected; the user's supervisor, project director, administrative
officer, or academic advisor. It is a departmental responsibility that
this notification occur, not a personal responsibility of the system
administrator.
In cases in which the user is not available in a timely fashion, in
which the user is suspected of malicious intent to damage a computer
system, or in which notifying the user would impede a sensitive
investigation of serious computer abuse, the system administrator may
inspect the information in question so long as he notifies his or her
own administrative officer or other individual designated by the
administrative officer of his or her actions and the reasons for taking
those actions. The administrative officer needs to be certain that the
user's supervisor, project director, administrative officer, or
academic advisor is notified of the situation. In the case of
suspected malicious intent, the administrative officer may also need to
refer the matter to the appropriate University judicial body or to the
Department of Public Safety."
And:
"If staff in the Department of Public Safety or system administrators
have a preponderance of evidence that intentional or malicious misuse
of computing resources has occurred, and if that evidence points to the
computing activities or the computer files of an individual, they have
the obligation to pursue any or all of the following steps to protect
the user community:
[...]
- Inspect the alleged abuser's files, diskettes, and/or tapes.
System administrators must be certain that the trail of
evidence leads to the user's computing activities or computing
files before inspecting any user's files. (See "User
Confidentiality and System Integrity" on page 6 of these
Guidelines for more information.)"
This is consistent with the Joint Statement, I wonder, however, how it
compares to University policy for office space. Personally, I think a
University should be required to get a search warrant before searching
user email.
III. Free expression
The policy says:
"Misuse of computing and information resources and privileges
includes, but is not restricted to, the following:
[...]
- using the University's computing resources to harass or
threaten other users"
This is good. I assume that "harass and threaten" are defined and
prohibited by other University policies. This policy could be improved
by just referring to established University policy rather than creating
a new and distinct "harass and threaten" on-the-computer policy.
(If they are not defined elsewhere, then the policy is too vague.)
IV. Tone of policy and policy on "personal use"
The tone of the policy is that anything that is not acceptable is
prohibited. This can be seen most clearly in rules such as
"Misuse of computing and information resources and privileges
includes, but is not restricted to, the following:
[...]
using computing facilities, computer accounts, or computer data
for purposes other than those for which they were intended or
authorized"
And:
"University computing facilities and accounts are to be used for the
University-related activities for which they are assigned. University
computing resources are not to be used for commercial purposes or
non-University-related activities without written authorization from
the University. In these cases, the University will require payment
of appropriate fees. This policy applies equally to all University-
owned or University-leased computers."
The meaning of these prohibitions is unclear. Does this mean that I
can't use email to ask a friend to meet me at the student union for
lunch? Does it mean that as a computer science major I can't read
"alt.fishing"? Does it mean that a English professor can't try to
teach him or herself to program in "C" by writing programs on a
University computer? Does it mean that recreational programs are
prohibited?
To the last question the policy offers a clue. It explicitly prohibits
"encroaching on others' use of the University's computers (e.g.,
disrupting others' computer use by excessive game playing; ...)"
Presumably then, some recreational use is permitted on some computers
at some times.
The policy could be improved by saying that nondisruptive,
noncommercial "personal use" of the computer and permitted and
encouraged subject to whatever limitations local sites may impose.
- 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 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <9203262216.AA02982@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 10:16:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Mar 92 20:17:57 GMT
cjh@phx.mcd.mot.com (Chris Hutchings) writes:
>In article simong@ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>> 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?
>>
accually it's more like if someone tells you 'if you go in there you
risk the possibility of being raped, if there is a rapist in there'
>If someone tells you that you are about to be raped, would that make you
>bend over and take it?
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 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: <9203262220.AA03009@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 10:20:55 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: danc@milton.u.washington.edu (Dan Comden)
Subject: Re: email privacy
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.210701.25210@u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 21:07:01 GMT
In article tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:
>Speaking of technical reasons for reading other peoples mail...
>
>Does anyone know if the post office is allowed to open a letter if (for
>instance) the mailing label has fallen off and try to determine the proper
>destination from the contents? This might be a good analogy to broken email
>and the current legal status of the post office with respect to "broken"
>regular mail might be applicable.
I don't know about the US Postal Service, but when I worked for United
Parcel Service (*not* affiliated with the USPS), it was regular practice
to open packages if the outside label was lost or illegible. This was
done in an attempt to locate a shipping address inside the package.
Of COURSE the Sherrif's Office was called when 2+ kilos of marijuana
was once discovered! Strange that the return address was invalid, too.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sources, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203262222.AA03018@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 10:22:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin
From: bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.004623.8571@unixland.natick.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:46:23 GMT
mcmahan@fletcher.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>It had never occurred to me that anyone would be snooping through my
>.newsrc looking at what I was reading! And the guy asking didn't think
>I've never seen this topic discussed on Usenet before, so I'd like to
>heighten everyone's awareness of what systems people are capable of
>doing, without necessarily your knowlege.
>Do any sites regularly do this?
>Does anyone actually condone this invasion of privacy?
Lots of sites, including mine, use the "arbitron" program to
mail usage reports to the news lists people. I never look at
individual .newsrc's (unless a user asks me to in order to debug
a problem), and couldn't care less what groups my users read (they
are here to be read, and I'm not interested in saying "nah nah, I
found out you read XXX group"). I guess if I were to narrow down
my news feed from 2000 groups to 100, then I would have to pick
based on what people read.
--
bill@unixland.natick.ma.us ...!uunet!{think,world}!unixland!bill
Public Access UNIX / USENET / E-MAIL Accounts are available! (508) 655-3848
5 lines - Located in Natick, MA USA Supporting V.32/PEP/V.42bis, etc.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sources, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203262222.AA03027@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 10:22:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin
From: tye@spillman.uucp (E. Tye McQueen)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.005308.40949@spillman.uucp>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:53:08 GMT
In <1992Mar25.075422.11590@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:
>There are several other ways to find out what newsgroups you read, if
>your system administrator is nosey.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ or just about anyone
>Personally, if I were going to read a scurrilous newsgroup, I'd cd into
>the spool directory and say "less *".
On a VMS system that I sometimes read news on I have been known to do
$ SHOW DEVICE/FILES DISK$NEWS:
(which shows all files currently open on that disk partition)
and get a nice listing of which article in which group is currently
being read by anyone using news or not. I believe this is also
possible on most Unix systems. I assume this can be disabled or
restricted but suspect it rarely is.
I really don't understand what stigma is to be associated with reading
or subscribing to alt.sex.* or any news group. I don't pretend to
be a happilly wedded virgin and I don't see any problem with reading
any news group for the entertainment value or to keep up on what the
rest of the world is up to so you know what your teenagers are doing.
In <1992Mar25.031439.5317@> warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Kennedy) writes:
) If I had my way, I'd take the paranoid types and lock them in a soundproof
) little room with a floppy-based PC. Anything larger runs the risk of having
) their privacy invaded, and we wouldn't want that to happen.
When I have anything particularly private on the computer I encrypt
it. I have never assumed that anything I do on a computer will
remain private. I think it would be nice if this would happen more
often but I've never had that expectation.
Computers are very good at making information accessible so there
are many too many accidental, intentional but well-meaining, and
malicious ways that information you put on a computer will fall into
unexpected hands.
I also periodically go around cleaning up disk space so our company
can continue to operate. I feel no guilt looking around finding stuff
to delete even when that involves perusing directories and any files
in them that may no longer be needed. However, I won't read files that
contain electronic mail or appear to be personal.
So I try to respect privacy without unduely hindering myself in
performing required tasks. Maybe I should respect privacy more.
I certainly should set up some policy on what privacy users can
expect. I try not to expect others to respect my computer privacy
even as much as I do theirs.
In a previous job I would track thwackers by reading their personal
mail. Many misused accounts were found and disabled this way. Prior
to that my entire group had their personal mail perused because the
administration feared us "student consultants" were likely to plant
back doors, etc. It really didn't bother me. There was no policy
in place about electronic privacy. Anything I put on the computer
I interpreted as being posted on an out-of-the-way wall. Not
publicly displayed but by no means private.
What is important is that the level of privacy matches the
expectations of those involved, IMHO. Though, in many environments
a total lack of computer privacy is probably quite counter-
productive.
As for laws governing computer privacy... Reminds me of the law
forbidding you to scan the cellular phone frequencies. It's a nice
idea but mostly it just gives too many people a false sense of
security. How many people do you know that have a radio scanner
that has either *not* been upgraded to avoid scanning these
frequencies or that the owner has *not* remodified it so it does
scan them? How many of them have been arrested or are even
worried about ever being arrested?
Tye McQueen, E. [if uucp] [if internet]
[...uunet!]spillman!tye[@uunet.uu.net]
----------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is obvious unless you are overlooking something.
----------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203262223.AA03036@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 10:23:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bsmart)
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <34044@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: 26 Mar 92 03:47:35 GMT
In the same vein as your "a user is a block count" philosophy, I think
it might be entirely valid for a sysadmin to scan the .newsrc files to
see which GROUPS are being read (but discard the account names -- we
don't care WHO's reading each group, only that SOME user is reading it).
Why should a leaf site carry newsgroups that nobody at the site wants
to read? How is the administrator to know which groups nobody wants to
read, without performing such a scan?
That leaves open the question of how a user might subscribe to a group
after it's been determined that nobody is using it -- but I think that's
a technical detail that should be fixable without too much effort. The
basic principle is that there's a legitimate reason for administrators
to know about newsgroup readership, since it has a bearing on system
resource availability.
In fact, I can imagine a system in which administrators periodically run
some kind of scan process, and if the scan reveals a newsgroup with
fewer then subscribers, those people get automatically-generated mail:
Dear ,
An automated analysis of our USENET subscription patterns
has revealed that very few users include
in their .newsrc files. If you are not actively following
this newsgroup, please consider unsubscribing to it -- if
all of the remaining users also unsubscribe, we will be able
to stop carrying the group, which will make more disk space
available for everyone.
If you are still interested in the newsgroup, you need not
take any action; the group will still be carried here. If
you choose to unsubscribe, the group may disappear sometime
in the next two weeks or so, assuming no one else is really
reading it either.
Next time the automated scan runs, if everybody has unsubscribed, the
group gets dropped. No actual person needs to know the details of which
users and groups were involved -- only the users themselves see this
mail, and they don't even have to respond to the administrator to
acknowledge anything. If there's one person in the whole place who
wants to keep the group, then it stays -- and that single user
periodically gets a message in the mailbox. I don't think that violates
anyone's privacy, and it might make it easier for some sites to manage
their resources.
And you're absolutely right that most of the time, these people who are
so concerned that somebody might be snooping into their Terribly
Important Lives, are actually of no interest whatsoever to anyone else!
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203262224.AA03045@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 10:24:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.91111.5936@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 92 14:11:11 GMT
In article <34044@ttidca.TTI.COM> bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bsmart) writes:
>
>That leaves open the question of how a user might subscribe to a group
>after it's been determined that nobody is using it -- but I think that's
>a technical detail that should be fixable without too much effort.
Well, I'd patch the source of the news reader (such as rn) to say something
like " is not available at this site -- to request it, contact
".
>there's one person in the whole place who
>wants to keep the group, then it stays -- and that single user
>periodically gets a message in the mailbox.
I don't quite agree with this; I think that the volume of the newsgroup
in question has to influence the decision. If only one person is reading,
say, comp.sys.atari-st, it's no big deal; that is a VERY low-traffic group.
If, on the other hand, only one person is reading alt.binaries.pictures, I
might have a hard time justifying the high traffic load for one person.
>And you're absolutely right that most of the time, these people who are
>so concerned that somebody might be snooping into their Terribly
>Important Lives, are actually of no interest whatsoever to anyone else!
Bingo! The biggest impetus behind many people's "electronic privacy" furor
is their hyperinflated ego.
Best,
Wes Morgan
--
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 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203262224.AA03054@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 10:24:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.security
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.155122.22033@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:51:22 GMT
In article adastra!mbs@Virginia.Edu writes:
>In article <92Mar24.211858est.144351@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>>ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
>>>If you are not activly paying to use a system ...
>>>The sysadmin doesn't even need to justify looking into your filespace.
>>
>>Many people, including myself, find this view unethical. The sysadmin does
>>have to keep the system running, but this doesn't excuse gratuitous snooping.
>>You're curious about my files, but please respect my personal space.
>
>If the sysadmin on a public access system, or a sysop on a bbs, or whatever,
>wants to look at my files, then he can go right ahead. It is his system, and
>his responsibility, after all.
Oh, and if you rent a mailbox from some company, you won't mind if they
snoop through your mail, either?
>My personal space, and my personal privacy, occur just there: in my personal
>space and on my personal computer, where applicable. A "public" system is
>just that.
Well, that depends on the system. If a public system offers electronic
mail, then it should define whether it will respect the privacy of
individuals using this service, and _be_very_clear_about_it_.
>That's why I have my own machine with my own feed. Personal freedom.
That's absolutely correct. But I assume you get your mail feed via uucp?
Now, that means that at some point it sit's in your feeder's queue, on
her disk. Does that mean that you won't mind if she looks through your
mail at that point?
>Anything I do in "public", I don't mind the public seeing.
What's public? Mail (dead-tree variety) is delivered via a kind of
``public'' service (depending on which country you live in it may
be run by private enterprise, but that's beside the point). Does that
mean that you don't mind the public knowing the contents of all mail
you send?
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203262225.AA03074@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 10:25:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.security
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.203916.6675@solbourne.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 20:39:16 GMT
While reading article <1992Mar26.155122.22033@mtholyoke.edu>, I noticed that
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) said the following:
>In article adastra!mbs@Virginia.Edu writes:
>>If the sysadmin on a public access system, or a sysop on a bbs, or whatever,
>>wants to look at my files, then he can go right ahead. It is his system, and
>>his responsibility, after all.
>
>Oh, and if you rent a mailbox from some company, you won't mind if they
>snoop through your mail, either?
If you rent a mailbox from some company I don't believe the owner of said
mailbox can be prosecuted if you happen to have an unlicensed copy of UNIX
source code; the owner of a BBS can (and a few have been).
--
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc. | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com Ham: N0OKQ | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club | "It's Night 9 with D2 Dave!"
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: kent@sparky.imd.sterling.com (Kent Landfield)
Subject: An Open Letter to UNL CRC: Removal of alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 21:44:21 GMT
For those of you out there who know little about UNL, it is a *great* school
in a super town with dedicated people. Please don't view all at UNL within
the framework of this silly decision. Yes, Big Red is important to UNL and
to the state, but as a pastime. The primary focus at UNL is education. Take
it from someone who was involved as a student and an athlete at UNL (Swim
team, not football).
If there is someone at UNL who would like to redirect the following *anywhere*
within the University of Nebraska system or the State Legislature, feel free.
Does the Daily Nebraskan have email access ?
==========================================================================
As someone who received their education from the University of Nebraska at
Lincoln, I am saddened to hear of the CRC decision to remove availability of
the USENET alt newsgroup hierarchy from within the UNL system. The reasons
given for the decision are so transparent as to be internationally embarrassing
to the University. The grounds for the decision are perceived as very weak
indeed...
I urge the person or persons responsible for this mistake to reconsider.
There may be newsgroups that you wish not to take. If that is the case, be
honest about it. People can accept honesty. There may be legitimate reasons
for not carrying certain newsgroups, but slashing the entire alt hierarchy is
rather extreme and unnecessary. This issue does not place the University in
a good light. This topic is currently being actively discussed in multiple
internationally available USENET newsgroups. The issue will do more to keep
excellent students from enrolling than keep unacceptable material off your
systems. GIFs will be downloaded. Students are very resourceful individuals.
If you are in need of additional resources, they should be requested and
obtained. If the budget does not allow that, please feel free to call me
directly and I will gladly help assist in lobbying the Unicameral for the
needed resources. UNL has been contributing to the Internet as a whole by
making Archie access available from archie.unl.edu. For that we thank you!
If you can justify contributing to the general Internet community by making
that system available to anyone, anywhere in the world for resource location,
you should have little trouble justifying the availability of the alt
newsgroups for your own researchers and students.
If the University of Nebraska expects to continue to compete in advanced
technology fields as the quality education institution it has been in the
past, it will need to have the most basic of facilities available to its
researchers and student population. The University should be taking a *full*
USENET feed as there is valuable and necessary information contained in other
hierarchies outside of the "Top Eight" that can be of immediate use to
researchers. Those too would require disk space and cpu access but the
trade off is worth the minimal expenses. The amount of News is growing at
a rapid rate. Lets hope that the hierarchies comp, rec, soc, and talk are
not the next to go in search of disk space. Planning for the future growth
of USENET is hard but USENET has emerged as an essential core facility that
any University must supply in order to adequately support of its mission.
Kent Landfield
Nebraska Resident
Moderator USENET's comp.sources.misc newsgroup
(402) 291-8300
==========================================================================
I should not have to do this but...
This article reflects *my* personal opinions and mine alone.
-Kent+
---
Kent Landfield INTERNET: kent@IMD.Sterling.COM
Sterling Software, IMD UUCP: uunet!sparky!kent
Phone: (402) 291-8300 FAX: (402) 291-4362
Please send comp.sources.misc-related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.015951.28485@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 92 01:59:51 GMT
In article <1992Mar24.92533.9477@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>I figured I'd try... but I only found 8! 8-)
>>
>>alt.3d Three-dimensional imaging. (Moderated)
>>alt.dev.null The ultimate in moderated newsgroups. (Moderated)
>
>This one is a joke group; I've never seen *anything* posted to it.
Uh... that's the point, I'm sure... the clever moderator surely has
a filter sending all incoming mail for that group straight down her
/dev/null. Highly useful, if you ask me... "Followup-To: alt.dev.null".
>>alt.gourmand Recipes & cooking info. (Moderated)
>>alt.hackers Descriptions of projects currently under development. (Moderated)
>
>alt.hackers is not truly moderated; the moderation mechanism is used to
>"prove one's worth". You have to be able to forge an Approved: line in
>order to post. This is documented in the alt.hackers FAQ list.
Ok, you got me on that one. Still, it works to some extend... considering
the kinds of people a group with such a name _might_ attract, it has pretty
high quality traffic.
>>alt.security.index Pointers to good stuff in alt.security. (Moderated)
>>alt.society.ati The Activist Times Digest. (Moderated)
>>alt.society.cu-digest Postings about the Computer Underground. (Moderated)
>
>This newsgroup, as well as alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, is not truly
>moderated. It is used for the distribution of a digest; the only people
>who ever post to these groups are the editors of the respective digests.
>I suspect that alt.society.ati is one of these as well, but I haven't
>seen enough of it to know.
Why does that make it "not truly moderated"..? Maybe in the dictionary
sense of the word, but in the sense of this dicussion we're talking about
groups who have an editor who is responsible for maintaining the quality
of information in the groups. An edited digest certainly qualifies...
>>alt.sources.index Pointers to source code in alt.sources.*. (Moderated)
>
>Again, this is a moderated group with (as far as I've seen) one poster.
But see above...
>You have actually found only 3 moderated alt.* newsgroups to which "regular"
>users may post.
Again, whether or not "regular users may post" has nothing to do with the
topic at hand. It's a question of someone taking "responsibility" for the
material being distributed, and that's true for seven of these groups (not
for alt.hackers, as you correctly pointed out), including alt.dev.null,
which arguably has the highest quality content on the entire Altnet...
(Just joking about that last one...)
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.] Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <9203270242.AA04555@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 14:42:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
From: warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Kennedy)
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.005508.4754@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 00:55:08 GMT
In article jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
--> Imagine if you will that a MUD server (Multi User Dimension - an adventure,
--> chat, programming, etc virtual experience) was running at your site. ...
Personal vendetta #1: attaching meanings to MUD. With the various forms
of it these days, it's outdated. I got on this particular kick when someone
was earnestly trying to convince me that MUDs were a game and IRC wasn't.
"It's a CHAT program? Is `talk' a game? NO! IRC isn't either." (blah blah
blah) MUDs may or may not be more than elaborate chat programs or they may
be games outright. I tend to use LPMUDs as an example for "games" and older
Tiny* as an example of elaborate chats.
With a reluctant round of hair splitting, MUDs aren't necessarily games.
(This was inspired by Jim's comment, rather than a form of reply to it.)
--> From: Joe Random User - Podunk University
From: KDM101%PSUVM.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU, butthead extraordinare.
--> I'd like to bring to your attention a growing problem on the internet.
--> An increasing number of machines ... are running these interactive
--> 'games' called MUDs. ...
I suppose it's possible that he connected to each and every one and tried
to make some judgement on if it was a game or not (and you would know about
your own, and make a judgement from that), but I don't think so.
--> ... From experience, I know how much it can slow down legitemate access
--> to a machine. Games can be fun, ... but when they start to degrade the
--> service of a network that is used by people for important research or
--> work, then it's time to reconsider whether they belong. ...
Give me numbers. Give me proof. Perhaps a comparison generated by sending
a lot of disinformation, say 300+ lines to 300 sites * people/site. Plus
all the USENET articles. I would dearly love it if PSU had a slow link and
the garbage generated by this user pushed it over the edge. Too bad.
I don't see any kind of leg to stand on at all for network bandwidth. IMHO,
he's tossing terms without a true clue. It's a passable piece of disinformation
though, with just enough truth to get you to pay attention.
--> This list has been compiled through the efforts of several
--> people. It is not by any means complete, as there are many
--> of these games that remain "hidden" from low use. (or are simply
--> unknown to any person at this site)
Oh damm. The ones that are "hidden" are REALLY impacting the net then.
There is no mention on how he gathered the list.
It's a low tactic that works. The boy aimed at administrators who may be
clueless and succumb to such scare tactics. Spare me from wire jockys. I
just hope everyone bothered to engage their brains and check out his claims
before they started having a seizure.
--
John Kennedy/KC6RCK/warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu "IBM, You BM, We All BM for IBM!"
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
From: kent@sparky.imd.sterling.com (Kent Landfield)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.215607.28129@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
Date: 26 Mar 92 21:56:07 GMT
In article <1992Mar26.102742.17453@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>There isn't anything "wrong" with it; however, you can't place it at the
>same level as, say, comp.sources.misc. The c.s.m moderator receives post-
>ings from users, examines them, and posts the ones which meet his criteria.
>(I haven't seen any "rejection rates" for c.s.m or the like; I'd be interes-
>ted in such information) alt.sources.index, on the other hand, is one person's
>project; there is no participation from other users; in fact, it may very well
>be automated!
As comp.sources.misc moderator, I have rejected very few submissions. Does
that mean my criteria is low ? :-) c.s.m encourages source submissions of all
types and tries to assure that all submissions can get out to the world to be
archived and used. Most of the rejections were not actually rejections but
redirections as I felt that those submissions would be better suited posted
to one of the other moderated comp.sources.* groups. The actual rejections
to date have been patches to sources that the authors could not idenitify where
the original sources could be obtained. Wes is right in that c.s.misc is not
a one person project. c.s.misc is really a very large group effort with the
authors, the general reader population and myself all contributing to try to
make it work.
-Kent+
---
Kent Landfield INTERNET: kent@IMD.Sterling.COM
Sterling Software, IMD UUCP: uunet!sparky!kent
Phone: (402) 291-8300 FAX: (402) 291-4362
Please send comp.sources.misc-related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: kent@sparky.imd.sterling.com (Kent Landfield)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.024127.26819@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 02:41:27 GMT
In article jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu (James R. Saker Jr.) writes:
>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>While this may be possible for most Universities, it would be an unfair
>demand placed upon the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. For example, how
>many of you knew that right now, UNL's athletic department is trying to
>figure out how it can spend University money to defend a football player
>accussed of assaulting a young woman earlier this year?
Just what does this have to do with anything discussed here ? I know about
it and I find absolutely no valid link to the topic and problem at hand. The
UNL Athletic department and Tom Osborne are trying to do the right thing with
their money, not State supported funds. Was this just a chance to get a jab
in at an imagined cross state rival. ? Don't make yourself look totally
stupid in front of all these people. You may want one of us to actually
hire you some day........
>Obviously, free-speech must take a back-seat to the Big Red at UNL.
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu .
>. /\ .
>. Not the Ag and Football campus, but --- .
>. the academic and business campus in Nebraska! .
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You sound like a junior high student with an account... Grow up. Most of us
are far to mature to like to see, "My college is better than your college".
We only hire people with positive and constructive views on work and life.
Maybe in four more years you will learn.
-Kent+
--
Kent Landfield INTERNET: kent@IMD.Sterling.COM
Sterling Software, IMD UUCP: uunet!sparky!kent
Phone: (402) 291-8300 FAX: (402) 291-4362
Please send comp.sources.misc-related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 02:45:21 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.024521.12266@anomaly.sbs.com>
gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu") writes:
>You can run quite a respectable news service on a $1000 300Mb disk, thank you.
>I would accept the 'lack of space' argument if the sys admins would explicitly
>accept any group that anyone asked for, laving out the dross by default.
There is more to running a news site than the cost of the disk drive.
You may crawl back under your rock now.
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 27 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: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 02:47:09 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.024709.12352@anomaly.sbs.com>
gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>That didn't answer the question. And still, they could go for manual
>newgrouping for the alt directory.
Sure, which adds tons of additional overhead to the administration of
the news system.
>And still, you are blatently overstating the per semester posting of
>joke newgroup messages.
Five this week alone.
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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: madams@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael E. Adams)
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.09
Message-ID: <199203270620.AA13182@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 06:20:08 GMT
Just a quick note to say thanks. I like reading the CAF-News Abstract and
appreciate the time you all spend putting it together :-)
-Michael
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
From: bguest@ateam.ems.cdc.com (Brandon Guest)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <4534@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>
Date: 26 Mar 92 20:53:44 GMT
In article <1992Mar26.162713.9886@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article francis@styracosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) writes:
>
>Whether your employees are female, male, or other, has *absolutely*
>*nothing* to do with this. The assumption that it does is at the
>very core of sexism.
>--
>Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
>Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
>Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
>South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
Good point.
It was recently announced in the local media here that the State of
Minnesota (I believe) has had a harrasment suit filed against it by
a woman who claims she was harrased by her boss. Her boss is female
and the suit centers around the use of sexually oriented abusive language.
The point being that harrasment is based on how I perceive comments or
actions by ANYONE else- regardless of gender.
Brandon
--
H. Brandon Guest | bguest@ems.cdc.com
Empros Systems International | (A division of Control Data Corp)
2300 Berkshire Lane North | Voice (612) 553-4529
Plymouth, MN 55441-3694 | Fax (612) 553-4018
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Hacking grounds for dismissal
Message-ID: <920327211244.2120725d@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 21:12:44 GMT
A recent case poses the question as to whether unauthorised access to a
company's computer constitutes grounds for the dismissal of an employee.
The issue came before the English Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) and
is reported in Denco Ltd. v. Joinson [1991] 1 Weekly Law Reports 330; [1992]
1 All English Reports 463. A discussion of the case appears in the _Solicitors
Journal_ (Sept. 1991, p.1008-10) written by Geoff Holgate.
The following commentary is based on the article and the [1992] All English
Report decision.
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.
The employee, Michael Joinson, worked as a sheet metal worker for Denco Ltd.
which manuafactured air drying and conditioning equiptment used with computers.
In 1988 Denco installed a computer which had a number of VDU terminals
attached to it.
The computer system was also used by another company, Intek Floors Ltd. - a
wholly owned subsidiary of Denco Ltd., which operated out of the same premises.
Denco's policy was to 'positively [encourage] people to operate the VDU even if
their jobs did not strictly require it'.
The computer, via a series of menus, provided information relating to the part-
icular department within the company.
To gain access to a particular menu (or sub-menu) the user was required to enter
a user identity code (usually the user's Christian name) and password.
The password was changed every week. The purpose of the passworded system was
twofold: the information was provided on a 'need to know' basis, and only
those authorised to access a particular menu were entitled to use it.
It was also designed to protect the information against accident, such as
power failure etc.
The system had a history file, which recorded every keystroke (except passwords)
from every terminal (there was some 30 of them connected at the time in
question) which was regularly printed and kept for 2-6 weeks.
Joinsons' access was traced to a particlular night when he was working night-
shift. Once challenged, he unhesitatingly confessed his actions. He had
entered a different part of the menu (a part for which he was not an authorised
user) using the password and identity code of a fellow employees' daughter, who
was a trainee for Intek in the wages department.
Joinson was a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Indeed, he was
chairperson of a joint committee representing the AEU and other unions.
Denco alleged that Joinson had used the identity code and password to obtain
information which would be of use to him in his trade union activities, such
use being hostile to the company. Joinson claimed that his access to the
unauthorised information was accidental.
He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. Joinson complained he had
been unfairly dismissed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was constituted by Justice Wood, and
Messers Phipps and Springer. Woods J., delivered the decision.
Justice Wood, in delivering his decision, states (at p.467-68):
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...
The decision was tempered somewhat, when Wood J. added (at p.468) that
...there may be some exceptional circumstances in which such a
response might be held unreasonable.
Wood J. also pointed out that management should excercise some 'self-help' in
the area of computer security:
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 (at p.468).
The tribunal went on to make a very interesting analogy:
An analogy may be drawn with a situation where an employer enters the
management offices of a company where he has 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 there-
after opens the filing cabinet and takes out a file.
The headnote to the case contains a handy summary of the ratio of the case:
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.
Wood's analogy is a fairly strong assertion, and one wonders if his fellow
judicial officers will adopt a similar approach when hearing future cases
of computer misuse.
Mark Neely
22/3/1992
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.134536.12109@tijc02.uucp>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 13:45:36 GMT
From article <1992Mar24.91906.8818@ms.uky.edu>, by morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan):
> entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>>>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>>It would cost the computer center less than $1000 to carry all newsgroups.
>>>
>>>How do you know this computer center can spare this $1000?
>>
>>Do 100 students read the alt groups? Charge each one $10 for it.
>
> Charge students for news? Yikes!
>
> My site doesn't charge for *anything*, and we don't plan to do so.
>
I hate to be picky, but the charge is done in a form of tuition. The library
doesn't charge a fee, because of tuition and donations. The bookstore,
though, charges for the books that are bought. These resources are all paid
for. Some on a by-use basis, and some with tuition. When I went to school,
the computer center charged for certain resources, such as a per page charge
for use of the laser printer.
> If we charge for reading alt.*, should we charge for reading *any* news?
> How do we control access to it? Shall we set a group (the Unix group
> mechanism, that is) for all those who have paid their bill? With 2000
> users, that's going to become a managerial nightmare rather quickly.
>
That's why we have computers. Setting up the initial policy and writing
the automatic billing program may be difficult. But after that, it would
be fairly easy to manage. Computer time was billed at our school. Each
student got an initial credit. You used the computer until you ran out
and then begged the teacher for more, or borrowed from another student.
Paul Schmidt
uunet!tijc02!pjs269
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <9203271559.AA06799@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 03:59:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.210917.26596@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 92 02:09:16 GMT
In article <1992Mar26.032714.5435@colorado.edu> bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>>The way to fight bad speech is to out compete it, not to outlaw it.
>>
>>Being offended by the speech of others is part of the price of free
>>speech. I would rather be offended from time to time than to give
>>up this freedom.
>>
>>- Carl
>
>That sounds great. Unfortunately, in the real world things aren't
>always so simple.
Actually, in the real world it is as simple as this--historically, the
kind of schemes that you seem to espouse have never proven successful
in achieving what you seem to want. As Nadine Strossen, of the ACLU
put it (refering to regulations against 'hate speech'):
"First, as we've seen, it's impossible to draw narrow regulations
precisely specifying the particular words and contexts which should lead
to sanctions. Very fact-bound determinations are required. Consequently,
authorities inevitably have great discretion in determining precisely
which words and precisely which speakers will actually be punished.
"But giving this censorial power to authorities strikes at the very
heart of free speech values. One ironic result is that likely targets of
punishment are members of minority groups themselves. Historically, this
has been the consistent actual experience with laws that punish hate speech."
There are a number of other arguments as to why such anti-hate-speech laws are
not effective tools for combatting bigotry, but the above seems the most
relevant to this discussion. (If requested, I will post a larger excerpt
from Ms. Strossen's speech.)
>alt.sexual.abuse.recovery (ASAR) used to have several hundred posts
>a week, some very graphically describing the hell the authors went
>through. In many ways ASAR operated as a group therapy session, the
>_only_ psychological support for many participants. In other ways
>ASAR acted as a rape-crisis center, acknowledging the experiences
>of newcomers and giving them assistance/advice.
>
>Then a few weeks ago it was announced on ASAR that Ken Johnson in
>Edinburgh was reposting articles from ASAR on talk.bizarre (TB) and
>ridiculing them. When other TB-ers requested he stop, Johnson
>replied that he was hurting no one since it was "obvious" that
>the ASAR posts were fantasies.
>
>In addition, Johnson admitted (on TB) to posting a bogus story on
>ASAR "to see them squirm."
>
>Bottom line: ASAR died. The volume of articles unrelated to Johnson
>dropped to less than 5% of the original volume, and the content of
>those articles was _much_ shallower than those of articles a week
>earlier. Incidently, I don't recall seeing _any_ of the users of
>the anonymous posting service during this time.
>
>A number of people on ASAR independently contacted Johnson's
>postmaster and asked for her help. After several of us received
>supportive replies indicating Johnson would discontinue this practice,
>I posted to ASAR the fact that the reposting+ridicule should have
>stopped. Over the past week traffic has started to pick up again...
>and much more significantly the content has gone back to detailed
>discussions revolving around sexual abuse.
>
>
>In this case, "bad speech" from ONE person killed a newsgroup.
>This "bad speech" served absolutely no purpose. Nobody desired
>it and nobody was enlightened/educated/entertained/... by it.
>But there was no way to "compete" with it -- the damage was
>immediate and devastating, once the articles were discovered.
This is not particularly nice behavior, no doubt. However, this doesn't
seem to have any relationship to the previous discussion, as it doesn't
relate to 'hate speech.'
As for this incident itself, you would seem to be obviously wrong in
suggesting that nobody was "entertained" by this. It seems quite obvious
that, at least, Mr. Johnson was entertained by his behavior.
Given your argument, however, the statement seems a bit out of place. My
impression is that your position does not particularly care whether anybody
was entertained by this. Are you suggesting that if someone were entertained,
then it would be ok?
>In this case, we were lucky. The originator of the "bad speech"
>agreed to discontinue it, once sufficient pressure was brought
>to bear. But it certainly won't be the last time, nor will the
>originator/site always be cooperative (the long-running situation
>with David(?) Rasmussen at NCSU comes to mind).
>
>While it should only be used in extreme cases, Usenet _does_
>need a mechanism to force individuals off the net, or more
>commonly, out of a newsgroup.
Hey. There are folks that make UseNet a bitch for all of us, though
perhaps not to this extent. At the same time, I'm not sure how much
sense it makes to suggest that a completely open and public forum
should be restricted in order to allow some to operate what amounts to
a private/personal discussion group (the way you have suggested it should be).
If people are able to achieve such a result within the confines of UseNet,
then great. But I'm very wary of the suggestion that the rules for UseNet
should be changed in order to support something that is really outside of
the scope of UseNet. (Perhaps someone should start a digestified
discussion group, and distribute the digests by email only. That way, the
group could maintain complete control over the subscribers, without forcing
various forms of censorship onto UseNet.)
>It should be possible to come up with such a mechanism which
>explicitly protects the right of dissent. Perhaps a public vote
>(similar to the creation of newsgroups), with permanent guidelines
>that state censoring an individual should only occur if the person
>is being disruptive _and_ serving no purpose by it. The very
>strong anti-censorship sense of the net should serve to protect
>all but the worst offenders.
Once again--extremely subjective determinations. *I* certainly don't
trust the tyrannous majority to make such decisions.
--
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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <9203271600.AA06834@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 04:00:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.071043.8919@colorado.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 07:10:43 GMT
In article rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>
>So if you ASAR folks want to do this without whatsisname being
>involved, create a mailing list and leave him off it.
Two points. First, there is a strong sentiment on ASAR to be
visible to act as a resource for rape victims/survivors. A few
days ago I proposed a CFD to create talk.sexual.abuse.recovery
to avoid the problem of being removed as part of the alt.sex*
hierarchy (which has happened several times in the past few
months). One of the most frequenly cited reasons _not_ to move
was the fear that other survivors would not be able to find the
new group.
That support is lost if we go underground into mailing lists.
Second, this avoids the issue I was trying to raise: there is
cost either way. Restricting what a person can say has a cost,
even for pointless speech such as this. (Pointless == fails
to educate/enlighten/entertain/etc). But what many people appear
to fail to see is that _permitting_ such speech has a cost of
its own in this case -- the loss of a newsgroup attempting to
deal with a current social issue in a constructive manner.
No matter what action is taken, someone will lose. But which
decision has the least cost to society as a whole -- restricting
irresponsible speech to protect a public support group, or
destroying a support group to protect even offensive speech?
Balancing acts like this are a real pain in the neck, but they're
part of life. An absolute right would come in handy about here,
but none exist. (Freedom of speech is an subset of human rights,
and is equal, not superior, to other human rights such as freedom
of assembly and freedom of religion. As I've mentioned earlier,
freedom of assembly enters this question because it describes
creating/joining newsgroups).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Giles The menu is not the meal.
bear@fsl.noaa.gov -- Alan Watts
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: "Court lets stand ruling against Penthouse magazine"
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.155806.26513@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 15:58:06 GMT
[The Court ruled that Meese was immune from punishment for his
alledged wrong doing. I found the details of his alledged wrong doing
outrageous. - Carl]
Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.news.sex. For more info on
ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
References:
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday let stand a ruling that
threw out a suit by Penthouse magazine against former Attorney General
Edwin Meese's pornography commission for allegedly coercing 7-Eleven and
major drug stores into halting their sale of adult magazines.
The court, without comment, refused to disturb a decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that Meese and
others are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions.
The publishers of Penthouse, in a suit initially joined by Playboy
magazine, claimed the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography
violated their First Amendment rights in 1986 when it sent a letter to
the owners of 7-Eleven and 22 other distributors indicating they could
be publicly sanctioned for selling ``pornography.''
While Penthouse and Playboy feature naked women, neither has ever
been found to be legally pornographic or obscene. Such material has been
granted full First Amendment protection by the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the letter convinced or helped convince Southland Corp.
(owners of 7-Eleven, the single largest retail sales outlet for
Penthouse), Rite Aid Drug Stores, Revco, Thrifty Drug, Dart Drug and
other operations to discontinue selling Penthouse and Playboy.
Some 95 percent of Penthouse magazines are sold over-the-counter, and
the cessation of sales was ``disastrous,'' Penthouse wrote.
``The invidious irony of this case is that petitioner was condemned
and punished by means of informal censorship, yet the commission's final
report never once described Penthouse magazine as pornographic or
obscene, never linked it to child abuse and never suggested that it is
an unlawful or illegal publication,'' the magazine wrote.
The Meese Commission was established in 1985 to study pornography,
its impact on society and ways to contain its dissemination, and was
disbanded after issuing a final report in July 1986.
Penthouse claims Meese and others violated its First Amendment rights
by a telephone call to Southland's vice president telling him that the
magazines sold at 7-Eleven would be linked to child abuse in the
commission's final report.
No such linkage was ever made by the commission, but Southland was
involved in a strong anti-child abuse campaign at the time.
And on Feb. 11, 1986, the commission mailed a letter to Southland and
22 other leading distributors of the magazines, on Justice Department
paper, that said it received testimony ``alleging that your company is
involved in the sale or distribution of pornography.''
``The commission has determined that it would be appropriate to allow
your company an opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to
drafting its final report section on identified distributors,'' the
letter continued.
A statement titled ``Pornography in the Family Marketplace,'' which
had been delivered by Rev. Donald Wildmon, head of the National
Federation of Decency, was attached, but gave no indication of its
author.
It read in part that ``well-known household names'' are ``major
players in the game of pornography. ... Few people realize that 7-Eleven
convenience stores are the leading retailers of porn magazines in
America.''
``Because the letter was on Department of Justice stationery
containing the official seal of the United States of America, this
communication was reasonably viewed as a threat of prosecution by the
nation's highest law enforcement authority,'' Penthouse argues.
Penthouse notes that Southland and other retailers that quickly
halted the sale of sexually oriented magazines after receiving the
letter ``were careful to immediately inform the commission of their
'corrective' action.''
In July 1986, a federal district court in Washington, D.C., granted a
preliminary injunction for Playboy and Penthouse, ordering the
commission to write a follow-up letter informing the stores that their
names would not be included in the final report.
But four years later the court dismissed the lawsuit.
The appeals court affirmed, saying Meese and others had qualified
immunity from facing suit because their actions were ``criticism'' which
did not threaten any First Amendment rights.
A number of groups including the Periodical Distributors Associations
and the Freedom to Read Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief
asking that the case be heard.
Saying groups ``regularly face similar governmental misconduct and
often are compelled to seek redress from the courts,'' the brief warns
the decision means ``government officials may with impunity impose upon
the public their views as to 'appropriate' First Amendment material --
provided they couch their threats in calculating and discreet verbiage.''
------
91-1040 Penthouse International Ltd. vs. Edwin Meese III, et al.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: francis@styracosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis)
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 16:42:26 GMT
In article <1992Mar26.162713.9886@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
In article francis@styracosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) writes:
>Interesting addendum: Someone here brought up the possibility that
>sexaul harassment laws might have an impact on what our *lab users*
>could display on their machines, in that some of our *employees* who
>work in those labs are female. Comments?
Whether your employees are female, male, or other, has *absolutely*
*nothing* to do with this. The assumption that it does is at the
very core of sexism.
My apologies; I had been thinking in terms of a specific incident,
which lead to this specific example. You're right, of course.
--
R David Francis (Alternate addresses): rdf+@osu.edu
osu-cis!francis
B:If you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what can you believe?
R:Oh, Bullwinkle! B:It's enough to destroy a young moose's faith.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 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: <9203271651.AA07204@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 04:51:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: mbp@nyssa.wa7ipx.ampr.org (Marlin Prowell)
Subject: Re: email privacy
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.081237.24000@nyssa.wa7ipx.ampr.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 08:12:37 GMT
In tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:
>Does anyone know if the post office is allowed to open a letter if (for
>instance) the mailing label has fallen off and try to determine the proper
>destination from the contents? This might be a good analogy to broken email
>and the current legal status of the post office with respect to "broken"
>regular mail might be applicable.
Actually, the analogy does not fit as well as you might have hoped. I
worked for the post office for four years. Yes, the Post Office is
allowed to open letters without a proper mailing address, *and* there
is no return address.
However, the letter is not opened at the local post office, but instead
sent to the (I kid you not) Dead Letter office. For the West Coast, it
is in San Francisco. There the letter is opened, the sender
determined, and the letter *returned* to the sender. They do not try
to determine where to send the letter. If they cannot determine who
sent the letter, the mail is destroyed.
The Post Office will also send to the Dead Letter office letters mailed
without postage and missing a return address. They used to send the
letter postage due, and make the recipient pay the postage. If you are
feeling spiteful and mail your tax return without postage, you may get
it returned to you months later from the Dead Letter office.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Marlin Prowell | There is a very thin line between ignorance |
| (206) 676-1554 | and arrogance and I have totally obliterated |
| mbp@nyssa.wa7ipx.ampr.org | that line. -- Dr. Science |
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203271655.AA07225@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 04:55:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
From: mbs@adastra.cvl.VA.US (Michael B. Smith)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.security
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Mar 92 19:00:01 EST
In article <1992Mar26.155122.22033@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>I write:
>>If the sysadmin on a public access system, or a sysop on a bbs, or whatever,
>>wants to look at my files, then he can go right ahead. It is his system, and
>>his responsibility, after all.
>
>Oh, and if you rent a mailbox from some company, you won't mind if they
>snoop through your mail, either?
I'm inclined to say that the situations are quite different. I would not rent
a mailbox from a company without a privacy guarantee, however on Usenet there
is not a privacy guarantee. And by its very nature, there cannot be.
However, I'm active on Usenet, and on several BBS'es where I have NO guarantee
of privacy, and I therefore act accordingly.
If I feel completely paranoid about someone reading my mail, be it paper or
electronic, I'll encrypt it. If someone goes to the trouble to decrypt it,
well, I guess I'll hear about it eventually, and deal with it accordingly.
>>space and on my personal computer, where applicable. A "public" system is
>>just that.
>
>Well, that depends on the system. If a public system offers electronic
>mail, then it should define whether it will respect the privacy of
>individuals using this service, and _be_very_clear_about_it_.
I question the use of the word "respect", but otherwise, I quite agree with
you. Unknown or secretive monitoring is reminicent (sp?) of some totalitarian
regime.
>>That's why I have my own machine with my own feed. Personal freedom.
>
>That's absolutely correct. But I assume you get your mail feed via uucp?
>Now, that means that at some point it sit's in your feeder's queue, on
>her disk. Does that mean that you won't mind if she looks through your
>mail at that point?
I get news that way as well. If that's the way the sysadmin of my feed gets
her kicks, then it's OK by me. But I don't think she does. :)
If she did, granted, I would probably look for another feed.
>What's public? Mail (dead-tree variety) is delivered via a kind of
>``public'' service (depending on which country you live in it may
>be run by private enterprise, but that's beside the point). Does that
>mean that you don't mind the public knowing the contents of all mail
>you send?
I refer you to the above. Do I care that the public knows I receive publications
that contain pictures of nude women? Not particularly. Do I care that they
might read the personal musings between myself and my fiancee'? Probably --
but I doubt they care. Does the public want to know how much I pay my creditors
on a regular basis? Maybe, but there are easier/better ways for them to find
out.
In this country at least, there is recourse to be taken if an individual
believes that private mail (dead-tree) is being invaded. It is illegal.
Should electronic mail be subject to the same privacy? Probably. But it isn't,
and I believe that all users should act accordingly.
--
// Michael B. Smith
\X/ ...!uunet!virginia!adastra!mbs
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203271656.AA07234@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 04:56:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bsmart)
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <34064@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: 26 Mar 92 22:36:46 GMT
In article <1992Mar26.91111.5936@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes
Morgan) writes:
> In article <34044@ttidca.TTI.COM> bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bsmart) writes:
> >
> >That leaves open the question of how a user might subscribe to a group
> >after it's been determined that nobody is using it -- but I think that's
> >a technical detail that should be fixable without too much effort.
>
> Well, I'd patch the source of the news reader (such as rn) to say something
> like " is not available at this site -- to request it, contact
> ".
You could even take it a step farther, if you wanted to preserve the
"untouched by human hands" aspect of it, and whenever you discontinue a
newsgroup, replace it with a single article that says "This newsgroup is
not currently being carried at this site. Now that you have subscribed
to it, we'll pick it up -- please try back tomorrow for the real
articles in this group." Then your patched newsreader handles the
details of resuming the feed -- and nobody has to call up the
administrator and disguise his voice while he asks for
comp.weenie.systems to be added to the news feed.
> >there's one person in the whole place who wants to keep the group, then it
> >stays
>
> I don't quite agree with this; I think that the volume of the newsgroup
> in question has to influence the decision.
Sure, but I think it's just a quibble. If you want to make it more
sophisticated than just "keep all newsgroups for which there are any
subscribers," you ought to be able to do some weighting based on the
activity of the group and the number of users...but there's STILL no
privacy violation I can see, since all of this can be done
automatically, by programs that won't be judgmental about people who
read alt.really.sick.and.revolting.stuff.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security, et al.] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203271707.AA07351@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 05:07:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 10:04:59 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.100459.19138@clarinet.com>
The software to do this sort of dynamic feeding is on ftp.uu.net, in
the file vendor/ClariNet/dynafeed.tar.Z. It is free.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.114306.13132@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 92 16:43:06 GMT
pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>> Charge students for news? Yikes!
>>
>> My site doesn't charge for *anything*, and we don't plan to do so.
>>
>I hate to be picky, but the charge is done in a form of tuition.
Most universities receive less than 15% of their budget from tuition.
>When I went to school,
>the computer center charged for certain resources, such as a per page charge
>for use of the laser printer.
We survive on our (small) budget. While a small part of that budget is
derived from tuition, we do not explicitly charge for computing resources;
we have no "student computing fee".
>But after that, it would
>be fairly easy to manage. Computer time was billed at our school. Each
>student got an initial credit. You used the computer until you ran out
>and then begged the teacher for more, or borrowed from another student.
Your mention of "begging the teacher for more" implies that your depart-
ment paid the bills. If that's the case, I wonder how many department
chairmen would pay the bills for news reading.
I think that this scheme (department billing) would create a situation
in which certain users (with tolerant/rich departments) would be allowed
access to news, while others (from smaller/poorer departments) would be
left out in the digital cold. That's hardly an acceptable situation.
I think that billing for services greatly increases the tempation to
evade billing through cracking accounts, sharing passwords, and attempting
to crack the system; I've seen it happen at sites which bill for CPU usage.
I, for one, don't need any more headaches than I already have.
--
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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.165011.24372@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 16:50:11 GMT
bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
[...]
>Two points. First, there is a strong sentiment on ASAR to be
>visible to act as a resource for rape victims/survivors. A few
>days ago I proposed a CFD to create talk.sexual.abuse.recovery
>to avoid the problem of being removed as part of the alt.sex*
>hierarchy (which has happened several times in the past few
>months).
This shows the foolishness of banning alt.sex*. Please work to reverse
these bans.
> One of the most frequenly cited reasons _not_ to move
>was the fear that other survivors would not be able to find the
>new group.
>
>That support is lost if we go underground into mailing lists.
I suggest a moderated newsgroup. This would give the moderator
complete authority over posts in the one newsgroup without creating a
Net.Cops with the authority to ban a person from any newsgroup.
It would not stop ridicule from being expressed in other forums. In my
opinion, ridicule in other forums cannot effectively (and should not)
be outlawed.
[...]
>No matter what action is taken, someone will lose. But which
>decision has the least cost to society as a whole -- restricting
>irresponsible speech
... in other forums by creating a Net.Cops that can decide which speech is
"responsible" enough to be permitted, ...
>to protect a public support group,
... or making a public support groups adapt to public ridicule in
other forums.
I think the creation of Net.Cops would have the greating cost.
>Balancing acts like this are a real pain in the neck, but they're
>part of life. An absolute right would come in handy about here,
>but none exist. (Freedom of speech is an subset of human rights,
>and is equal, not superior, to other human rights such as freedom
>of assembly and freedom of religion.
I don't recognize "freedom from ridicule" as a human right. This seems
to be the right you to wish exercise.
> As I've mentioned earlier,
>freedom of assembly enters this question because it describes
>creating/joining newsgroups).
[...]
I encourage you to exercise your freedom of assembly by creating a
moderated newsgroup where you will get to play god and decide who gets
to post (Or a closed mailing list, where you will get to play god and
decide who gets to post and read.)
I discourage you from trying to create a Net.Cops who would have
authority to interfer with my freedom of assembly and expression by
restricting other newsgroups.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9203271733.aa22552@s.s.ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 17:33:18 GMT
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: morgan
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Privacy perfect news management (was Re: News Group Readership)
References: <1992Mar24.150505.18563@rock.concert.net>
<1992Mar25.221003.10783@eff.org>
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.123316.22535@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 17:33:16 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
X-Bytes: 4063
Lines: 83
kadie@eff.ORG (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Many sys admins don't seem to like part of the news admin job:
>newsgroup selection. Could we create a system in which users did
>selection and in which sys admins would no more need to worry about
>the contents of what is selected that they worry about the contents of
>email?
The contents of email are not a subject of "worry" for one simple
reason; email is specifically addressed to an individual person.
Usenet, on the other hand, is a broadcast medium; its contents are
thrown to the world. That's an important distinction.
>As a first cut:
> Newsgroups are expired by disk use rather than time.
1) Are you suggesting that a Usenet posting should remain online until
EVERY person who subscribes to the group has read it? If so, that
won't work; there are users who log in once a month......or less often.
I had a parallel situation with email. Two or three users discovered
mailing lists; they subscribed to about a dozen or so each. After about
two weeks, they apparently decided that it wasn't worth the time; they
stopped reading their mail WITHOUT dropping out of the mailing lists.
After about another week, my mail directory was filled to overflowing;
it took me another two weeks to contact the maintainers of all those
mailing lists to get them removed.
2) If you're talking about expiration by *total* disk usage, how shall
we decide which postings to expire? The oldest? The largest? The
smallest? Which postings shall be the first to go?
> Users are given a quota of /usr/spool/news disk space that they
> can allocate as they wish to newsgroups.
> Users can subscribe to a newsgroup themselves (if they allocate
> disk to it.)
I'm missing something here. Are you suggesting that incoming articles will
be copied to the "news directory" of *every* user that subscribes to that
particular group? If so, that's going to require *gigabytes* of free disk
space; it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, from an economic
viewpoint.
If you use links (with the Unix "ln" command, for example), you could
reduce the number of copies. However, many operating systems (IBM CMS,
DEC VMS, etc) do not support the notion of "linking"; your mechanism
would not work in those environments.
Those operating systems which support links place an upper limit on the
number of links to a single file. On some systems, such as System V
Unix, this defaults to 32; increasing that limit requires kernel modifi-
cation, which could have an impact on other applications. On some sys-
tems, this limit is hard-coded; it cannot be modified. Therefore, this
mechanism would not work with high-subscription newsgroups.
>Such a system is *perfect*. It would *totally* meet the goal of
>lowering resource use by sharing. It would *guarantee* total user
>privacy.
With the current technology, I don't think it will work. It's a nice
idea, but it won't work for a site with a significant number of news
readers.
It doesn't "guarantee" user privacy. The burden of privacy is placed
squarely on the user, however. If the user doesn't use the file pro-
tection commands, it's trivially simple to find all links to a given
file; it doesn't even require superuser access in Unix.
>It would take news admins *completely* out of the hot seat.
To a point, I agree with you. However, the news admin can still "catch
heat" for providing the materials in the first place. That's the entire
crux of the problems we've been discussing. The administration (and the
public) doesn't complain that Joe Shmo is reading soc.pedophile.help; they
complain that the news admins are making it possible in the first place!
--Wes
--
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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Vatican Pornography Collection
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.171624.2264@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 17:16:24 GMT
[Reposted excerpt from alt.folklore.urban - Carl]
twcaps@tennyson.lbl.gov (Terry Chan) writes:
[...]
>Cecil Adams comments on this question in _The Straight Dope_.
>but the largest [library collection of sexual material -cmk]
>is the Kinsey Institutes on the
>[Indiana University -cmk] campus. There are 12,000 books,
>50,000 photographs, 25,000 of flat
>art, 3,700 films, and 1,300 art objects.
[...]
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: paul@xcluud.sccsi.com (Paul Hutmacher)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.044720.10539@xcluud.sccsi.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 04:47:20 GMT
Can we keep this discussion out of alt.sources please?
--
Paul Hutmacher | paul@xcluud.sccsi.com | .. like desperados
Houston, Texas | {nuchat,lobster}!xcluud!paul | waiting for a train.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Privacy perfect news management (was Re: News Group Readership)
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.180455.22822@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 18:04:55 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
cmk>As a first cut:
cmk> Newsgroups are expired by disk use rather than time.
>1) Are you suggesting that a Usenet posting should remain online until
> EVERY person who subscribes to the group has read it? If so, that
> won't work; there are users who log in once a month......or less often.
I was unclear. I propose that each newsgroup be given a disk space
quota. When a new article would cause it to exceed this quota, the
oldest articles are expired and removed. I think some systems do this
now.
cmk> Users are given a quota of /usr/spool/news disk space that they
cmk> can allocate as they wish to newsgroups.
>I'm missing something here. Are you suggesting that incoming articles will
>be copied to the "news directory" of *every* user that subscribes to that
>particular group?
I was unclear. Each user will be given authority to allocate some
amount of diskspace to the newsgroups.
Let me give an example. No one on my site reads alt.censorship or
alt.fishing. These are the only two newsgroups I want to read. I have
256K that I can allocate to newsgroups. I give 200K to alt.censorship
and 56K to alt.fishing. Automatically, my site subscribes to these two
newsgroups, keeping the most recent 200K and 56K of articles.
[...]
cmk>It would take news admins *completely* out of the hot seat.
>To a point, I agree with you. However, the news admin can still "catch
>heat" for providing the materials in the first place. That's the entire
>crux of the problems we've been discussing. The administration (and the
>public) doesn't complain that Joe Shmo is reading soc.pedophile.help; they
>complain that the news admins are making it possible in the first place!
And yet if the hypothetical s.p.h was a mailing list, no one (or fewer
people) would complain. (Why?)
- 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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for you!)
Message-ID: <9203271842.AA08061@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 06:42:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: kent@sparky.imd.sterling.com (Kent Landfield)
Subject: Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for you!)
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.172518.8407@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 17:25:18 GMT
In article <10976@autodesk.COM> peb@autodesk.com (Paul Baclace {Xanalogical User Interfaces}) writes:
>In article <1992Mar25.144419.17010@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, faust@bagels.enet.dec.com (Stephen R Faust) writes:
>> Sooner or later, someone is going to get the bright idea to put his entire
>> collection of images from the net onto a CD and try to sell it.
>
>Since Sterling Software is starting to distribute CDs of net traffic,
>I wonder if they are taking out the obvious or questionable copyright
>violations. Redistributing Usenet information *could* be considered
>"unmoderated" in which case, Sterling is a common carrier, so they
>are not liable. If they made significant money on this and a magazine
>went after them, the resulting decision could complicate BBS
>responsibility in matters of libel, copyright, etc. Redistributing
>net information is simply a "packet-switched" BBS--one packet per
>month, but a packet nonetheless.
We do consider ourselves a common carrier. The NetNews/CD service is a
distribution and archiving service. We were however, informed by legal that
over 90% of the pictures posted to the net are not original material but are
illegally posted copyrighted material. We are not distributing alt.pictures.*
for this reason. It is a shame that we cannot capture everything but we
decided that it was best to leave that to others to distribute. We are aware
that pictures get posted to other groups. We are not in a position to
"moderate" the total removal of all pictures from every group and don't wish
to try to be the net.policeman. We are a simply a distribution service that
chooses not to distribute alt.pictures groups to our "downstream" sites. You
are fully capable of getting those groups from another source and archiving
them yourselves. We are attempting to keep as legal as possible here so that
NetNews/CD can be a long term service which truly benefits the net. Our
actions and decisions are no different than those of a large connection
oriented newsfeed. We are passing the information through as it comes across
the net with each "packet" being shipped as it fills up.
-Kent+
----
NetNews/CD INTERNET: cdnews@Sterling.COM
Sterling Software UUCP: uunet!sparky!cdnews
1404 Ft. Crook Rd. South FAX: (402) 291-4362
Phone: (402) 291-8300 US Phone: (800) 643-NEWS
Bellevue, NE. 68005-2969 International: (402) 291-2108
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.175711.3759@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 17:57:11 GMT
In article <1992Mar27.024521.12266@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu") writes:
>
>>You can run quite a respectable news service on a $1000 300Mb disk, thank you.
>>I would accept the 'lack of space' argument if the sys admins would explicitly
>>accept any group that anyone asked for, laving out the dross by default.
>
>There is more to running a news site than the cost of the disk drive.
>
>You may crawl back under your rock now.
Stop trying to get off the subject.
The original claim was that alt groups where removed while keeping
all other newsgroups because of disk space problems. Its been pointed
out that this claim is bogus because the disk space to keep the alt
groups is cheap. The cost to administer news is the same if you carry
one group or all of them.
--
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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U38373@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Re: U of Delaware Code
Message-ID: <199203272015.AA25851@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 20:12:32 GMT
The draft U of Delaware computing code says that the following is actionable:
> sending frivolous or excessive messages, either locally or
off-campus [including electronic chain letters and unauthorized
electronic "bulk" mailings]; printing excess copies of
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U38373@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Re: U of Delaware Code
Message-ID: <199203272025.AA26177@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 20:15:31 GMT
(Due to a glitch, this was just sent out before it was finished. Here's the
real thing :-).)
The draft U of Delaware computing code says that the following is actionable:
> sending frivolous or excessive messages, either locally or
>off-campus [including electronic chain letters and unauthorized
>electronic "bulk" mailings]; printing excess copies of
How is "excessive" to be defined? The ban on chain letters is unexception-
able, but the implied ban on mailing lists is disturbing. Many of the mailing
lists (though not this one) whose existence is made known through the net and
elsewhere are based on campuses, and they are typically completely benign. If
this policy is taken at face value, what criteria will the university use to
determine whether to authorize a given mailing list or not?
Ideally, the clauses on "frivolous or excessive" email should be removed
on grounds of vagueness and/or overbreadth. Anything legitimately actionable
under them should already be covered under the provisions on email harassment,
or on uses of the system that actually disrupt/endanger it. The language on
chain letters is OK, but that on mailing lists should go.
Mitch Pravatiner
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.151728.22746@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 20:17:28 GMT
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>The original claim was that alt groups where removed while keeping
>all other newsgroups because of disk space problems. Its been pointed
>out that this claim is bogus because the disk space to keep the alt
>groups is cheap. The cost to administer news is the same if you carry
>one group or all of them.
Ah, but the cost (in terms of resources) is NOT constant!
Let's quantify the set of newsgroups as N[]. Newsgroups and/or hierarchies
can be indicated as elements of N, e.g. N[comp.sys.sun] or N[rec.*].
Let's assume that Y blocks of disk space are available for news.
Let's assume that we cannot obtain funding for additional disk space for
the sole purpose of storing news. (I think this is a safe statement for
most cases; I know that I couldn't justify the $$$ for another hard drive for
news alone. If WPI has money laying around for just such an occasion, I'd
like to apply for a grant!)
As the space requirements of N[] grow (and Usenet is constantly growing
in volume) while Y remains constant, we will obviously reach a point at
which Y becomes insufficient.
If Y cannot be increased, we must reduce the requirements of N[]. There
are three approaches we may take:
1) We can achieve our reduction through the expiration mechanism.
(I don't know if this was done in this case)
2) We can reduce the number of members of N[] by removing news-
groups or hierarchies.
3) We can eliminate news altogether, removing N[*].
The site in question reduced the number of members of N[] by removing N[alt.*].
You know, it is entirely possible that this scenario could be reached without
ever looking at a posting from alt.*. The comp.* groups are steadily growing,
rec.* has added ~15 new groups in the last year, and soc.* is growing in volume
as well. If it came down to a hard decision, I think that most news admins
would delete alt.* before the "mainstream" hierarchies.
--
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 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,unl.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mikeho@seeker.mystic.com (Michael Ho)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.045937.7616@seeker.mystic.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 04:59:37 GMT
[My apologies to those few of you who previously saw this message. It seems
not to have been distributed off of my own site.]
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:
>
>>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.
This would be a fine answer, and I agree with you to a point... but when
the university is unable to make a rational decision as to what does and
doesn't further its educational goals -- a condition that IMHO is what UNL
has carved for itself -- the argument falls short.
1. "We're out of disk space." That may be true, and as a matter of fact,
if they want to kill the alt.binaries.smut groups, let 'em. But if
they decide to do use the disk space argument, they'd better kill off
groups on the basis of disk space eaten up, not on the basis of the
first three letters of the group name.
The fact is that "unlinfo," the machine in question, isn't all that big
a workstation. Is it out of space? Probably. Does it run like a dog?
This is the main e-mail *and* news server for a campus of over 25,000
students and faculty members. From first-hand experience, it runs like
crud.
But axing the whole alt. hierarchy? The Supreme Court holds itself to
the standard of that minimum amount of regulation needed to do the job
(at least, it claims to... as of late, that's open for debate).
Removing the alt. groups that don't carry .GIF traffic was simply a
matter of "measure with micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an axe."
I suspect the rec. hierarchy carries many times as much traffic as the
non-binary alt. groups. I don't see the director of CRC clamoring to
shut off *those* groups. So is the issue really disk space? (If it
were, the decision would be a lot easier to agree with.)
2. "This stuff is worse than what you find at the downtown [adult] book-
stores." Probably true. I'll avoid the censorship issue for now,
given that I have mixed feelings about what happens if State Sen.
Bernice Labedz should ever lock horns with alt.sex.bestiality, but
will merely comment thusly: By the content argument, there's simply
no justification for killing off the entire alt. hierarchy. (And
that's if you accept the content argument.)
Allow me to clarify that: there's no justification for killing off
the entire alt. hierarchy without killing off the rec., soc., and
talk. hierarchies -- all of which the UNL server continues to carry.
In fact, you'd need to kill off the unl.4sale, unl.flame, and
unl.sports as well. None of those bear any relevance to the classroom
learning environment, especially unl.flame, which is a playground for
long-winded twits like myself. :-)
The fact that remains, and has never been spoken, is that the UNL
administration -- and the CRC director in particular -- have been
looking for a quiet way to kill off those alt.binaries. groups, or
make them at least *appear* inaccessible, for quite some time.
I personally was asked for ideas on how to do it during the time
period of May 1991 through February 1992, and I proposed ideas
much like what I've said here:
a. Make a skeleton .newsrc for all users that searches only unl.
groups. Simple, painless, quiet, affects all new users, keeps
most people from rooting around in the smut.
b. Don't like that? Claim disk troubles (as they do) and kill off
the ten, or twenty, or whatever, highest-traffic groups that are
not clearly related to academia. This flushes the smutty disk hogs
while keeping innocuous stuff like rec.bicycling alive -- and best
of all, it gives at least the impression of being fair.
The disk space argument is a ruse, folks. CRC has been looking for an
excuse to kill these groups since before limited disk space was even a
remote problem; back then it was purely a content issue, and it had
nothing to do with the alt. hierarchy -- it was aimed right at the
smut, but they couldn't come up with a way to flush them. Apparently
killing the alt. groups was their ultimate solution.
Unlike the members of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I'm not
*fundamentally* offended by certain kinds of content restrictions.
I'm not going to cry too many tears over what CRC has done. Killing the
alt. hierarchy was stupid and irrational, but I expect nothing less from
CRC (which, I must note, was my employer for the better part of three
years).
Most amazing is that CRC retains a remarkable ability to handle simple
situations in ways that enrage the most people and generate the most negative
publicity possible; a recent previous example was when they suspended
and/or expelled a couple of students for accessing an interactive game
from a terminal room in the student union. CRC immediately put up signs
asserting a ban on hacking (which they conveniently wrote into the Student
Code of Conduct the next year, as I watched from my vantage point as the
student member of the subcommittee that oversees computing operations).
Later, they patched the security hole that let those kids get to the MUD.
For Chrissake, that's what they should have done in the first place.
Sometimes I think that certain parts of the CRC administration -- and by
that I don't by any means imply everybody, but those of you screaming at your
terminals are *probably* the ones I'm talking about -- could either use
a good swift kick in the butt or a public-relations specialist.
I don't expect them to get either soon, which is a pity.
Good day. Flames to mikeho@seeker.mystic.com or mikeho@seeker.uucp.
--
()_() ... Michael Ho, Pleasant Hill 94523 ... mikeho@seeker.mystic.com
(_) Closer to the Magic Kingdom, but farther from Mannequins
--
___
()_() ... Michael Ho, Pleasant Hill 94523 ... mikeho@seeker.mystic.com
(_) Closer to the Magic Kingdom, but farther from Mannequins
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.225144.29958@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 22:51:44 GMT
In article <1992Mar27.151728.22746@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>Ah, but the cost (in terms of resources) is NOT constant!
>
>Let's quantify the set of newsgroups as N[]. Newsgroups and/or hierarchies
>can be indicated as elements of N, e.g. N[comp.sys.sun] or N[rec.*].
I think you're missing the point here. The issue is not really whether
Nebraska doesn't have the resources to carry the alt.groups. The issue,
instead, is whether they're using "limited resources" as an excuse for not
carrying newsgroups they regard as controversial. Is there any serious
dispute about whether this is what, in fact, they are doing?
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis
mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --Marcel Proust
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ahlevy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Allan Levy)
Subject: Re: U of Delaware Code
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.230316.20926@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 23:03:16 GMT
Sender (daemon@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Admin)) says:
The draft U of Delaware computing code says that the following is
actionable:
> sending frivolous or excessive messages, either locally or
off-campus [including electronic chain letters and unauthorized
electronic "bulk" mailings]; printing excess copies of....."
It is quite difficult to know what "frivolous" is. Are we to have a
nation where our electronic communications system is disciplined by
people's varying senses of humor?
Allan H. Levy
Univ of Ill College of Medicine at U-C
Opinions my own, not the U of I
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Is this a privacy violation ?
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Mar 92 22:48:56 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu writes:
>>> [....discussing deletion of accounts and the announcement thereof....]
>>
>>If the FERPA applies, then you'd have to do more than just have them
>>sign a paper. I think it would be easier to just keep the information
>>private.
>>
>Hmmmm....this brings a particular "real world" situation to mind.
>Accounts on my systems are only issued to faculty/staff/students in the
>College of Engineering.
>When accounts are removed (due to graduation/suspension/transfer/whatever),
>I usually see a significant amount of email bouncing, as people "out in
>netland" try to contact the deleted accounts. I have seen many cases where
>those "out in netland" folks dump *megabytes* of email (sometimes over a
>period of several months) to my machines in their attempts to "get through"
>to a nonexistent user. If the "ex-user" was subscribed to mailing lists,
>the level of garbage traffic goes even higher.
>I was considering changing the mailer's error message in these cases from
>"user unknown" to "This individual is no longer affiliated with the College
>of Engineering; this user no longer exists." Hopefully, the user(s) on the
>other end (or their postmasters) would see the message and cease the dumping.
>Would you consider this message a violation of the ex-user's privacy?
hummm. how about forwarding address unknown. you know like a roommate who moves
out
or a former employee??
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Mar 92 01:25:20 GMT
[This stuff isn't source, so don't post it to alt.sources.]
> While I agree that any individual news readership information
> should be private, is it a great evil to collect statistics,
> erasing the individual information?
=x= No, it's not evil, but the question doesn't address the
real concerns. Once a mechanism to collect such statistics is
in place it can be abused.
> Of course I can go into any small public library and find out
> some things about the tastes of the community. Is that bad?
=o= No, it's not bad, but again it doesn't address the real
concerns. Suppose the library keeps track of who read what,
and puts it in a database. It is then possible for some kind
of McCarthyite (or Buchananite, whatever) to see who's reading
all the officially unapproved books.
<_Jym_>
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: weather@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material.
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.033504.17630@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 03:35:04 GMT
In article <1992Mar26.144448.1035@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mfa@aux.eng.hou.compaq.com (Michael Angelo) writes:
)> Interesting addendum: Someone here brought up the possibility that
)> sexaul harassment laws might have an impact on what our *lab users*
)> could display on their machines, in that some of our *employees* who
)> work in those labs are female. Comments?
) Yup, they can or will have an impact. It has nothing to do with
)sex however. The way the laws are written if someone in your lab feels
)uncomfortable by being in the work place because of the pictures they can
)file a suit. Note: It is the same with racially oriented jokes, sexually
)explicit comments etc.
)
I believe that the original poster wanted to know what impact harassment
laws would have on what a student _USER_ can display.
Could an EMPLOYEE (worker in university PC lab) sue the university for
harassment if a CUSTOMER (student using the lab) displays material that the
employee thinks is offensive?
I believe that under current laws, the university can restrict WHAT the machines
are used for, but cannot ban _only_ pornographic images. e.g. they can restrict
use to academic related purposes, but can't toss a user out who loads up a
playboy centerfold if the guy next to him is viewing gifs of Porsche cars.
--
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
technews@iitmax.iit.edu kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
My Employer Disagrees.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] RE: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk] Re: U of Delaware Code
Message-ID: <199203280425.AA04999@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 18:25:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET (Rich England)
Subject: RE: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk] Re: U of Delaware Code
Message-ID: <199203280413.AA04831@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 03:05:00 GMT
There are BITNET lists DEDICATED to the "frivolous!" To rephrase
Allan Levy's comment, 'who's sense of humor will decide which Email
deserves PUNishment?"
;)
Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.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 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 06:05:35 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.060535.20483@anomaly.sbs.com>
pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>I hate to be picky, but the charge is done in a form of tuition. The library
>doesn't charge a fee, because of tuition and donations. The bookstore,
>though, charges for the books that are bought. These resources are all paid
>for. Some on a by-use basis, and some with tuition. When I went to school,
>the computer center charged for certain resources, such as a per page charge
>for use of the laser printer.
Some classes have a "lab fee" associated with them to cover the cost of
materials you use in your Chemistry, Physics, or Biology class. Why should
the cost of using the computer be figured as part of your tuition while these
other classes' resources are not?
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 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 06:08:42 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.060842.20567@anomaly.sbs.com>
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>The original claim was that alt groups where removed while keeping
>all other newsgroups because of disk space problems. Its been pointed
>out that this claim is bogus because the disk space to keep the alt
>groups is cheap.
Perhaps disks are cheap, that doesn't make them easily obtainable.
Trying to figure out what other service or product you can "not pay"
$1.5k for, in order to "buy" another news hard drive, is not as easy
as it sounds.
But, suck-at-the-public-teat .edu students seem to think that computer
centers grow on trees.
>The cost to administer news is the same if you carry
>one group or all of them.
Wrong. The cost of administration goes up with the number of groups you
carry - there is more (manual) work that you have to perform, when you
have to perform it.
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 28 00:00:00 1992
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.091846.23213@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 92 09:18:46 GMT
In article <1992Mar28.060842.20567@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>>The original claim was that alt groups where removed while keeping
>>all other newsgroups because of disk space problems. Its been pointed
>>out that this claim is bogus because the disk space to keep the alt
>>groups is cheap.
>
>Perhaps disks are cheap, that doesn't make them easily obtainable.
>Trying to figure out what other service or product you can "not pay"
>$1.5k for, in order to "buy" another news hard drive, is not as easy
>as it sounds.
With a $1.5k disk you can keep all of Usenet around for at least
twice as long as everyone else does. A better question is whats
the difference in price between buying a disk just large enough to
hold all of usenet except the alt groups, and one that will hold
it all. Not much.
>But, suck-at-the-public-teat .edu students seem to think that computer
>centers grow on trees.
You keep insisting that anyone who does not agree with you is
necessarily a student, and some kind of a leach at that. Were you
never a student?
Note that I post to news from an .edu site. Please note too, that
I am not a student (or anything except a guest) at that
institution.
>>The cost to administer news is the same if you carry
>>one group or all of them.
>
>Wrong. The cost of administration goes up with the number of groups you
>carry - there is more (manual) work that you have to perform, when you
>have to perform it.
Lets see, so far you have claimed this a number of times, and once
(was that you?) even pointed out that there had been some odd
number of bogus alt groups formed this week which would take up
your valuable time (snicker snicker).
Hmmm. If it causes YOU that much work, your site could probably
save quite a bit by hiring a capable systems administration.
>-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
>-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
Your little quote above makes the same sense as the rest of your
arguments.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, Alaska
From caf-talk Caf Mar 28 00:00:00 1992
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.094609.23960@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 92 09:46:09 GMT
In article <1992Mar28.060535.20483@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>
>>I hate to be picky, but the charge is done in a form of tuition. The library
>>doesn't charge a fee, because of tuition and donations. The bookstore,
>>though, charges for the books that are bought. These resources are all paid
>>for. Some on a by-use basis, and some with tuition. When I went to school,
>>the computer center charged for certain resources, such as a per page charge
>>for use of the laser printer.
>
>Some classes have a "lab fee" associated with them to cover the cost of
>materials you use in your Chemistry, Physics, or Biology class. Why should
>the cost of using the computer be figured as part of your tuition while these
>other classes' resources are not?
Not all classes require a lab. Only those which do should pay for it.
Once upon a time not all classes required access to a computer, and
I remember when my children first started taking classes at the
Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks the only way they could get an account
on the computer system was to take a computer related course and
pay a lab fee. (I was annoyed that they were behind the times.)
Today *any* class includes access to the computer system.
--
Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, Alaska
From caf-talk Caf Mar 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mechrist%emubus@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Christ Eric)
Subject: RE: Email privacy
Message-ID: <9203281517.AA02924@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 14:18:00 GMT
Come acoss the following citation while doing a LEXIS search. It
seems applicable to some of the current threads on CAF-Talk.
"Letter suspending anesthesiologist's clinical privileges at the Veterans
Administration hospital following peer review proceedings did not violate her
rights under Privacy Act, even though letter was distributed to peer review
committee members and witnesses testifying at suspension proceeding, since
disclosure of letter's contents occurred during performance of duty of
committee members and witnesses, thus, meeting exemption for consent
disclosure requirement for those officers and employees of agency who have
need for agency record in the performance of their duties. Daly-Murphy v
Winston (1987, CA9 Cal) 837 F2d 348."
Cheers,
Eric
From caf-talk Caf Mar 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mechrist%emubus@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Christ Eric)
Subject: RE: [alt.privacy] Re: email privacy
Message-ID: <9203281527.AA04490@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 14:24:00 GMT
In <1992Mar27.081237.24000@nyssa.wa7ipx.ampr.org>
>Actually, the analogy does not fit as well as you might have hoped. I
>worked for the post office for four years. Yes, the Post Office is
>allowed to open letters without a proper mailing address, *and* there
>is no return address.
>However, the letter is not opened at the local post office, but instead
>sent to the (I kid you not) Dead Letter office. For the West Coast, it
>is in San Francisco. There the letter is opened, the sender
>determined, and the letter *returned* to the sender. They do not try
>to determine where to send the letter. If they cannot determine who
>sent the letter, the mail is destroyed.
This would seem to contradict a previous poster who stated that the Post
Office opened a damaged letter, determined who it should be sent to and
forwarded it, i.e. did not return to the sender, but to the recipient.
On a similar vein, my girlfriend's wallet was stolen from her purse at the
Panda House in the National Zoo. After searching in wastebaskets and bushes,
we gave up and canceled all the credit cards. Several weeks letter, the
wallet was delivered to her home in Georgia by the Post Office. They had
found the wallet in a mailbox, got her address from the Driver's license and
boxed it up and mailed it to her at no charge. Only the 7 dollars in cash
and several credit cards were missing. Not too bad for an agency that
everyone complains is unresponsive.
Cheers,
Eric
From caf-talk Caf Mar 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Privacy perfect news management (was Re: News Group Readership)
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.131210.9756@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 18:12:10 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>I was unclear. I propose that each newsgroup be given a disk space
>quota. When a new article would cause it to exceed this quota, the
>oldest articles are expired and removed. I think some systems do this
>now.
>
>I was unclear. Each user will be given authority to allocate some
>amount of diskspace to the newsgroups.
>
>Let me give an example. No one on my site reads alt.censorship or
>alt.fishing. These are the only two newsgroups I want to read. I have
>256K that I can allocate to newsgroups. I give 200K to alt.censorship
>and 56K to alt.fishing. Automatically, my site subscribes to these two
>newsgroups, keeping the most recent 200K and 56K of articles.
Oh, so it works cumulatively! Are you saying that, if 10 people did the
same as you, the "quota" for alt.censorship and alt.fishing would be
2000K and 560K, respectively?
It will still take a LARGE number of readers to support the comp.binaries
newsgroups, and (depending on news flow) the comp.sources groups. From
my observations, I think that any of the high-volume groups would need a
significant number of subscribers to maintain a decent spool of news from
each group.
Of course, if the number of users changes significantly, each user's
"allocation" will require adjustment. One of my systems has about
1500 users; if I have 500Mb available for news articles, each user's
allocation would be about 333Kb. If our College becomes more popular
next year, my number of users might rise to almost 2000; if my disk
space for news remains constant, the per-user allocation drops to
250K. Would each user have to "reallocate" his newly-dimished quota?
What if I have to take some space *away* from news for academic use?
The users would have to "reallocate" again, since their quota would
have to reflect the reduced total space.
Actually, this works *against* your concerns. Given the rather high
volume of alt.sex.* (our favorite example), one user's "allocation"
wouldn't even keep 1 day's worth of traffic!
>>To a point, I agree with you. However, the news admin can still "catch
>>heat" for providing the materials in the first place. That's the entire
>>crux of the problems we've been discussing. The administration (and the
>>public) doesn't complain that Joe Shmo is reading soc.pedophile.help; they
>>complain that the news admins are making it possible in the first place!
>
>And yet if the hypothetical s.p.h was a mailing list, no one (or fewer
>people) would complain. (Why?)
Because the mailing list was not "sitting on the system", waiting for
someone to discover. I certainly don't automatically give all my users
a copy of the "List of Lists" (the master mailing list index); they have
to go search it out and find it for themselves. (Before I get flamed,
let me point out that I will tell ANY user how to subscribe to a mailing
list AND how to get the "List of Lists"! All they have to do is ask.)
Because electronic mail is a personal resource, while Usenet is a
collective resource.
Because electronic mail is driven by the individual, while Usenet is driven
by the collective.
Because (hopefully) electronic mail is only seen/read by the recipient,
while Usenet is broadcast to the net.world.
Usenet cannot be equated with electronic mail, just as postal mail cannot
be equated with _The New York Times_. The items in each comparison may
travel over the same medium, but they are radically different in nature.
--
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 28 00:00:00 1992
From: aem@paris.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg)
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Date: 28 Mar 92 20:36:23 GMT
Message-ID:
In
jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>=o= No, it's not bad, but again it doesn't address the real
>concerns. Suppose the library keeps track of who read what,
>and puts it in a database. It is then possible for some kind
>of McCarthyite (or Buchananite, whatever) to see who's reading
>all the officially unapproved books.
Libraries can, and often do purposefully keep track of what books get
checked out, and how often, and can break it down by person. They keep
that information private however, just as I use the results of arbitron
run locally, but that info doesn't pass me.
I believe there have been cases where outside agencies have tried to get
libraries to release lists of what specific books individuals were
reading, and they lost. (the case on the tip of my memory I believe
involved foreign students or something)
aem
--
a.e.mossberg - aem@paris.cs.miami.edu - aem@umiami.bitnet
University of Miami Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
From caf-talk Caf Mar 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.223403.12167@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 22:34:03 GMT
aem@paris.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) writes:
[...]
>Libraries can, and often do purposefully keep track of what books get
>checked out, and how often, and can break it down by person.
It was my impression that individualized records are usually
only kept as long as the material is checked out.
[...]
>I believe there have been cases where outside agencies have tried to get
>libraries to release lists of what specific books individuals were
>reading, and they lost. (the case on the tip of my memory I believe
>involved foreign students or something)
I hadn't heard that they had "won" or "lost". I assume that even if
they "lost", they would still require a court order before such
records (if kept) would be turned over.
I'm enclosing information on a bibliography of these cases.
- Carl
============ excerpt ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/README=========
=================
christensen,_john_o.fbi.libraries
=================
According to the back cover, this bibliography can be ordered from:
VANCE BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Post Office Box 229
Monticello, Illinois 61856
=========================
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: ?????
--
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 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.225332.12510@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 22:53:32 GMT
In article <1992Mar28.060535.20483@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Some classes have a "lab fee" associated with them to cover the cost of
>materials you use in your Chemistry, Physics, or Biology class. Why should
>the cost of using the computer be figured as part of your tuition while these
>other classes' resources are not?
"Lab fees" are an innovation that allows a college or university to
effectively raise tuition without appearing to do so. At public
universities, this tactic is used to get past legislative limitations on
tuition; at private ones, it's used to artificially deflate the cost of
tuition in order to remain price-competitive with other private
institutions.
Many undergraduates have stories about courses in which they were required
to pay lab fees even though they were never in a lab and never used any
materials provided by the college.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis
mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --Marcel Proust
From caf-talk Caf Mar 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <92Mar28.191301est.144353@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu>
Date: 29 Mar 92 00:13:16 GMT
bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
>Where I work, System Managers *specifically* search
>through user directories to ensure that disk contents are work-related.
>This is by Management directive.
I find this to be an astonishing denial of the fact that your workers are human
beings.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 28 00:00:00 1992
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar29.021938.13211@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 29 Mar 92 02:19:38 GMT
In article <1992Mar28.060842.20567@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>>The original claim was that alt groups where removed while keeping
>>all other newsgroups because of disk space problems. Its been pointed
>>out that this claim is bogus because the disk space to keep the alt
>>groups is cheap.
>
>Perhaps disks are cheap, that doesn't make them easily obtainable.
>Trying to figure out what other service or product you can "not pay"
>$1.5k for, in order to "buy" another news hard drive, is not as easy
>as it sounds.
Figure out how much money your institution loses by being deprived of News.
Hint how much do the commercial equivalents of free software such as gcc and
Linux cost?
>But, suck-at-the-public-teat .edu students seem to think that computer
>centers grow on trees.
No its cheaper than growing trees, compare the cost of news to the cost of
magazine subscriptions containing that much information. Or ask the students if
tacking $1 each onto there tuition is ok if it means they can get the alt
groups. Its not just a matter of cost its a matter of cost and benefit, news
has the most benefit per dollar of just about anything you do.
--
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 28 00:00:00 1992
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.234258.23774@anomaly.sbs.com>
Date: 28 Mar 92 23:42:58 GMT
floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>Today *any* class includes access to the computer system.
Funny, at the several colleges/universities I teach at taking "any" class
doesn't automatically get you access to computer resources.
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 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: fxjwk@acad3.alaska.edu (Jo Knox)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.192246.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 04:22:46 GMT
In article <1992Mar28.234258.23774@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>
[ Floyd's comments re-added for the context ]
>>I remember when my children first started taking classes at the
>>Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks the only way they could get an account
>>on the computer system was to take a computer related course and
>>pay a lab fee. (I was annoyed that they were behind the times.)
>>
>>Today *any* class includes access to the computer system.
>
> Funny, at the several colleges/universities I teach at taking "any" class
> doesn't automatically get you access to computer resources.
>
> 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 /
Well, I guess WE are no longer behind the times!
At the University of Alaska, signing up for any one credit class entitles
a student access to the Macs, PCs, NeXTs, and even the big VAXes (well, they're
not as big as they used to be...) We have long felt that any student who
chooses to use a computer in conjunction with their school work, whether
required or not, should have that advantage. Personally, I think that anyone
who still uses a typewriter to type papers is at a major disadvantage!
jo
From caf-talk Caf Mar 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar29.074857.10407@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 07:48:57 GMT
In article <1992Mar28.234258.23774@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>
>>Today *any* class includes access to the computer system.
>
>Funny, at the several colleges/universities I teach at taking "any" class
>doesn't automatically get you access to computer resources.
Even funnier: I may have been wrong that at UAF it was originally
a separate fee and depended on the class... One of the systems
administration people questioned me about when that was because he
doesn't remember it having been set up differently than it is
now... he might be right.
Seems to me it was that way here ten years ago. And you are
saying it still that way there now... a pity.
I can't imagine educating students without computer resources.
Right now I'm annoyed that my two youngest ones can't get ethernet
connection to the computers they have in their dorm rooms!
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, Alaska
From caf-talk Caf Mar 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <9203291752.AA15938@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 05:52:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 29 00:00:00 1992
From: fxjwk@acad3.alaska.edu (Jo Knox)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <1992Mar28.133829.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 92 22:38:29 GMT
In article <1992Mar27.005508.4754@ecst.csuchico.edu>, warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Kennedy) writes:
> In article jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>
> --> Imagine if you will that a MUD server (Multi User Dimension - an adventure,
> --> chat, programming, etc virtual experience) was running at your site. ...
>
> It's a low tactic that works. The boy aimed at administrators who may be
> clueless and succumb to such scare tactics. Spare me from wire jockys. I
> just hope everyone bothered to engage their brains and check out his claims
> before they started having a seizure.
>
> --
> John Kennedy/KC6RCK/warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu "IBM, You BM, We All BM for IBM!"
No kidding, it does work... Post-mortem analysis of a recent "witch-hunt" here
leads me to suspect someone upstairs received a very similar letter, written to
sound like a very courteous Federal agent, informing us that many users from
our site were playing MUDs around the world. This led to a letter from a vice
chancellor asking about cost, "How much does Telnet charge us for this kind of
activity? Should we condone it?" Result was almost to close everything (MUDs,
IRC, NEWS, you name it). Instead, our new policy is no games in public labs
M-F 8am-6pm, no games at all in the "Advanced Computing Facility". The main
campus VAX now disallows specific machine/port connections between the
proscribed hours.
I detest the fact that some twerp, official or not, did this...
However, I have had quite a few people mention that they are much happier with
the environment of the labs---apparently the gamers were incredibly noisy and
tended to hog terminals when they shouldn't have...
jo
From caf-talk Caf Mar 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <9203291752.AA15947@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 05:52:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 29 00:00:00 1992
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <1992Mar29.024715.12614@news.ysu.edu>
Date: 29 Mar 92 02:47:15 GMT
: I detest the fact that some twerp, official or not, did this...
The userid format used is that of a student at Penn State (it was from
PSUVM, in fact, and a post earlier in the thread named the offendor).
--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu doug@ysub.bitnet !cc.ysu.edu!doug
We've had 4 years of domestic policy failure. Fire Bush this November.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] File 10--Electronic CivLib - model candidate's statement & ideas
Message-ID: <9203291819.AA16039@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 06:19:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 29 00:00:00 1992
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 18:05:58 -0800
From: Jim Warren
Subject: File 10--Electronic CivLib - model candidate's statement & ideas
This concerns practical efforts to assure that traditional
constitutional rights and protections remain clearly guaranteed, even
in the context of modern technology -- in the "Information Age" and
across the "Electronic Frontier."
For this 1992 election-year, the following offers possible models
for do-it-yourself citizen-based political action. Please "copy, post
and circulate" this 3-part document wherever and to whomever you wish.
Please feel free to modify Parts 2 and 3 however you wish -- over your
own signature. After all, freedom always *has* been a do-it-yourself
project.
This introduction is PART-1 of three parts.
PART-2 provides a model cover-letter & facts you might use:
1. First, it *briefly* mentions the electronic civil liberties issues.
2. Its next part is intended to get the attention of a candidate and/or
their campaign staff by illustrating cheap, effective net communications.
3. The next part illustrates that a great number of people (candidate-
translation: "voters") are involved.
4. *Very important*: It outlines our ability to communicate with masses
of people/voters -- at little or no cost.
5. Equally important -- it requests *specific commitment to act* from a
candidate.
6. It offers a matching commitment to publicize their position.
PART-3 is a model candidate's statement committing to specific action.
Note: All successful politicians have mastered the art of
*sounding* like they are supportive of the hundreds or thousands of
causes and pleas that are urged upon them. Good-sounding,
vaguely-supportive statements are worth virtually nothing. Anything
less than their issuing a public position statement committing to
explicit action must be considered as meaningless.
Election season is the one time when we have our best chance at
efficient and effective citizen action. All it takes is time and effort.
(And, I walk it like I talk it -- I have forwarded customized versions of
the cover-letter and model-statement to several state and federal candidates
-- all of whom are seeking re-election or election to higher office.)
I would be happy to help others working on these issues, time permitting.
The more people who send this cover letter and model statement to
candidates -- and phone campaign headquarters and ask questions at
candidates' forums; the more sensitized they will become to this
constituency and these fundamental issues of a free society.
Speak and write, now; speak and write, often.
"The price of freedom ..."
--Jim Warren, Electronic Civil Liberties Initiative,
345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062; fax/415-851-2814
email/ jwarren@well.sf.ca.us
[ For identification purposes only: organizer/chair of First Conference on
Computers, Freedom & Privacy (1991), first-year recipient of Electronic
Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award (1992), MicroTimes contributing editor &
columnist, Autodesk Board of Directors member, founding of InfoWorld,
founding editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal, past chair of ACM, SIGMICRO and
SIGPLAN chapters, etc., blah blah blah. ]
=============== PART-2, MODEL COVER-LETTER TO CANDIDATE(S) ================
Dear [candidate],
A growing percentage of the 12-16 million people who are "online" --
using networked computers -- are expressing increasing concern about
protecting traditional civil liberties and personal privacy in the
"Information Age." (People are "coming online" at a rate much faster than
the explosive growth of personal computing since they began in the mid-'70s.)
As we use networked computers for electronic-mail, teleconferencing
and information exchange, they are reporting rapidly-increasing threats to
electronic "speech," "press," "assembly," personal security and privacy.
For instance: In 1990, a single notice sent out across computer
nets prompted 30,000 complaints about Lotus Corporation's plans to
sell personal data on 20-million consumers. Lotus quickly withdrew
their "Marketplace" product before sales ever began.
Or: In Spring, 1991, a single message sent into the computer nets
prompted thousands of complaints to Senators Biden and DeConcini. It
concerned legislation they had introduced, reportedly requested by the
FBI via Senator Thurmond, that would have crippled secure voice and
data communications for U.S. citizens and business. The Senators
withdrew the proposal with three weeks of the net-circulated note.
How many voters are involved?
Almost all users are adults. Most are well-educated. Most have
upscale incomes. Most have significant discretion for spending and
contributions.
Recent published research indicates there are about 14.2-million
people sharing 1.3-million "host" computers on the "Internet." This
includes about 960,000 people using more than 12,000 home/personal
computers as shared BBSs -- networked electronic "bulletin board
systems." These offer free or almost-free teleconferencing and
electronic-mail. [Matrix News, Feb., 1992, 1120 S. Capitol-of-Texas
Hwy., Bldg. 2-300, Austin, TX 78746.]
(In addition, there are also the commercial systems such as
CompuServe, Prodigy, GEnie and MCImail -- but they have only several
million users and are very costly in comparison to the much larger
Internet computer matrix.) Mass-discussions of freedom and privacy
concerns are escalating.
Almost-instant mass-circulated online "newspapers" and "news-groups"
plus numerous popular teleconferences increasingly carry reports of
electronic civil-liberties and privacy concerns. Credit-data abuses,
covert employer surveillance, corporate espionage, seizure of
electronic publications, searches of entire electronic post offices,
and government opposition to secure communications are greatly
escalating these concerns.
These issues are rapidly penetrating the public press and
television. Example: The First Conference on Computers, Freedom and
Privacy (1991), prompted well in excess of 80 pages of press,
including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal
Time Magazine, Business Week, Scientific American, Germany's Der
Spiegel, etc.. [For copies, contact CFP#1 chair, Jim Warren, 345
Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062; 415-851-7075.]
Functionally-free, almost-instantaneous mass communication is
available.
It is trivial for anyone to "broadcast" comments or information
across the nets to thousands of people, almost immediately and for
free or perhaps costing $15-$20/month. Over a million people read
news-groups in USENET, which is just one of thousands of electronic
"newspapers."
And, system-owners and system-operators -- those often most-deeply
concerned about these civil liberties, privacy and content-liability issues
-- can have every user of their system receive whatever message they choose,
perhaps only once, or perhaps every time each person logs-in. Without cost.
Various of these "sysops" are agreeing to inform every one of their users --
often numbering in the thousands -- about candidates who commit to act to
protect civil liberties and privacy against new, technology-based threats.
We ask for your commitment.
A number of people who are well-known across this huge network are
asking candidates to commit to specific action, to make clear that
constitutional protections unquestionably apply across this new
"electronic frontier." We ask that you issue a formal position
statement, committing to act on these matters. (We recognize that an
informal statement of general principles is of minimal value without
specifics or commitment to action.)
We ask that you commit to protecting Constitutional freedoms,
regardless of technology. Enclosed is a "model" that you might use as
a starting point. (It illustrates some of the issues that many people
feel are most important.)
Commitment is reciprocal. If you commit to act, we will promptly
broadcast it far and wide across this massive, high-speed network.
And, if your opponent(s) avoid explicit commitment -- by specific
refusal or simply by inaction -- we will publicize that with equal
vigor.
Additionally, some of us are prepared to assist committed
candidates to publicize/discuss all of their positions and issues (not
just these online issues) via this free, fast, pervasive mass-medium.
And finally, candidates who address these issues first can
generate notice in the public press and television -- especially re
protecting freedom of speech, press, assembly and personal privacy.
Numerous reporters have covered these issues, to say nothing of the
300-400 computer trade periodicals. Some of us have lists of lay and
trade reporters interested in these issues and would be happy to
assist in publicizing your commitment.
I appreciate your attention to these comments and requests, and look
forward to your timely reply.
<>
=================== PART-3, MODEL CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT ====================
Guaranteeing Constitutional Freedoms into the 21st Century
Preface
Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe, one of the nation's
leading Constitutional scholars, views technological threats to our
traditional constitutional freedoms and protections as so serious that --
for the first time in his career -- he has proposed a Constitutional
Amendment:
"This Constitution's protections for the freedoms of speech, press,
petition and assembly, and its protections against unreasonable searches and
seizures and the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, should be construed as fully applicable without regard to
the technological method or medium through which information content is
generated, stored, altered, transmitted or controlled."
-- First Conf. on Computers, Freedom & Privacy, 3/27/91, Burlingame CA
In the absence of such a constitutional clarification, legislation
and regulation are the only alternatives to assure that citizens are
protected from technological threats against their constitutional
rights and freedoms.
Candidate's Commitment to Action
(model statement)
Preface: It has been over two centuries since our Constitution and Bill
of Rights were adopted. The great technological changes in the interim --
especially in computing, telecommunications and electronics -- now pose a
clear and present danger to the rights and protections guaranteed in those
great documents. Therefore:
Commitment: In the first legislative session after I am
[re]elected, I will author or co-author legislation reflecting the
following specifics, and I will actively support and testify in favor
of any similar legislation as may be introduced by others. Further, I
will actively seek to include in such legislation, explicit personal
civil and/or criminal penalties against any agent, employee or
official of the government who violates any of these statutes. And
finally, I will keep all citizens who express interest in legislative
progress on these matters fully and timely informed.
The protections guaranteed in the Constitution and its Amendments
shall be fully applicable regardless of the current technology of the
time. This particularly includes, but is not limited to:
Speech: Freedom of speech shall be equally protected, whether by
voice or in written form as in the 18th Century, or by electronic
transmission or computer communication as in the 20th Century and
thereafter.
Press: Freedom of the press shall be equally protected, whether
its information is distributed by print as in the 18th Century, or by
networked computers or other electronic forms, as in the 20th Century
and thereafter. Liability for content: Just as a printer is not
liable for content of leaflets printed for a customer, so also shall
the owner or operator of a computer or electronic or
telecommunications facility be held harmless for the content of
information distributed by users of that facility, except as
the owner or operator may, by contract, control information content.
Those who author statements and those who have contractual authority
to control content shall be the parties singularly responsible for
such content.
Assembly: Freedom of assembly shall be equally protected, whether
by face-to-face meeting as in the 18th Century, or by computer-based
electronic-conference or other teleconference as in the 20th Century
and thereafter. The right to hold confidential meetings shall be
equally protected, whether they be by personal meeting in private
chambers, or by computer-assisted or electronic-based means.
Self-defense: The right of the people to keep and use computers
and communications connections shall not be abridged by the
government.
Search & seizure: The right of the people to be secure in their
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
be fully applicable to their electronic mail, computerized information
and personal computer systems.
Warrants: No warrants for search or seizure shall issue for
computerized information, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the computer system to be
searched and the specific information to be seized.
Secure information vaults: Just as search and seizure of letters in a
post-office, and papers in a bank-vault lock-box, and surveillance of
telephone conversations by wire-tap, each require a separate warrant
for each postal address, lock-box and telephone line, so also shall a
separate warrant be required for each electronic-mail address and/or
computer files of each suspect, when stored in a computer facility or
archive shared by others. And further, computer files stored in a
shared facility or archive by or for a citizen who is neither named in
a warrant nor associated with a suspect so-named, may not be used
against that un-named citizen, if seized or discovered during legal
search of or for files of a suspect.
Self-incrimination: No person shall be compelled in any civil or
criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, nor be
compelled to provide information retained only in their mind, nor
otherwise be compelled to assist the translation or decoding of
information that he or she believes may be self-incriminating.
Property: Private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation, nor shall such property be used nor sold by
any government agency for less than fair market value, in which case
all such proceeds shall promptly derive singularly to its last owner
prior to government seizure.
Speedy release: Anyone not accused of a crime shall enjoy the
right to a speedy release and return of all of their property, as may
be seized under any warrant, particularly including their computerized
information. The government shall be fully liable for any damage
befalling property or information they have seized.
[signed] _______________________ ______________ [date] _________________
_________________________ [please print or type]
_________________________ title / current office / office sought
_________________________ address
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________ campaign-office voice-phone number
_________________________ campaign-office fax number
_________________________ campaign-office electronic-mail address
[ Additional copies of this model candidate's position commitment are
available from: Jim Warren, Electronic Civil Liberties Initiative,
345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062; (415)851-7075, fax/(415)851-2814;
electronic-mail/ jwarren@autodesk.com -or-
jwarren@well.sf.ca.us . 3/26/92
For identification purposes, only, Warren was the Chair of the First
Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy held in March, 1991, is a
Contributing Editor for MicroTimes and is a member of the Board of Directors
of Autodesk, one of the nation's half-dozen largest software companies.]
From caf-talk Caf Mar 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <9203291822.AA16059@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 06:22:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar29.045918.25240@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 04:59:18 GMT
aem@paris.cs.miami.edu writes:
}jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
}>Suppose the library keeps track of who read what, and puts it in a database.
}Libraries can, and often do purposefully keep track of what books get
}checked out, and how often, and can break it down by person. They keep
}that information private however, just as I use the results of arbitron
}run locally, but that info doesn't pass me.
Our library was specifically worried about this -- checkout records
are deleted when books are returned.
John
--
John Hascall Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
From caf-talk Caf Mar 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 21:52:49 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar29.215249.29729@anomaly.sbs.com>
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>Figure out how much money your institution loses by being deprived of News.
>Hint how much do the commercial equivalents of free software such as gcc and
>Linux cost?
ftp != news, last time I looked.
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 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 21:57:48 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar29.215748.29818@anomaly.sbs.com>
floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>I can't imagine educating students without computer resources.
>Right now I'm annoyed that my two youngest ones can't get ethernet
>connection to the computers they have in their dorm rooms!
Perhaps you should make a large enough donation to the administration
to pay for the wiring costs.
To any extent, we have two different sets of computer "resources" available
on campus. The first is the "academic" system, which is used for student
projects, class work, etc. The second is more akin to a "resource center",
where individuals may come in and type papers, develop spreadsheets, etc.
to support other non-computer-related classes.
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 /
