From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Bibliography of database security
Message-ID: <920330205302.20200165@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 20:53:02 GMT
At the risk of getting off topic, I thought this might be of interest to some
readers!
Mark N.
____
From: guenther@univie.ac.at (Guenther Pernul)
A lot of discussion about literature on Computer Security
has been taken place recently in this news group. We have
compiled a bibliography on the security aspect in databases.
As we believe this might be of interest for this news group
we are posting it even if the file is quite long. If you
are aware of literature that is not included please let us
know. A modified version of this file including an
introduction to each subject appeared in ACM SIGMOD Record,
Vol 21, No 1, March 1992.
A Bibliography on Database Security
G. Pernul, G. Luef
Institute of Statistics & Computer Science
University of Vienna
Liebigg. 4/3-4
A-1010 Vienna, Austria
guenther@ifs.univie.ac.at
The main sources for gathering literature on database
security are:
- Computers & Security, North Holland (Elsevier).
- Computer Security Journal, IOS Press, (forthcoming).
- Proc. Aerospace Computer Security Conference, IEEE Computer
Society Press.
- Proc. Annual Computer Security Applications Conference,
IEEE Computer Society Press.
- Proc. European Symposium on Research in Computer Security,.
- Proc. National Computer Security Conference. IEEE Computer
Society Press.
- Proc. of the Workshop on Computer Security Foundations,
IEEE Computer Society Press.
- Proc. Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, IEEE
Computer Society Press.
- Proc. Working Conference of the IFIP WG 11.3 on Database
Security. (Database Security: Status and Prospects. North
Holland (Elsevier)).
In addition, papers appeared in:
ACM SIGMOD Record, ACM Trans. on Database Systems, Advances in
Computers, IBM Systems Journal, IEEE Computer, IEEE Trans. on
Computers, IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, Information
Systems, Journal on Syst. Software, Proc. ACM Annual Conf.,
Proc. ACM SIGMOD Conf., Proc. Int'l. Conf. on Data
Engineering, Proc. Int'l. Conf. DEXA, Proc. Int'l. Conf. on
EDBT, Proc. Int'l. Conf. on VLDB, and others.
Research Issues
J. Biskup. Sicherheit: Gewhrleistung und Begrenzung des
Informationsflusses. In: Entwicklungstendenzen bei Datenbank-
Systemen. G. Vossen, K.-U. Witt (eds.), 363-388. Oldenbourg
Verlag 1991.
D. E. Denning. Secure Databases and Safety: Some Unexpected
Conflicts. In: Safe and Secure Computing Systems. T.
Anderson, eds. 101-111. Blackwell Scientific Publications
1989.
J. E. Dobson. Security and Databases: A Personal View. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
11-22. North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
J. Dobson. Information and Denial of Service. In Database
Security: Status and Prospects. C.E. Landwehr, S. Jajodia
(eds), North Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
J. Dobson. Information and Denial of Service. In Database
Security: Status and Prospects. C.E. Landwehr, S. Jajodia
(eds), North Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
S. Jajodia, R. S. Sandhu. Database Security: Current Status
and Key Issues. ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 19, No. 4, 123-126,
December 1990.
C. E. Landwehr. Database Security: Where are we. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 1-10.
North Holland. 1988.
T. F. Lunt. Security in Database Systems: A Researcher's View.
2nd German Confernce on Computer Security, June 1991.
T. F. Lunt, E. B. Fernandez. Database Security. ACM SIGMOD
Record, Vol. 19, No. 4, 90-97, Dec. 1990.
F. A. Manola. A Personal View of DBMS Security. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 23-34.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
R. I. Polis. Information security: reality and fiction.
Computers & Security, Vol. 3, No. 3. North Holland (Elsevier)
1984.
S. R. Wiseman. On the Problem of Security in Data Bases. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 301-310. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
Evaluation Criteria, Standards
M. W. Hale. Status of Trusted DBMS Interpretations. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
263-268. North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
R. R. Henning, B. S. Hubbard, S. A. Walker. Computer
Architectures, Database Security and a Evaluation Metric.
Proc. 3rd Int'l. Conf. on Data Engineering (DE), IEEE
Computer Society Press 1987.
IT Security Criteria. Criteria for the Evaluation of
Trustworthiness of Information Technology (IT) Systems.
German Information Security Agency, 1989.
M. Schaefer. On the Logical Extension of the Criteria
Principles to the Design of Multilevel Database Management
Systems. Proc. of the 5th National Computer Security Conf.,
28-30. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1985.
Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria. US National
Computer Security Center. 1985. DoD 5200.28-STD.
Trusted Database Management Interpretation of the Trusted
Computer System Evaluation Criteria. US National Computer
Security Center, August 1990, NCSC-TG-021, Version 1.
Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria (ITSEC).
Provisional Harmonised Criteria. Commission of the European
Communities, June 1991.
The Canadian Trusted Computer Product Evaluation Criteria.
Version 2.1e. Canadian System Security Centre. July 1991.
Privacy in Information Systems
V. S. Alagar. A Human Approach to the Technological Chalenge
in Data Security. Computers & Security, Vol. 5, North Holland
(Elsevier) 1986.
J. Biskup, H. H. Brggemann. The Personal Model of Data:
Towards a Privacy-Oriented Information System. Computers &
Security, Vol. 7, North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
J. Biskup. Privacy Respecting Permissions and Rights. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
173-186. North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
J. Biskup, H. H. Brggemann. The Personal Model of Data:
Towards a Privacy Oriented Information System (extended
abstract). Proc. of the 5th Int'l. Conf. on Data Engineering
(DE), 348-355, IEEE Computer Society Press 1989.
J. Biskup, H. Graf. Analysis of the Privacy Model for the
Information System DORIS. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 123-140. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1989.
J. Biskup. Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality in
Medical Information Systems: Problems and Guidelines, In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 13-24. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
J. Biskup. Medical Database Security. Proc. GI-20,
Jahrestagung II. Informatik Fachberichte 258, 212-221.
Springer Verlag 1990.
J. Biskup, H. H. Bruggemann. Das datenschutzorientierte
Informationssystem DORIS: Stand der Entwicklung und Ausblick,
Proc. 2. GI-Fachtagung "Verlaliche Informationssysteme (VIS
'91)", 146-158. Informatik-Fachberichte 271, Springer Verlag
1991. (In German).
H.H. Bruggemann. Interaction of Authorities and Acquaintances
in the DORIS privacy model of data. Proc. 2nd Symposium on
Mathematical Fundamentals of Database Systems (MFDBS), 85-99.
Visegrd, Hungary, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 364,
Springer Verlag 1989.
P. Leahy. Privacy and Progress. Computers & Security, Vol. 5
(1986), North Holland (Elsevier).
F. H. Lochovsky, C. C. Woo. Role-Based Security in Database
Management Systems. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 209-222. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1988.
R. Moulton, R. P. Bigelow. Protecting Ownership of Proprietary
Information. Computers & Security, Vol. 8, North Holland
(Elsevier) 1989.
T. C. Ting. A User Role Based Data Security Approach. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
187-208. North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
T. C. Ting, S. A. Demurjian, M.-Y. Hu. On Information Hiding
for Supporting User-Role Based Database Security in the
Object-Oriented Paradigm. In: Database Securiy: Status and
Prospects V. S. Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. Noth Holland
(Elsevier) 1991.
R. Turn, W. H. Fellow. Privacy and Security Issues in
Information Systems. IEEE Trans. on Computers, Vol.25 (1976)
W. H. Ware. Emerging Privacy Issues. Computers & Security,
Vol. 5, North Holland (Elsevier) 1986.
W. H. Ware. Information system security and privacy. Comm. of
the ACM (CACM), Vol. 27, No. 4, April 1984.
Requirements on Secure DBMSs
D. E. Bell. Speculating on Trusted DBMS. Proc. 4th Aerospace
Computer Security Conference, 51-52. IEEE Computer Society
Press 1988.
D. A. Bonyun. Using EXESS as a Framework for Secure DBMSs. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 237-256. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
R. K. Burns. Operational Assurances for a Trusted DBMS. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
241-252 North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
R. K. Burns. Secure DBMS Requirements. Proc. 4th Aerospace
Computer Security Conference, 53-55, IEEE Computer Society
Press 1988.
J. Dobson. Conversation Structures as a Means of Specifying
Security Policy. In: Database Security: Status and Prospects.
D. L. Spooner, C. E. Landwehr, eds., 25-40. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1990.
C. Garvey, N. Jensen, J. Wilson. The Advanced Secure DBMS:
Making Secure DBMSs Usable. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 187-196. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1989.
J. Glasgow, G. MacEwen, P. Panangaden. Security by Permission
in Databases. In: Database Security: Status and Prospects. C.
E. Landwehr, ed., 197-206. North Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
R. Graubart. Comparing DBMS and Operating System Security
Requirements: The Need for a Separate DBMS Security Criteria.
In Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C.
E. Landwehr, eds., 109-114. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
J. T. Haigh. Modeling Database Security Requirements. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
45-56. North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
R. R. Henning. The Allocation of Database Management System
Security Responsibilities. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 131-148. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1988.
T. H. Hinke. DBMS Technology vs. Threats. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 57-88.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
T. H. Hinke. DBMS Trusted Computing Base Taxonomy. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 97-108. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
N. R. Jensen. System Security Officer Functions in the A1
Secure DBMS. In: Database Security: Status and Prospects. C.
E. Landwehr, ed., 53-62. North Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
T. Y. Lin. A Generalized Information Flow Model and the Role
of System Security Officer. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 85-104. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1989.
J. A. McDermid, E. S. Hocking. Security Policies for
Integrated Project Support Environments. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 41-74. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
G. W. Smith. Solving Multilevel Database Security Problems;
Technology is Not Enough. In: Database Security, III: Status
and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E. Landwehr, eds., 115-126.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
C. Wood, E. B. Fernandez, R. C. Summers. Database Security:
Requirements, Policies and Models. IBM System Journal, Volume
19 (1980). Also published in Advances in Computer Security
(R. Turn, eds.), Artech House, 1981.
Systems
J. R. Campbell. An Interim Report on the Development of Secure
Database Prototypes at the National Computer Security Center.
In: Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner,
C. E. Landwehr, eds., 191-198. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
D. E. Denning. Database System Lessons Learned from Modeling a
Secure Multilevel Relational Database System. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 35-44.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
D. E. Denning, T. F. Lunt, R. R. Schell, W. R. Shockley, M.
Heckaman. The SeaView Security Model. Proc. 1988 IEEE
Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 218-233.
P. A. Dwyer, E. Onuegbe, P. Stachour, M. B. Thuraisingham.
Query Processing in LDV: A Secure Database System. Proc. 1988
IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 118-124.
C. Garvey, A. Wu. ASD_Views. Proc. 1988 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 85-95.
R. D. Graubart, K. J. Duffy. Design Overview for Retrofitting
Integrity-Lock Architecture onto a Commercial DBMS. Proc.
1985 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 147-
159.
J. T. Haigh, R. C. O'Brien, P. D. Stachour, D. L. Toups. The
LDV Approach to Database Security, In: Database Security,:
Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E. Landwehr, eds.,
323-340. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
J. T. Haigh, R. C. O'Brian, D. J. Thomsen. The LDV Secure
Relational Database Model. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. S. Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. North Holland.
(Elsevier) 1992.
T. F. Keefe and W. T. Tsai. Prototyping the SODA Security
Model. In: Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L.
Spooner, C. E. Landwehr, eds., 199-210. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1990.
R. B. Knode, R. A. Hunt. Making Databases Secure with Trudata
Technology. Proc. 4th Aerospace Computer Security Conference,
82-90, IEEE Computer Society Press 1988.
T. F. Lunt, R. R. Schell, W. R. Shockley, M. Heckman, D.
Warren. A Near-Term Design for the Sea View Multilevel
Database System. Proc. 1988 IEEE Symposium on Research in
Security and Privacy, 234-244.
T. F. Lunt. Multilevel Database Systems: Meeting Class A1. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
177-186. North Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
T. F. Lunt, D. Denning, R. R. Schell, M. Heckman, W. R.
Shockley. The SeaView Security Model. IEEE Trans. on Software
Engineering (TOSE), Vol. 16, No. 6 (1990), 593-607.
S. R. Lewis. The Front End Approach to Database Security. Proc
7th IFIP TC11 Conf. on Information Security. (W. Price, D.
Lindsay, eds.). North Holland (Elsevier) 1991.
J. McLean, C. Landwehr, and C. Heitmeyer. A Formal Statement
of the MMS Security Model. Proc. 1984 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 188-194.
D. Nelson, C. Paradise. Using Polyinstantiation to Develop a
MLS Application. Proc. 7th Annual Computer Security
Applications Conf., 12-22. IEEE Computer Society Press 1991.
P. Rougeau, E. Stearns. The Sybase Secure Database Server: A
Solution to the Multilevel Secure DBMS Problem. Proc. 10th
Nat. Computer Security Conf. IEEE Computer Society Press
1987.
P. D. Stachour, M. B. Thuraisingham. Design of LDV: A
multilevel secure relational database management system. IEEE
Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering (TKDE), Vol. 2, No.
2, (1990), 190-209.
M. Stonebraker, P. Rubinstein. The Ingres Protection System.
Proc. 1976 ACM Annual Conference.
The Sybase Secure SQL Server: The First Multilevel Secure
RDBMS, Sybase 1988.
R. A. Whitehurst, T. F. Lunt. SeaView verification. Proc. of
the 2nd Workshop on the Foundations of Computer Security,
125-132. IEEE Computer Society Press 1989.
Access Control Issues
U. Bussolati, G. Martella. Access control management in
multilevel database models. In: Proc. 3rd Conf. of the
European Cooperation in Informatics, Munich, Germany,
Springer-Verlag 1981
B. G. Claybrook. Using Views in a Multilevel Secure Database
Management Systems. Proc. 1983 IEEE Symposium on Research in
Security and Privacy.
D. Denning, S. Ackl, M. Heckaman, T. Lunt, M. Morgenstern, P.
Neumann, R. Schell. Views for Multilevel Database Security.
In: Advances in Computer Security, Volume III, Artech House
Inc., 1988. (reprinted from IEEE TOSE, SE-13, 2, 1987), 223-
233.
D. D. Downs, J. R. Rub, K. C. Kung, C. S. Jordan. Issues in
Discretionary Access Controls. Proc. 1985 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 158-168.
E. B. Fernandez, R. C. Summers, T. Lang. Definition and
Evaluation of access rules in data management systems. Proc.
1st Int'l. Conf. on Very Large Databases (VLDB), Boston 1975,
268-285.
M. G. Fugini, G. Martella. A Petri-net model of access control
mechanisms. Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1988), 53-
64.
D. A. Goldberg, A. Orooji. Independent revocation of access
rights in database management systems. Information Systems,
Vol. 14, No. 5 (1989), 439-442.
P. P. Griffiths, B. W. Wade. An authorization mechanism for a
relational database system. ACM Trans. on Database Systems
(TODS), Vol. 1, No. 3 (1976), 242-253.
G. S. Hoppenstand, D. K. Hsiao. Secure Access Control with
High Access Precision: An Efficient Approach to Multilevel
Security, In: Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E.
Landwehr, ed., 167-176. North Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
D. K. Hsiao, D. S. Kerr, C.-J. Nee. Database Access Control in
the Presence of Context Dependent Protection Requirements.
IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering (TOSE), Vol. 5 (1979).
D. K. Hsiao, M. J. Kohler, S. W. Stround. Query Modifications
as a Means of Controlling Accesses to Multilevel Secure
Databases. In: Database Security: Status and Prospects, S.
Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. North Holland (Elsevier) 1991.
J. M. Kerridge. An access control system for database
languages. Proc. of the 4th British National Conference on
Databases. British Computer Security Workshop Series, 25-38,
July 1985.
T. F. Lunt. Access Control Policies: Some Unanswered
Questions. Computers & Security, Vol. 8 , North Holland
(Elsevier) 1989.
T. F. Lunt. Access Control Policies for Database Systems. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
41-52. North Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
C. Meadows Policies for Dynamic Upgrading. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 241-250.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1991.
C. Meadows. Extending the Brewer-Nash Model to a Multilevel
Context. Proc. of the 1990 IEEE Symposium on Research in
Security and Privacy.
N. Minski. Synergisitic Authorization in Database Systems.
Proc. 7th Int'l. Conf. on Very Large Databases (VLDB), 543-
552, 1981.
A. Motro. An Access Authorization Model for Relational
Databases Based on Algebraic Manipulation of View
Definitions. Proc. of the 5th Int'l. Conf. on Data
Engineering (DE), 339-347. IEEE Computer Society Press 1989.
S. Nilakanta. Controlling user authorization in relational
database management systems. Information and Software
Technology, Vol. 31, No. 6 (1989), 290-294.
N. Roussopoulos. Dynamic access control for relational views.
Information Systems, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1985, 361-369.
R. S. Sandhu. Nested categories for access control. Computers
& Security, Vol. 7, No. 6, 599-605. North Holland (Elsevier)
1988.
R. S. Sandhu. Transformation of Access Rights. Proc. 1989 IEEE
Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 259-268.
R. Sandhu. Mandatory Controls for Database Integrity, In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 143-150. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990
R. P. Trueblood, A. Sengupta. Dynamic analysis of the effects
access rule modifications have upon security. IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 8, (1986),
866-870.
C. Wood, E. B. Fernandez. Authorization in a decentralized
database system. Proc. of the 5th Int'l. Conf. on Very Large
Databases (VLDB), 352-359, 1979.
C. Wood, R. Summers, E. B. Fernandez. Authorization in
Multilevel Database Models. Information Systems, Vol. 4, 155-
161, 1979.
S. Wiseman. Audit Control in Databases. Proc 7th IFIP TC11
Conf. on Information Security. (W. Price, D. Lindsay eds.)
North Holland (Elsevier) 1991.
Protection against Inferential Attacks
L. J. Buczkowski. Database Inference Controller. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 311-322. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
L. H. Cox. Modeling and controlling user Inference. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
167-172. North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
F. Cuppens. A Modal Logic Framework to Solve Aggregation
Problems. In: Database Security: Status and Prospects. C.E.
Landwehr, S. Jajodia (eds), North Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
D. E. Denning. Commutative Filters for reducing Inference
Threats in Multilevel Database Systems. Proc. 1985 IEEE
Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 134-146.
D. E. Denning, C. Meadows. A Dialog on Aggregation Problems.
Proc. of the 3rd RADC Workshop on Database Security, 83-95.
IEEE Computer Society Press 1991.
T. D. Garvey, T. F. Lunt. Controlling Inference for Database
Security. In: Database Securiy: Status and Prospects V. S.
Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. Noth Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
T. D. Garvey, T. F. Lunt, M. E. Stickel. Abductive and
Approximate Reasoning Models for Characterizing Inference
Channels. Proc. of the 4th Workshop on the Foundations of
Computer Security. IEEE Computer Society Press 1991.
S. C. Hansen, E. Unger. An extended memoryless inference
control model: accounting for dependence in table-level
controls. Proc. 1991 ACM Int'l. Conf. on Management of Data
(SIGMOD), 348-356.
T. H. Hinke. Inference Aggregation Detection In Database
Management Systems. Proc. 1988 IEEE Symposium on Research in
Security and Privacy, 96-106.
T. H. Hinke. Database Inference Engine Design Approach. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
247-262, North Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
T. F. Lunt. Aggregation and Inference: Facts and Fallacies.
Proc. 1989 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and
Privacy, 102-109.
C. Meadows. Aggregation Problems: A Position Paper. Proc. of
the 3rd RADC Workshop on Database Security, 73-82. IEEE
Computer Society Press 1991.
N. S. Matloff. Inference Control via Query Restriction vs.
Data Modification: A Perspective. In: Database Security:
Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 159-166. North
Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
J. McLean. Proving Noninterference and Functional Correctness
Using Traces. Journal of Computer Security, Vol. 1, Jan.
1992.
M. Morgenstern. Controlling Logical Inference in Multilevel
Database Systems. Proc. 1988 IEEE Symposium on Research in
Security and Privacy, 245-255.
M. Morgenstern. Security and Inference in Multilevel Database
and Knowledge Based Systems. Proc. 1987 ACM Int'l. Conf. on
Management of Data (SIGMOD), 357-374.
N. C. Rowe. Infernce-security analysis using resolution
theorem-proving. Proc. 5th Int'l. Conf. on Data Engineering
(DE), 410-416. IEEE Computer Society Press 1989.
T.-A. Su, G. Ozsoyoglu. Data Dependencies and Inference
Control in Multilevel Relational Database Systems. Proc. 1987
IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy.
B. Thuraisingham. The Use of Conceptual Structures for
Handling the Inference Problem. In: Database Securiy: Status
and Prospects V. S. Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. Noth
Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
B. Thuraisingham. The Inference Problem in Database Security.
Cipher, 51-60. Winter 1991.
B. P. Weems, W. G. Shieh, M. Jaseemuddin. Complete Containment
Sets and their Application to the Inference Problem. Proc.
7th Annual Computer Security Applications Conf., 187-200.
IEEE Computer Society Press 1991.
Physical Design and Transaction Processing
P. Ammann, S. Jajodia. A Timestamp Ordering Algorithm for
Secure, Single-Version, MLS Databases. In: Database Securiy:
Status and Prospects V. S. Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. Noth
Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
M. Banatre, G. Muller, J.-P. Banatre. Ensuring Data Security
and Integrity with a Fast Stabel Storage. Proc. 4th Int'l
Conf. on Data Engineering (DE), IEEE Computer Society Press
1988.
O. Costich. Transaction Processing Using an Untrusted
Scheduler in a Multilevel Database with Replicated
Architecture. In: Database Securiy: Status and Prospects V.
S. Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. Noth Holland (Elsevier)
1992.
O. Costich, I. Moskowitz. Analysis of a Storage Channel in the
Two-Phase Commit Protocol. Proc. 4th Computer Security
Foundation Workshop. IEEE Computer Society Press 1991.
J. W. Davison. Implementation Design for a Kernelized Trusted
DBMS. Proc. 4th Aerospace Computer Security Conference, 91-
98. IEEE Computer Society Press 1988.
E. B. Fernandez, R. C. Summers, T. Lang, C. D. Coleman.
Architectural Support for System Protection and Database
Security. IEEE Trans. on Computers, Vol. 27 (1978).
J. N. Froscher, C. Meadows. Achieving a trusted database
management system using parallelism. Database Security:
Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 151-160, North
Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
C. Garvey, T. Hinke, N. Jensen, J. Solomon, A. Wu. A Layered
TCB Implementation versus the Hinke-Schaefer Approach. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 151-166. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
R. Graubart. A Comparison of Three Secure DBMS Architectures.
In: Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner,
C. E. Landwehr, eds., 167-190, North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
H. Hartson. Database security system architectures.
Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1981.
T. H. Hinke. Trusted server approach to multilevel security.
Proc. 5th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference,
335-341. IEEE Computer Society Press 1989.
S. Jajodia, B. Kogan. Transaction Processing in Multilevel
Secure Databases Using Replicated Architecture. Proc. 1990
IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 360-368.
T. F. Keefe, W. T. Tsai, J. Srivastava. Multilevel Secure
Database Concurrency Control. Proc. of the 6th Int'l. Conf.
on Data Engineering (DE), IEEE Computer Society Press 1990.
T. F. Keefe, W. T. Tsai. Multiversion Concurrency Control for
Multilevel Secure Database Systems. Proc. of the 1990 IEEE
Symposium on Security and Privacy, 369-383.
B. Kogan, S. J. Jajodia. Concurrency Control in Multilevel
Secure Databases Based on Replicated Architecture. Proc. 1990
ACM Int'l. Conf.on Management of Data (SIGMOD) 153-162.
C. Laferrier. A Discussion of Implementation Strategies for
Secure Database Management Systems. Computers & Security,
Vol. 9. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
G. Luef, G. Pernul. Supporting Range Queries in Secure Index
Stuctures. In: Database Securiy: Status and Prospects V. S.
Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. Noth Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
W. T. Maimone, I. B. Greenberg. Single level Multiversion
Schedulers for Multilevel Secure Database Systems. Proc. of
the 6th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pp.
137-147. IEEE Computer Society Press 1990.
C. D. McCollum, L. Notargiacomo. Distributed Concurrency
Control with Optional Data Replication. In: Database Securiy:
Status and Prospects V. S. Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. Noth
Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
J. P. McDermott, S. Jajodia, R. Sandhu. A Single Level
Schedular for the Replicated Architecture for Multilevel-
Secure Databases. Proc. 7th Annual Computer Security
Applications Conf., 2-12. IEEE Computer Society Press 1991.
R. S. Sandhu. Transaction Control Expressions for Separation
of Duties. Proc. 4th Aerospace Computer Security Conference,
282-286. IEEE Computer Society Press 1988.
D. L. Spooner, E. Gudes. A Unifying Approach to the Design of
a Secure Database Operating System. IEEE Trans. on Software
Engineering (TOSE), Vol. 10 (1984).
D. L. Spooner. Relationships between database system and
operating system security. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 149-158. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1988.
O. Saydjari, J. Beckman, J. Leaman. Locking Computers Securly.
Proc. 10th National Computer Security Conf., 129-141. IEEE
Computer Society Press 1987.
J. C. Williams, G. W. Dinolt. Formal Model of a Trusted File
Server. Proc. 1989 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and
Privacy, 157-166.
Design Issues of Secure Databases
U. Bussolati, G. Martella. Towards a new approach to secure
database design. Computers & Security, Vol. 2, No. 1, 49-62.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1983.
M. Fugini, G. Martella. ACTEN: a conceptual model for security
systems design. Computers & Security, Vol. 3, No. 3. North
Holland (Elsevier) 1984.
M. Fugini. Secure Database Development Methodologies. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
103-130. North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
G. E. Gajnak. Some Results from the Entity-Relationship
Multilevel Secure DBMS Project. Proc. 4th Aerospace Computer
Security Conference, 66-71. IEEE Computer Society Press 1988.
T. H. Hinke. Secure database design panel. Proc. 5th Annual
Computer Security Applications Conference, p. 323. IEEE
Computer Society Press 1989.
R. R. Henning, R. P. Simonian. Security Analysis of Database
Schema Information. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 233-246. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1989.
H. H. Hosmer, C. M. Merriman. Using CASE Tools to Improve the
Security of Application Systems. Proc. 1988 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 205-208.
B. Maimone. RADC Database Security Workshop - Oracle
Corporation homework problem solution. Proc. 5th Annual
Computer Security Applications Conference, p. 324. IEEE
Computer Society Press 1989.
Panel Session. Multilevel Secure Database Design. Proc. 5th
IEEE Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 1989.
G. Pernul, A M. Tjoa. A View Integration Approach for the
Design of Multilevel Secure Databases. Proc. 10th Int'l.
Conf. on the Entity-Relationship Approach, Oct. 1991.
G. W. Smith. Modeling Security Relevant Data Semantics. Proc.
1990 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 384-
391.
G. W. Smith. Identifying and Representing the Security
Semantics of Applications. Proc. 4th Aerospace Computer
Security Conference, 125-130. IEEE Computer Society Press
1988.
G. W. Smith. The Semantic Data Model for Security:
Representing the Security Semantics of an Application. Proc.
of the 6th Int'l. Conf. on Data Engineering (DE), 322-329,
IEEE Computer Society Press 1990.
G. W. Smith. Multilevel Secure Database Design: A Practical
Application. Proc. 5th IEEE Annual Computer Security
Application Conference, 314-321. IEEE Computer Society Press
1989.
P. Stachour, D. Thomsen. A Summary of the LDV solution to the
homework problem. Proc. 5th Annual Computer Security
Applications Conference, p. 322. IEEE Computer Society Press
1989.
E. D. Sturms. Secure database design: An implementation using
a secure DBMS. Proc. 5th Annual Computer Security
Applications Conference, p. 325. IEEE Computer Society Press
1989.
D. J. Thomsen, W. T. Tsai, M. B.. Thuraisingham. Prototyping
to Explore MLS/DBMS Design. Computers & Security, Vol. 8,
229-245. North Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
D J. Thomsen, W. T. Tsai, M. B. Thuraisingham. Prototyping as
a Research Tool for MLS/DBMS, In: Database Security: Status
and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 63-84. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1989.
B. Thuraisingham. Handling Security Constraints During
Multilevel Database Design. Proc. 4th RADC Database Security
Workshop. IEEE Computer Society Press 1991.
T. C. Ting. Application Information Security Semantics: A Case
of Mental Health Delivery. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E. Landwehr, eds., 1-12, North
Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
Security Aspects in Relational Databases
F. M. Bancilhon, N. Spyratos. Protection of information in
relational data bases. Proc. of the 3rd Int'l. Conf. on Very
Large Databases (VLDB), 494-500, 1977.
D. E. Bell. Concerning "Modeling" Computer Security. Proc.
1988 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 8-
13.
D. E. Bell, L. J. LaPadula. Secure Computer System: Unified
Exposition and Multics Interpretation. Technical Report MTR-
2997. MITRE Corp. Bedford, Mass, 1976.
J. M. Carroll. Implementing multilevel security by violating
privileges. Computers & Security, Vol. 7, No. 6. North
Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
M. Collins, W. Ford, B. Thuraisingham. Security Constraint
Processing during the Update Operation in a Multilevel Secure
DBMS. Proc. 7th Annual Computer Security Applications Conf.,
23-32. IEEE Computer Society Press 1991.
F. Cuppens, K. Yazadanian. Logic Hints and Security in
Relational Databases. In: Database Securiy: Status and
Prospects V. S. Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. Noth Holland
(Elsevier) 1992.
G. I. Davida, D. J. Linton, C. R. Szelag, D. L. Wells.
Database Security. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering
(TOSE), Vol. 4 (1978).
D. E. Denning, T. F. Lunt, R. R. Schell, M. Heckman, W. R.
Schockley. A Multilevel Relational Data Model. Proc. 1987
IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 220-234.
J. E. Dobson, J. A. McDermid. Security Models and Enterprise
Models. In: Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E.
Landwehr, ed., 1-39. North Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
P. A. Dwyer, G. Jelatis, B, Thuraisingham. Multilevel Security
in database management systems. Computers & Security, Vol. 6,
No. 3, 252-260. North Holland (Elsevier) 1987.
E. B. Fernandez, R. C. Summers, C. B. Coleman. An
Authorization Model for a Shared Data Base. Proc. ACM Int'l.
Conf.on Management of Data (SIGMOD), 23-31, 1975.
H. H. Hosmer. Handling Security Violations within an Integrity
Lock DBMS. In: Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L.
Spooner, C. E. Landwehr, eds., 283-292. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1990.
S. Jajodia, S. K. Gadia, G. Bhargava, E. H. Sibley. Audit
Trail Organization in Relational Databases. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 269-282. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
S. Jajodia, R. S. Sandhu, E. Sibley. Update Semantics of
Multilevel Relations. Proc 6th Annual Computer Security
Applications Conference, Dec. 1990.
S. Jajodia, R. S. Sandhu. Toward a Multilevel Secure
Relational Data Model. Proc. 1991 ACM Int'l. Conf. on
Management of Data (SIGMOD), 50-59.
N. R. Jensen. Implication of Multilevel Security on the Data
Dictionary of a Secure Relational DBMS. Proc. 4th Aerospace
Computer Security Conference, 1988. 58-65. IEEE Computer
Society Press.
R. A. Kemmerer. Formal Specification and Verification
Techniques for Secure Database Systems. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 229-240.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
T. Lang, E. B. Fernandez, R. Summers. A System Architecture
for Compile-time Actions in Databases. Proc. ACM Int'l.
Conf.on Management of Data (SIGMOD), 453-462, 1977.
C. E. Landwehr. Formal Models for Computer Security. ACM
Computing Surveys, Vol. 13, No. 2(1981).
R. F. Van der Lans. Data security in a relational database
environment. Computers & Security, Vol. 5, No. 2, 128-134.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1986.
T. F. Lunt, D. E. Denning, R. R. Schell, H. Heckman, W.
Shockley. Element-Level Classification with A1 Assurance.
Computers & Security, Vol. 7, North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
N. S. Matloff. Another Look at the Use of Noise Addition to
Database Security. Proc. 1986 IEEE Symposium on Research in
Security and Privacy, 173-180.
N. Matloff, P. Tendick. The "Curse of Dimensionality" in
Database Security. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 225-232. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1989.
J. McLean. The Specification of Modeling of Computer Security,
IEEE Computer, 9-16, Jan. 1990.
C. Meadows. Constructing Containers Using a Multilevel
Relational Data Model. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, D. Spooner, eds., North Holland
(Elsevier) 1990.
J. K. Millen. Models of Multilevel Security. In: Advances in
Computers, Vol. 29, M. C. Yovits, ed. Academic Press 1989.
G. Pernul, K. Karlapalem, S. B. Navathe. Relational Database
Organization based on Views and Fragments. Proc. of the 2nd
Conf. on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA),
380-386. Springer Verlag 1991.
G. Pernul, G. Luef. A Multilevel Secure Relational Data Model
Based on Views. Proc. 7th Annual Computer Security
Application Conference, 166-177. IEEE Computer Society Press
1991.
M. Schaefer, B. Hubbard, D. Sterne, T. K. Haley, J. N.
McAuliffe, D. Wolcott. Auditing: A relevant contribution to
trusted database management systems. Proc. 5th Computer
Security Applications Conference. IEEE Computer Society Press
1989.
T. Su, G. Ozsoyoglu. Multivalued Dependency Inferences in
Multilevel Relational Database Systems. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 293-300. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
R. C. Summers. An overview of computer security. IBM Systems
Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4 (1984), 9-25.
M. B. Thuraisingham. Security Checking in Relational Database
Management Systems Augmented with Inference Engines.
Computers & Security, Vol. 6, No. 6. North Holland (Elsevier)
1987.
J. Wilson. Views as the Security Objects in a Multilevel
Secure Relational Database Management System. Proc. 1988 IEEE
Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 116-125.
J. Wilson. A Security Policy for an A1 DBMS (a Trusted
Subject). Proc. 1989 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security
and Privacy, 70-84.
S. Wiseman. Control of Confidentiality in Databases. Computers
& Security, Vol. 9., Num. 6. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
S. Wiseman. Abstract and Concrete Models for Secure Database
Applications. In: Database Securiy: Status and Prospects V.
S. Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. Noth Holland (Elsevier)
1992.
C. C. Wood. Information Systems Security: Management Success
Factors. Computers & Security, Vol. 6, 314-320. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1987.
C. C. Wood. The Human Immune System as an Information System
Security Reference Model. Computers & Security, Vol. 6, North
Holland (Elsevier) 1987.
Integrity and Decomposition Approaches
S. G. Akl, D. E. Denning. Checking Classification Constraints
for Consistency and Completeness. Proc. 1987 IEEE Symposium
on Research in Security and Privacy.
S. Jajodia, R. S. Sandhu. Polyinstantiation Integrity in
Multilevel Relations. Proc. 1990 IEEE Symposium on Research
in Security and Privacy.
S. Jajodia, R. S. Sandhu. A formal framework for Single Level
Decomposition of Multilevel Relations. Proc. 3rd Workshop on
the Foundations of Computer Security, 152-158. IEEE Computer
Society Press, 1990.
S. Jajodia, R. S. Sandhu. A novel decomposition of Multilevel
Relations into Single-level Fragments. Proc. 1991 IEEE
Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy.
S. Jajodia, R. Mukkamala. Effects of SeaView Decomposition of
Multilevel Relations on DBMS Performance. In: Database
Securiy: Status and Prospects V. S. Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr,
eds. Noth Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
T. F. Keefe, D. J. Thomsen, W. T. Tsai, M. R. Hansch. Multi-
party update conflict: The problem and its solution. Proc.
5th Computer Security Applications Conference, 222-231. IEEE
Computer Society Press 1989.
T. F. Lunt. Polyinstantiation: an Inevitable Part of a
Multilevel World. Proc. of the 4th Workshop on the
Foundations of Computer Security, IEEE Computer Society
Press, 1989.
T. F. Lunt, D. Hsieh. Update semantics for a multilevel
relational database. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. S. Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds., North Holland
(Elsevier) 1992.
S. Mazumdar, D. Stemple, T. Sheard. Resolving the tension
between integrity and security using a theorem prover. Proc.
ACM Int'l. Conf. on Management of Data (SIGMOD), 233-242,
1988.
C. Meadows, S. Jajodia. Maintaining correctness, availability,
and unambiguity in trusted database management systems. Proc.
4th Aerospace Computer Security Conference, 106-111, IEEE
Computer Society Press 1988.
C. Meadows, S. Jajodia. Integrity versus security in
multilevel secure databases. In: Database Security: Status
and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 89-102. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1988.
R. S. Sandhu, S. Jajodia, T. F. Lunt. A new Polyinstantiation
Integrity constraint for Multilevel Relations. Proc. of the
3rd Workshop on Computer Security Foundations, 159-165. IEEE
Computer Society Press 1990.
R. R. Schell. Integrity in Trusted Database Systems. Proc. 9th
National Computer Security Confernce, 30-36. IEEE Computer
Society Press 1986.
Query Processing
T. F. Keefe, M. B. Thuraisingham, W. T. Tsai. Secure query-
processing strategies. IEEE Computer, Vol. 22, No. 3, 63-70,
March 1989.
T. F. Lunt, R. R. Schell, W. R. Shockley, D. Warren. Toward a
Multilevel Relational Data Language. Proc. 1988 IEEE
Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 72-79.
G. L. Sicherman, W. DeJonge, R. P. Van de Riet. Answering
queries without revealing secrets. ACM Trans. on Database
Systems (TODS) Vol. 8, No. 1, 41-59.
M. B.. Thuraisingham, W. T. Tsai, T. F. Keefe. Secure Query
Processing using AI Techniques. Proc. 21st Hawaii Int'l.
Conf. on Systems Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press 1988.
M. B.. Thuraisingham. Secure query processing in intelligent
database management systems. Proc. 5th Computer Security
Applications Conference, 204-214. IEEE Computer Society Press
1989.
Security Aspects in Distributed DBMSs
U. Bussolati, G. Martella. Data Security Management in
Distributed Databases. Information Systems, Vol. 7, No. 3
(1982), 217-227.
U. Bussolati, G. Martella. Security design in distributed
database systems. J. Syst. Software, Vol. 3, No. 3, Sept.
1983, 219-229.
A. R. Downing, I. B. Greenberg, T. F. Lunt. Issues in
distributed database security. Proc. 5th Annual Computer
Security Applications Conference, 196-203, IEEE Computer
Society Press 1989.
H. H. Hosmer, R. K. Burns. Designing Multilevel Secure
Distributed Databases. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 160-166. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1989.
Greenberg, I. Distributed Database Security. Final Report of
SRI Project 8772, SRI International, April 1991.
C. D. Jensen, R. M. Kiel, R. D. Verjinski. SDDM: A Prototype
of a Distributed Architecture for Database Security, 356-364.
Proc. of the 5th Int'l. Conf. on Data Engineering (DE). IEEE
Computer Society Press 1989.
J. P. Kruys. Security of Open Systems. Computers & Security,
Vol. 8, North Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
G. H. MacEwen. Effects of Distributed System Technology on
Database Security: A Survey. In: Database Security: Status
and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 253-262. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1988.
G. H. MacEwen, B. Burwell, Z.-J. Lu. Multi-Level Security
Based on Physical Distribution. Proc. 1984 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 167-177.
J. McHugh, M. B. Thuraisingham. Multilevel security issues in
distributed database management systems. Computers &
Security, Vol, 7, No. 4, August 1988. North Holland
(Elsevier).
J. P. O'Connor, J. W. Gray. A distributed architecture for
multilevel database security. Proc. 11th National Computer
Security Conference, 179-187, IEEE Computer Society Press
1988.
G. M. Pluimakes. Some notes on authorization and transaction
management in distributed database systems. Computers &
Security, Vol. 7, No.3, 287-298. North Holland (Elsevier)
1988.
J. M. Powers, S. R. Wilbur. Authentication in a heterogeneous
environment. Computers & Security, Vol. 6, No. 1, 41-48.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1987.
R. P. Trueblood, H. R. Hartson, J. J. Martin. Multisafe - a
modular multiprocessing approach to secure database
management. ACM Trans. on Database Systems (TODS) (TODS),
Vol. 8, No. 3 (1983).
V. Varadharajan, S. Black. Multilevel Security in a
Distributed Object-Oriented System. Computers & Security Vol.
10, 51-68. North Holland (Elsevier) 1991.
Security Aspect in Non-relational DBMSs
R. Ahad, P. Lyngbaek, E. Onuegbe. Supporting Access Control in
an Object-Oriented Database Language. Proc. 3rd Int'l. Conf.
on Extended Database Technology (EDBT), Vienna, March 1992.
T. A. Berson, T. F. Lunt. Multilevel Security for Knowledge-
Based Systems. Proc. 1987 IEEE Symposium on Research in
Security and Privacy.
H. H. Bruggemann. Rights in an Object-Oriented Environment.
In: Database Security: Status and Prospects. C.E. Landwehr,
S. Jajodia (eds), North Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
K. R. Dittrich, M. Hartig, H. Pfefferle. Discretionary Access
Control in Structurally Object-Oriented Database Systems.
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed.,
105-121. North Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
E. B. Fernandez, E. Gudes, H. Song. A Security Model for
Object Oriented Databases. Proc. 1989 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 110-115.
E. Gudes, H. Song, E. B. Fernandez. Evaluation of negative and
predicate-based authorization in object-oriented databases.
Proc. 4th IFIP WG 11.3 Workshop on Database Security,
Halifax, UK, 1990.
S. Jajodia, B. Kogan. Integrating an object-oriented Data
Model with Multilevel Security. Proc. 1990 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 76-85.
T. F. Keefe, W. T. Tsai. Security model consistency in secure
object-oriented systems. Proc. 5th Annual Computer Security
Applications Conference, 290-298. IEEE Computer Society Press
1989.
T. F. Keefe, W. T. Tsai, M. B. Thuraisingham. A Secure Object
Oriented Database System. Computers & Security Vol. 8, North
Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
T. P. Keenan. Emerging Vulnerabilities in Office Automation
Security. Computers & Security, Vol. 8, North Holland
(Elsevier) 1989.
U. Kelter. Group paradigms in discretionary access controls
for object management systems. Proc. Ada Europe Intern.
Workshop on Environments, Sept. 1989.
U. Kelter. Group-oriented discretionary access controls for
distributed structurally object-oriented database systems.
Proc. European Symp. on Research in Computer Security, 23-33,
1990.
U. Kelter. Discretionary access controls in a high-performance
object management system. Proc. 1991 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 288-299.
C. Laferriere, G. O. Higginson, G. G. Bell. Security
Architectures for Textual Databases. Computers & Security,
Vol. 9, 235-244. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
M. M. Larrondo-Petrie, E. Gudes, H. Song, E. B. Fernandez.
Security Policies in Object-Oriented Databases. Database
Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds. 257-268. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
T. F. Lunt. Multilevel Security for object-oriented database
systems. Database Security: Status and Prospects. D. L.
Spooner, C. E. Landwehr, eds. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
B. H. Patkau, D. L. Tennenhouse. The Implementation of Secure
Entity-Relationship Databases. Proc. 1985 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 230-236.
H. Pfefferle, M. Hartig, K. Dittrich. Autorisierung und
Zugriffsberwachung in strukturell objekt-orientierten
Datenbanksystemen, 119-134. Informatik Fachberichte 204,
Springer Verlag 1989. (In German).
F. Rabitti, D. Woelk, W. Kim. A model of authorization for
object oriented and semantic databases. Proc. 1988 Int'l.
Conf. on Extending Database Technology (EDBT), 231-250.
F. Rabitti, D. Woelk, W. Kim. A model of authorization for
Next Generation Database Systems. ACM Trans. on Database
Systems (TODS), Vol 16, No. 1, March 1991.
R. Sandhu, R. Thomas, S. Jajodia. Supporting Timing Channel
Free Computations in Multilevel Secure Object-Oriented
Databases. In: Database Securiy: Status and Prospects V. S.
Jajodia, C. E. Landwehr, eds. Noth Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
D. L. Spooner. The Impact of Inheritance on Security in
Object-Oriented Database Systems, In: Database Security:
Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 141-150. North
Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
M. B.. Thuraisingham. Mandatory Security in object-oriented
Database Systems. Proc. 1989 Conf. on Object Oriented
Programing: Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA),
203-210.
M. B.. Thuraisingham. A Functional View of Multilevel
Databases. Computers & Security, Vol. 8, 721-729. North
Holland (Elsevier) 1989.
M. B. Thuraisingham. A Multilevel Secure Object Oriented Data
Model. Proc. 12th National Computer Security Conference, 579-
590, IEEE Computer Society Press 1989.
M. B.. Thuraisingham. Towards the design of a secure
data/knowledge base management system. Data & Knowledge
Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, 59-72. North Holland (Elsevier)
1990.
G. K Yeo. Incorporating access control in form systems.
Computers & Security, Vol 4, No. 2, 109-122. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1985.
Others
N. Ahituv, Y. Lapid, S. Neumann. Verifying the authentication
of an information. Computers & Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, April
1987, 152-157. North Holland (Elsevier).
R. W. Baldwin. Naming and grouping priviliges to simplify
security management in large databases. Proc. of the 1990
IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy.
M. Bishop. Model of security monitoring. Proc. 5th Computer
Security Applications Conference, 46-52. IEEE Computer
Society Press, 1989.
J. Biskup. A Genaral Framework for Database Security. Proc.
European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, 35-41.
Toulouse, France, Oct. 1990.
D. A. Bonyun. Logging and Accountability in Database
Management Systems. In: Database Security: Status and
Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 223-228. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1988.
J. M. Carroll, O. L. Wu. Methodology for security analysis of
data-processing systems. Computers & Security, Vol. 2, No. 1.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1983.
D. D. Clark, D. R. Wilson. A Comparison of Commercial and
Military Computer Security Policies. Proc. 1987 IEEE
Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy.
K. R. Dittrich, et al. Protection in the OSKAR Operating
System. Proc. 1982 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and
Privacy.
D. E. Denning. Cryptography and Data Security. Addison-Wesley,
Readings, 1983.
E. B. Fernandez, R. C. Summers, C. Wood. Database Security and
Integrity. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, System Programing
Series, 1981.
J. Gray. Toward a Mathematical Foundation for Information Flow
Security. Proc. 1991 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security
and Privacy, 21-34.
J. Gray. On Information Flow Security Models. Proc. of the
Computer Security Foundations Workshop, 55-60. IEEE Computer
Society Press 1991.
R. R. Henning. Industry and goverment DBMS security and
privacy needs - a comparison. Proc. 4th Aerospace Computer
Security Conference, 99-105. IEEE Computer Society Press
1988.
D. K. Hsiao. Database Security Course Module. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. C. E. Landwehr, ed., 269-302.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1988.
G. King, W. Smith. An Alternative Implementation of the
Reference Monitor Concept. Proc. 1988 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 159-166.
R. A. Kemmerer. Formal Specification of a Mental Health
Delivery System. In: Database Security: Status and Prospects.
D. L. Spooner, C. E. Landwehr, eds., 323-340. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1990.
B. Kogan, S. Jajodia. An Audit Model for Object Oriented
Databases. Proc. 7th Annual Computer Security Applications
Conf., 90-97. IEEE Computer Society Press 1991.
T. Y. Lin, L. Kerschberg, R. P. Trueblood. Security Algebras
and Formal Models: Using Petri Net Theory. In: Database
Security: Status and Prospects. D. L. Spooner, C. E.
Landwehr, eds., 75-98. North Holland (Elsevier) 1990.
T. F. Lunt. Research Directions in Database Security. Springer
Verlag, New York (forthcoming).
C. Landwehr, C. Heitmeyer, and J. McLean. A Security Model for
Military Message Systems. ACM Transactions on Computer
Systems (TOCS), Vol. 2 (1984), 198-222.
J. McLean. A Comment on the Basic Security Theorem of Bell and
LaPadula. Information Processing Letters, 20 (1985), 67-70.
J. McLean. Reasoning About Security Models. Proc. 1987 IEEE
Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 123-131.
Reprinted in: Advances in Computer Security, Vol. III, R.
Turn (eds.), Artech House, Dedham, MA.
J. McLean. The Algebra of Security. Proc. 1988 IEEE Symposium
on Research in Security and Privacy, 2-7.
J. McLean and C. Meadows, Composable Security Properties.
Cipher, Fall 1989, 27-36.
J. McLean. Security Models and Information Flow. Proc. 1990
IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 180-187.
P. Morris, J. McDermid. The Structure of Permissions: A
Normative Framework for Access Rights. In: Database Security:
Status and Prospects. C.E. Landwehr, S. Jajodia (eds), North
Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
R. S. Sandhu. The NTree: a two dimension partial order for
protection groups. ACM Trans. on Computer Systems (TOCS),
Vol. 6, No. 2, May 1988, 197-222.
R. Sandhu, S. Jajodia. Integrity Priciples and Mechanisms in
Database Management Systems. Computers & Security, Vol. 10
(1991), 413-427. North Holland (Elsevier).
R. R. Schell, T. F. Tao, M. Heckman. Designing the GEMSOS
Security Kernel For Security and Performance. Proc. 8th
National Computer Security Conference, 108-119, IEEE Computer
Society Press 1985.
E. H. Sibley, J. B. Michael, R. L. Wexelblat. Use of an
Experimental Policy Workbench: Description and Results. In:
Database Security: Status and Prospects. C.E. Landwehr, S.
Jajodia (eds), North Holland (Elsevier) 1992.
D. Spooner, A. M. Keller, G. Wiederhold, J. Solasin, D.
Heystek. Framework for the security component of an ADA DBMS.
Proc. 12th Int'l. Conf. on VLDB, 347-354, Kyoto 1986.
P. Terry, S. Wiseman. A 'New' Security Model. Proc. 1989 IEEE
Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 215-228.
N. R. Wagner, R. C. Fountain, R. J. Hazy. The Fingerprinted
Database. Proc. 6th Int'l. Conf. on Data Engineering (DE),
IEEE Computer Society Press 1990.
S. Wiseman, P. Terry, A. Wood, C. Harrold. The Trusted Path
between SMITE and the User. Proc. 1988 IEEE Symposium on
Research in Security and Privacy, 147-155.
S. Wiseman. The Conflict between Confidentiality and
Integrity. Proc. 4th Workshop on the Foundations of Computer
Security, 241-242. IEEE Computer Society Press 1991.
J. P. L. Woodward. Exploiting the dual nature of sensitivity
lables. Proc. 1987 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and
Privacy, 23-30.
-------------------------------
Additional recent papers:
S. Wiseman. The Control of Integrity in Databases. Proc. IFIP
WG 11.3 Database Security Workshop, Halifax, Yorkshire,
England, Sept. 1990.
M. Fugini, E. Orlandi. Census Data and Protection Issues.
Informatik Forum, 3. Jahrgang, Heft 3, Sept. 1989, 112-116.
H. Lu, B.-C. Ooi, H. H. Pang. Multilevel Security Control in
Multidatabase Systems. Proc. 1st Workshop on Interoperability
in Multidatabase Systems, Kyoto, Japan. IEEE Computer Society
Press 1991.
M. L. Goyal, G. V. Singh. Access Control in Distributed
Heterogeneous Database Management Systems. Computers &
Security, Vol. 10. North Holland (Elsevier) 1991.
B. Thuraisingham. Multilevel Security Issues in Distributed
Database Management Systems II. Computers & Security, Vol.
10. North Holland (Elsevier) 1991.
M. G. Fugini, R. Bellinzona, G. Martella. An Authorization
Mechanism for Unix-based cooperative Environments.
Information Systems, Vol. 16, No. 5, 1991.
S. Sherizen. European Unification '92 Impacts on Information
Security. Computers & Security, Vol. 10. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1991.
S. Eichinger, G. Pernul. Design Environment for a Hospital
Information System: Meeting the Data Security Challenge. Proc
7th World Congress on Medical Informatics (MEDINFO-92), North
Holland (Elsevier).
G. Steinke. Design Aspects of Access Control in a Knowledge
Base System. Computers & Security, Vol. 10. North Holland
(Elsevier) 1991.
T.-A. Su, G. Ozsoyoglu. Controlling FD and MVD Inferences in
Multilevel Relational Database Systems. IEEE Transactions on
Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, Dez. 1991.
P. A. Karger, M. E. Zurko, D. W. Bonin, A. H. Mason, C. E.
Kahn. A Retrospective on the VAX VMM Security Kernel. IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 11, Nov.
1991.
R. A. Kemmerer, P. A. Porras. Covert Flow Trees: A Visual
Approach to Analyzing Storage Channels. IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 11, Nov. 1991.
J. Jacob. A Uniform Presentation of Confidentiality
Properties. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol.
17, No. 11, Nov. 1991.
G. W. Smith. Modeling Security-Relevant Data Semantics. IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 11, Nov.
1991.
R. Sandhu, S. Jajodia. Integrity Principles and Mechanisms in
Database Management Systems. Computers & Security, Vol. 10.
North Holland (Elsevier) 1991.
S. Wiseman, A. Wood, S. Lewis. The Trouble with Secure
Databases. Proc. MILCOMP'89, London, Sept. 1989.
T. D. Garvey, T. F. Lunt. Cover Stories for Database Seucrity.
Proc. of the 5th IFIP WG 11.3 Workshop on Database Security,
Nov. 1991.
E. Bertino. Data Hiding and Security in Object-Oriented
Databases. Proc. 1992 Int'l. Conf. on Data Engineering, 338-
347. IEEE Computer Society Press.
G. Pernul, A M. Tjoa. Database Security Policies (Extended
Abstract). Proc. Safecomp-92, Zurich, Switzerland, Oct. 1992.
(Pergamon Press).
G. Pernul, S. Eichinger. Design Environment for a Hospital
Information System: Meeting the Data Security Challenge. Proc
7th World Congress on Medical Informatics, MEDINFO-92.
Geneve, Switzerland, Sept. 1992. North Holland (Elsevier).
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.034513.683@desire.wright.edu>
From: ctodd@desire.wright.edu
Date: 30 Mar 92 03:45:13 EST
>From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
>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.
>
>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.
The bandwidth is paid via the price the university pays for access.
Like everything else, if the price doesn't sufficiently cover cost
the price goes up.
Batch processing. Our news is handled via batch processing the files
are updated to add new groups, a not too frequent event since the
only ones that are filtered are ALT.whatever. If someone requests
a group, it is added. The news-manager runs at 3 a.m. so there
are usually more than enough cycles to go around.
>>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.
It sounds like you could use some fresh ideas in the area of
system administration. The wheel has already been invented.
>>And still, you are blatently overstating the per semester posting of
>>joke newgroup messages.
>Five this week alone.
Far less than your 17,000 figure stated earlier. If news
administration is such heavy, manual labor why do you get
any of the ALT groups? You seem to have plenty of free time
to post these outlandish statements.
>>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>The cost to administer news is the same if you carry
>>one group or all of them.
>
>But, suck-at-the-public-teat .edu students seem to think that computer
>centers grow on trees.
>
>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.
The cost of BAD administration goes up. Do you really believe
all this or are you just trying to work the teat thing into
the discussion?
>>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.
>
Several? Is this several as close as your 16,995 count error?
Mr. Davidson was referring to his institution. Obviously you don't
teach there. You don't teach at mine either. Any student may request
and receive a computer account here also. This is quite common.
Do you use your "suck-at-the-public-teat .edu" quote at these "several"
universities? I guess all students not in CS or CEG must have to wait
until they become suck-at-the-smallbusinessman-teat professionals
before they have a right to access.
>-- 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 /
Lovely quote.
At our site there was some disturbance when the ALT groups were
disappeared one day. Several faculty and staff members, to their credit,
voiced their opposition to the move. The reason given was lack
of disk space.
The result was a compromise. Beastiality, the hate.hate.hate, and
die.die.die groups are gone forever but most of the remaining
ALT groups have returned without anyone suffering permanent
damage. If students, faculty, or staff really want the deleted
stuff most is available somewhere on the net anyway so the
censorship is only an obstacle and somewhat of a futile gesture.
Craig Todd
VMS/UNIX Consultant
Wright State University
Dayton, Ohio ctodd@desire.wright.edu
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.135923.5061@tijc02.uucp>
Date: 30 Mar 92 13:59:23 GMT
From article <1992Mar28.060535.20483@anomaly.sbs.com>, by mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan):
> 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 /
Michael,
Sorry. What I said was not what I meant. I agree with you and was
giving examples of how the computer center could charge for usage on a
per user basis as is already done in many other departments. I thought
you were arguing that this could not be done when I responded to your
post. Forgive me for this mistake.
Paul Schmidt
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 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: <9203301515.AA19839@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 03:15:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
From: vds7789@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.202043.25852@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 27 Mar 92 20:20:43 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:
[...complaint about game slowing down 'real work'...]
>What would you do?
neat question...
if the game connects to the other system via a tcp port, they can disable
it at the system level on their end by editing /etc/services to not
respond on that port. They control what they receive on their system
by policy decisions they have to make on their end.
You are responsible for what your people do on your systems, and for
allowing/preventing other sites from accessing yours.
They are responsible for both on their site and systems.
whether using the network and creating load on it is 'bad' again is
a function of the acceptable-use policy for the network(s) between the
two systems.
your hypothetical letter didn't say whether the complaint was from
one of your users who can't get work done because your users had your
systems bogged down playing (in which case you get to watch them fight
it out :-))
if it was mail from an outside site, assuming you're ok to run that
stuff on the common network, you can tell him it's his problem to get
his site to block the port.
my 2-cents says that some poor kid is paying increased tuition to
support the systems and networks that that (IMHO) junk runs on
and that their folks are paying higher taxes and/or prices to
support more Internet bandwidth to support it too...but that's
a somewhat different issue.
--
--------- Vince Skahan ----------- vince@atc.boeing.com ---------
-- Lisa tries to enlighten Maggie, ``Blood Feud''
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 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: <9203301516.AA19848@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 03:16:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
From: ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 05:44:43 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.054443.5955@wolves.uucp>
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. 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.
It sure sounds like "J Random User" is a sore looser or a heavy control
freak.
The main likelihood is that "he" is someone who has gotten "toad"ed on
several MUD/MUCKs because of an obnoxious attitude problem and they want
to get back at all gamers for some perceived injury.
If they are a heavy control freak, they need to be informed that they
don't have any authority beyond their site.
In either case, they need a dose of reality and you should tell us the
real identity for flame control.
--
Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...duke!wolves!ggw [use the maps!]
Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 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: <9203301516.AA19857@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 03:16:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
From: chupchup@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Robert Earl)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Mar 92 12:07:29 GMT
vds7789@aw2.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan) writes:
| if the game connects to the other system via a tcp port, they can disable
| it at the system level on their end by editing /etc/services to not
| respond on that port. They control what they receive on their system
| by policy decisions they have to make on their end.
How, exactly, would one do that? Certainly not from /etc/services;
that file is simply a translation, name<->number, for different
predefined port numbers---definitely not an access list for tcp.
Not possible on most Unices from a user level, for that matter. The
kernel could be modified to arrange something like this, but it
wouldn't be foolproof or non-obtrusive---legitimate user programs want
to bind(), listen(), and connect() on non-priviledged ports as well.
Of course this requires source. The C library stubs could be hacked
to provide limited control, but anyone could write their own, or use
direct syscall-by-number.
A router somewhere downstream from the site could filter packets en
route to a given port number, but the games can always switch ports.
The number of the port used is not really important to the operation
of a game...
--
robert earl rearl@piggy.ucsb.edu
"eenie, meenie, chili beanie, your lucky number is... C!" ---Kelly Bundy
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.150750.927@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 30 Mar 92 15:07:50 GMT
In article <92Mar28.191301est.144353@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>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.
I don't think so. It seems to me to be an acceptance of the fact that
the workers are human beings, and an implication that they are scummy
human beings who would cheat the company given any opportunity. I
certainly wouldn't be comfortable at a company with such a policy. I
wonder if they also search the employee's desks to ensure the contents
are work-related?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: U of Delaware Code
Message-ID: <199203301534.AA01382@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 05:34:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U of Delaware Code
Message-ID: <199203301526.AA01296@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 15:24:58 GMT
richard@RAVEL.UDEL.EDU (Richard Gordon) writes:
[...]
draft> encroaching on others' use of the University's computers (e.g.,
draft> disrupting others' computer use by excessive game playing;
draft> sending frivolous or excessive messages, either locally or
draft> off-campus [including electronic chain letters and unauthorized
draft> electronic "bulk" mailings];[...]
>Anyone have suggestions for how better to word the e-mail stuff in this
>paragraph? Put in context, we have had the mailer on one of our UNIX
>systems grind to a dead halt thanks, in part, to a student trying
>something that led to him sending nearly a hundred mail messages a
>minute to some guy in colorado--until the mailer became ill and the
>system manager intervened! And we've had the standard "broadcast
>message" incidents and the chain letters etc.
What matters is the actions are "disruptive". My university defines
"disruptive" as "substantially impedes University operations, or
substantially interferes with the rights of others, or takes place on
premises or at times where students are not authorized to be." If you
look at your university's Student Code under "Disruptive or Coercive
Acton" or "Demonstrations", you may find similar wording.
I suggest removing "frivolous". It seems irrelevant. (The important
questions, is is the action "disruptive". A chain letter should likely
be assumed to be disruptive even if it is not an "excessive message".
On the other hand, my experience is that most bulk mailing are not
disruptive. At the C.S. department at U. of Illinois we have dozens of
mailing list (e.g. for the computer staff, for A.I. students) that
don't seem "disruptive".
So, how about:
"disrupting others' use of the University's computers, for example,
by excessive game playing; by sending excessive messages; by sending
chain letters;"
[I think this is more readable, too.]
- 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=
--
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 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.privacy] Dead letter handling (was Re: email privacy)
Message-ID: <9203301536.AA20007@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 03:36:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: Marc VanHeyningen
Subject: Dead letter handling (was Re: email privacy)
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.013803.8650@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 01:37:53 -0500
>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.
In article <1992Mar27.081237.24000@nyssa.wa7ipx.ampr.org> mbp@nyssa.wa7ipx.ampr.org (Marlin Prowell) writes:
>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.
Not that it's really all that relevant, but I once got a letter, sent to
me, via the dead letter office. They were unable to find the address of
the sender anywhere inside or outside, but found mine, so sent it to me
rather than destroy it.
--
_ _ Marc VanHeyningen mvanheyn@indiana.edu mvanheyn@iubacs.BITNET
/ / \ mputer-\ Your health care choices:
| | | oky Science immediate access, limited costs, high-tech medicine
\_ \_/ gnitive/ Pick any two.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Attorney General opinion on GLB in Alabama
Message-ID: <199203301541.AA01586@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 05:41:25 GMT
[Reposted from email with the permission of the author - Carl]
From: Eric Hunt
Subject: Attorney General opinion on GLB in Alabama
To: kadie@eff.org
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 1:47:57 CST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
>From the AP wire today, it was reported that the GLB at the
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, "plans to appeal a budget cut by
student leaders responding to a recent attorney general's opinion."
The SGA at UA reduced the appropriation given to the GLB from $800 to $264,
the amount of their phone bill this past year.
State Attorney General Jimmy Evans' opinion, which "is not legally binding,
said homosexual groups can't use state buildings or funds to promote illegal
deviate sex."
The article appeared in the Friday, March 27, 1992 edition of the Birmingham
News on page 3C.
--
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 30 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: <1992Mar30.155418.24446@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: 30 Mar 92 15:54:18 GMT
In article <1992Mar29.215748.29818@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>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.
Actually I'd rather that a private telephone company wire the
whole campus. First, it would then get done, and second it
would be a very profitable venture. (And yes, I know exactly
what is involved and what it costs.)
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, Alaska
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.bi] Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <9203301617.AA20320@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 04:17:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
From: SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <92090.103840SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Date: 30 Mar 92 09:38:40 GMT
In the local administration news group, it was recently announced that owing to
the volume of news, the expiry date of most news groups would be reduced to
4 days. It has subsequently been reduced to 3 days. The announcement ended:
"If there is a particular group which you would like to be
retained for longer, then please let me know. In most
instances, I'll be happy to increase the expiry date to
7 days."
I mailed the administrator to request an extension for soc.bi & received a
reply saying that this would be done within the next few days; however,
when I login this morining, there's a message waiting from him to say that
he's just noted which group I want extending & he won't do it, which has
pissed me off somewhat, considering that other individual newsgroups have been
extended to 7 days. I don't suppose that there's anything I can do about
this, but I wanted to have a bit of a rant here & get it off my chest.
Perhaps if a few more people request an extension, something may get done,
so all you muffins out there at Liverpool Uni, come out & have a moan at the
Comp Lab!
Paul
(sbit37@uk.ac.liv.uxb)
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.software.readers, et al.] Re: A nice potential news reader feature
Message-ID: <9203301639.AA20512@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 04:39:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
From: kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski)
Newsgroups: news.software.readers,news.future
Subject: Re: A nice potential news reader feature
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Mar 92 03:21:07 GMT
In <1992Mar29.211725.13510@ra.msstate.edu> (Frank Peters) writes:
>Wouldn't it be nice if there were a news reader that could read
>news from a variety of sources in the same session?
[...]
5) You've got six CD-ROMs (3.5Gb! :) full of news in a jukebox...
Sterling Software is running into this for their NetNews/CD product,
and they're patching newsreaders for just this purpose.
Here's their contact info:
Sterling Software
NetNews/CD
1404 Fort Crook Road South
Bellevue, NE 68005-2969
voice: 1-800-643-NEWS
fax: 1-402-291-4362
email: cdnews@sterling.com or uunet!sparky!cdnews
># Wouldn't it be nice to write a filter so that you can read
># mail messages using a newsreader.
Note that nn does this already, and it *is* nice.
Information navigators will start to understand news, too, and they'll
come ready to read from multiple sources. Check out World-Wide Web
for an example.
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.software.readers, et al.] A nice potential news reader feature
Message-ID: <9203301638.AA20503@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 04:38:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.software.readers,news.future
From: fwp@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Subject: A nice potential news reader feature
Message-ID: <1992Mar29.211725.13510@ra.msstate.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 21:17:25 GMT
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a news reader that could read
news from a variety of sources in the same session? I can think
of several situations where this would be useful:
1) Your site only gets one core hierarchy (say comp) and you want
to read the other hierarchies from another source.
2) Your site doesn't carry one of the alternative hierarchies
(alt, gnu, whatever) and your friend is willing to let you
read them from his or her machine...but you want to read
the main groups locally.
3) Your news administrator refuses to carry that one news group
that you consider vital to your well being.
4) You've set up this neato filter system to load your incoming
personal mail into a news hierarchy in your home directory.
What I had in mind is a newsreader that reads a control file something
like the one at the end of this message.
Is there any reason why this would be impossible (or even particularly
hard) to add to any of the existing popular newsreaders? Any reason
why it would be undesirable? The only limitation I can think of off
the top of my head is that you would probably want to limit news
reading order to be grouped by server (to avoid constantly opening
and closing server connections).
Is anyone working on something like this?
--Fwp
------ sample .newscontrol file
# format:
#groups spooldir or 'nntp' libdir or remote hostname
# Default entry. Imagine this host carries everything but alt
# and GNU.
/default/ /usr/spool/news /usr/lib/news
# Imagine host foo.msstate.edu carries all of alt except for
# the alt.sex groups.
alt nntp foo.msstate.edu
# Since foo.msstate.edu doesn't get alt sex we arrange to get
# our own personal private feed of it somehow.
alt.sex $HOME/news/sex $HOME/news/sex/.lib
# Get gnu groups from host bar.baz.edu.
gnu nntp bar.baz.edu
# Wouldn't it be nice to write a filter so that you can read
# mail messages using a newsreader. Actually I've already
# heard of such a setup for gnus but it only works if the
# 'real' groups are also spool (not NNTP).
personal $HOME/news/personal $HOME/news/personal/.lib
--
Frank Peters - UNIX Systems Programmer - Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu - Phone: (601)325-7030 - FAX: (601)325-8921
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,unl.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Newspaper article at U. of Nebraska (alts)
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.173226.4226@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 17:32:26 GMT
[This is a copy of a letter I sent to the _Daily Nebraskan_ last week.]
Carl M. Kadie, Co-Editor
Computer and Academic Freedom News
kadie@uiuc.edu and kadie@eff.org
Editor
The Daily Nebraskan
Nebraskan Union, Room 34
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0448
Dear Editor:
I write to protest the University of Nebraska's ban of my newsgroup,
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. Alt.comp.acad-freedom.news (CAF-News) is
an edited on-forum for discussions of computers and academic freedom.
Contrary to the impression left by your article of March 17, it is not
"recreational", "sick", "pornographic", or "illegal.
According to the article, the ban was justified in part because the
"alt" newsgroups are recreational. This justification has three flaws.
First, recreation is generally not prohibited at universities. Second,
"alt" newsgroups such as CAF-News, CAF-talk, alt.censorship, and
alt.civil-liberty, are not recreational. Third, many newsgroups such
as rec.skydiving and rec.games.chess are recreational, but were not
banned.
I suspect that the overly broad ban was modivated by a desire to
prohibit discussions of sex. (This is like the Library banning all
magazines that start with the letter "P" in order to get rid of
Playboy.) Because, however, the committee that banned the "alt"
newsgroups worked in secret and produced no detailed selection policy,
we cannot know.
Traditional libraries have had to deal with limited resources and
selection-versus-censorship for a long time. One of the foundations
of a library's protection of intellectual freedom is that selection
policies should be written, detailed, and created in the open[1]. In
my opinion, the University should offer the same protection to
"computer libraries". A detailed selection policy for computer
material will not necessarly stop the Univeristy from banning
disucssions of sex, but it will make such bans explicit and open to
discussion. Also, a detailed selection policy is less likely to
exclude newsgroups such as my own.
Sincerely,
Carl M. Kadie
Co-Editor, Computers and Academic Freedom News
cc: Leo Chouinard, Academic Senate
Douglas Gale, Director of Computing
Kent Henderickson, Dean of Libraries
Office of the President
===============
1. Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library
Association, Wookbook for selection policy writing, 1983.
--
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 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U of Illinois at Chicago Penalties Policy
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.174846.4537@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 17:48:46 GMT
This is a copy of an email message I (think I) sent to the director of
computing resources of the U. of Illinois at Chicago. So far, I have
received no reply or acknowledgment.
[It is followed by access information.]
- Carl
=============================================
From kadie Thu Mar 19 10:43:27 1992
To: U08206@uicvm.uic.edu
Subject: "Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources"
Status: R
Dear Mr. Brown,
I've just read a copy of "Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing
Resources". I would be grateful if you could answer some questions
about the policy (unless, of course, the answers are confidential).
What is the history of the policy? (What motivated it's creation? Who
created it?)
Did student and/or faculty users participate in the policy creation?
Which units of the University reviewed and/or approved the policy?
If users request it, are they given a hearing before suspensions are
imposed?
How often has the policy been imposed?
How often have punishments less than the minimum been impose (because,
for example, because of mitigating circumstances)?
How often have warnings been given instead?
The policy uses the "minimum of 3 days to 1 week". Does this mean that
"1 week" is the maximum?
At Computer Center staff bound by the policy? (for example, are they
prohibited from sending "unwelcome" messages?
The policy outlaws solicited, but unwelcome email. Has such email ever
been punished?
What "frivolous" uses of computer resources have been punished?
Can one user allow another user to look at, say, a file without be
subject to a 3 month suspension by getting written permission from
you?
Thanks for your help and information,
- Carl
===================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
policies/uicvm.uic.edu
=================
"Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources", a policy of the
University of Illinois at Chicago's Computer Center (Critiqued).
=================
policies/uicvm.uic.edu.critique
=================
Critique of "Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources", a
policy of the University of Illinois at Chicago's Computer Center.
Summary: This is the most creatively repressive policy I read in a
long time. The policy gives the false illusion of explicitness and due
process. In fact, however, it makes almost everything illegal and
subject to harsh and disproportionate punishment. It then gives the
Computer Center expansive discretion on enforcement and punishment.
The effect for users is the same as if there was no policy at all.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send other-comp-policies uicvm.uic.edu
send other-comp-policies uicvm.uic.edu.critique
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/policies/uicvm.uic.edu
pub/academic/policies/uicvm.uic.edu.critique
--
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 30 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: <1992Mar30.184924.6454@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 18:49:24 GMT
Wes Morgan raises several technical questions about my suggestion;
however, any answers to these questions are moot unless I can address
his last questions.
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
cmk>And yet if the hypothetical s.p.h was a mailing list, no one (or fewer
cmk>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.)
This is an argument for a policy of requiring users to sign a "I
realize that I will be offended" statement before being given access
to Netnews.
>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.
[...]
Mailing lists seem to be a middle ground (like having the _Times_
delivered by mail.)
The hope of my proposal, is that admins would be able to respond to an
interview like:
q: Is it true that the University subscribes to on-line porn and
sexist jokes?
a: This organization does not. Individual computer users may subscribe
to whatever lawful material they wish.
q: But don't you allocate disk space to on-line porn and sexist jokes?
a: No, we allocate disk space to users.
- 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 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Libraries and the Law
Message-ID: <199203301914.AA06784@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 09:14:11 GMT
Here are excerpts from library intellectual-freedom statements
regarding the law. The full text of the statementss is available
on-line. Access information is included.
- Carl
=============================
access.children.nonprint.ala
MPAA and other rating services are private advisory codes and have no
legal standing. [Footnote: For information on case law, please contact the ALA
Office for Intellectual Freedom.]
[...]
Unless directly and specifically prohibited by law from circulating
certain motion pictures and video productions to minors, librarians
should apply the same standards to circulation of these materials as
are applied to books and other materials.
access.policies.ala
American libraries exist and function within the context of a body of
law derived from the United States Constitution, defined by statute,
and implemented by regulations, policies, and procedures established
by their governing bodies and administrations. These regulations,
policies, and procedures reflect the function and character of the
library, define its operations, and protect its mission and the rights
of its users.
challenged-materials.ala
The American Library Association declares as a matter of firm principle that
it is the responsibility of every library to have a clearly defined materials
selection policy in written form which reflects the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS,
and which is approved by the appropriate governing authority.
Challenged materials which meet the criteria for selection in the materials
selection policy of the library should not be removed under any legal or
extra-legal pressure. The LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS states in Article I that
"Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views
of those contributing to their creation," and in Article II, that "Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval." Freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution of the
United States, but constitutionally protected expression is often separated
from unprotected expression only by a dim and uncertain line. The
Constitution requires a procedure designed to focus searchingly on challenged
expression before it can be suppressed. An adversary hearing is a part of
this procedure.
Therefore, any attempt, be it legal or extra-legal, to regulate or suppress
materials in libraries must be closely scrutinized to the end that protected
expression is not abridged.
diversity.ala
Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not
exclusive, in collection development and in the provision of
interlibrary loan. Access to all materials legally obtainable should
be assured to the user, and policies should not unjustly exclude
materials even if they are offensive to the librarian or the user.
int-freedom.ala
4. With every available legal means, we will challenge laws or
governmental action restricting or prohibiting the publication of
certain materials or limiting free access to such materials.
Our society has no place for legislative efforts to coerce the taste
of its members, to restrict adults to reading matter deemed suitable
only for children, or to inhibit the efforts of creative persons in
their attempts to achieve artistic perfection. When we prevent serious
artists from dealing with truth as they see it, we stifle creative
endeavor at its source. Those who direct and control the intellectual
development of our children -- parents, teachers, religious leaders,
scientists, philosophers, statesman -- must assume the responsibility
for preparing young people to cope with life as it is and to face the
diversity of experience to which they will be exposed as they mature.
This is an affirmative responsibility that cannot be discharged
easily, certainly not with the added burden of curtailing one's access
to art, literature, and opinion. Tastes differ. Taste, like morality,
cannot be controlled by government, for governmental action, devised
to suit the demands of one group, thereby limits the freedom of all
others.
int-freedom.can
All persons in canada have the fundamental right, as embodied in the
nation's Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to
have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and intellectual
activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. This right to
intellectual freedom, under the law, is essential to the health and
development of Canadian society.
labeling.ala
While some attempts have been made to adopt these systems into law, the
constitutionality of such measures is extremely questionable. If such
legislation is passed which applies within a library's jurisdiction, the
library should seek competent legal advice concerning its applicability to
library operations.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/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"
=================
library/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"
=================
library/challenged-materials.ala
=================
"Challenged Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/int-freedom.can
=================
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom
=================
library/labeling.ala
=================
"Statement on Labeling"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send library-policies access.children.nonprint.ala
send library-policies access.policies.ala
send library-policies challenged-materials.ala
send library-policies diversity.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.can
send library-policies labeling.ala
send library-policies README
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/library/access.children.nonprint.ala
pub/academic/library/access.policies.ala
pub/academic/library/challenged-materials.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.can
pub/academic/library/labeling.ala
pub/academic/library/README
--
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 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: RE: Libraries and the Law
Message-ID: <199203301931.AA07174@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 09:31:41 GMT
Here are some principles I've extrapolated from the library
intellectual-freedom statements regarding the law.
* The terms "R-rated, X-rated" [and "pornographic"] have no legal
meaning. [access.children.nonprint.ala]
* Access should be prohibited on legal grounds only then the law is
direct and specific. [access.children.nonprint.ala]
* Every library should have a selection policy that respects
intellectual freedom and this is approved by the appropriate governing
authority. [challenged-materials.ala]
* Challenged material should not be removed without an adversarial
hearing. [challenged-materials.ala]
* It is unjust to exclude legal materials just because they are
offensive to some. [diversity.ala]
* If such legislation is passed which applies within a library's
jurisdiction, the library should seek competent legal advice
concerning its applicability to library operations. [labeling.ala]
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/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"
=================
library/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"
=================
library/challenged-materials.ala
=================
"Challenged Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/int-freedom.can
=================
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom
=================
library/labeling.ala
=================
"Statement on Labeling"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send library-policies access.children.nonprint.ala
send library-policies access.policies.ala
send library-policies challenged-materials.ala
send library-policies diversity.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.can
send library-policies labeling.ala
send library-policies README
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/library/access.children.nonprint.ala
pub/academic/library/access.policies.ala
pub/academic/library/challenged-materials.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.can
pub/academic/library/labeling.ala
pub/academic/library/README
--
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 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.bi] Re: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <9203301933.AA21665@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 07:33:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
From: nmw1638@cs.rit.edu (Nicolas M Williams)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <3005@cs.rit.edu>
Date: 30 Mar 92 15:39:07 GMT
In article <92090.103840SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK writes:
>In the local administration news group, it was recently announced that owing to
>the volume of news, the expiry date of most news groups would be reduced to
>4 days. It has subsequently been reduced to 3 days. The announcement ended:
> "If there is a particular group which you would like to be
> retained for longer, then please let me know. In most
> instances, I'll be happy to increase the expiry date to
> 7 days."
It's not as bad as you thgink, we have two newsfeeds on two different systems,
on this system the expiy date seems to be around three days (but also seems to
vary from newsgroup to newsgroup) (any info on this Kevin?), on the vax and
ultrix systems articles seem to be kept for more than a week, but on the other
hand articles seem to arrive one to two days late. My solution? logon often
enough not to fall behind.
>I mailed the administrator to request an extension for soc.bi & received a
>reply saying that this would be done within the next few days; however,
>when I login this morining, there's a message waiting from him to say that
>he's just noted which group I want extending & he won't do it, which has
>pissed me off somewhat, considering that other individual newsgroups have been
>extended to 7 days. I don't suppose that there's anything I can do about
>this, but I wanted to have a bit of a rant here & get it off my chest.
Depends, does your school have a no censorship, no discrimination on the basis
of sexual attraction policy? Ask around, complain to a student group or to an
administration appeals panel or something, you might even wanna organize a
protest. I sure would like to have 7-day expiry.
>Perhaps if a few more people request an extension, something may get done,
>so all you muffins out there at Liverpool Uni, come out & have a moan at the
>Comp Lab!
>
>Paul
>(sbit37@uk.ac.liv.uxb)
Nick
--
______
E-mail: nmw1638@cs.rit.edu Phone: (716) 475-3716 \ \/ /
Mail: CPU 645, 25 Andrews Memorial Dr, Rochester, NY 14623 \/\/
"TKE, an antropologist's dream"-me .sig is back!!!
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.bi] Re: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <9203301934.AA21674@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 07:34:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
From: kdc5072@cs.rit.edu (Kevin D Colagio)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <3007@cs.rit.edu>
Date: 30 Mar 92 17:01:52 GMT
In article <3005@cs.rit.edu> nmw1638@cs.rit.edu (Nicolas M Williams) writes:
In article <92090.103840SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK writes:
>In the local administration news group, it was recently announced that
>owing to the volume of news, the expiry date of most news groups would be
>reduced to 4 days. It has subsequently been reduced to 3 days. The
>announcement ended:
> "If there is a particular group which you would like to be
> retained for longer, then please let me know. In most
> instances, I'll be happy to increase the expiry date to
> 7 days."
It's not as bad as you think, we have two newsfeeds on two different systems,
on this system the expiy date seems to be around three days (but also seems
to vary from newsgroup to newsgroup) (any info on this Kevin?), on the vax and
ultrix systems articles seem to be kept for more than a week, but on the other
hand articles seem to arrive one to two days late. My solution? logon often
enough not to fall behind.
OK, our system is really screwed up (fu-bar to the limit!)...here is how we
work...
We have a bunch of SUNS that get their news feed from one place (this is
where I post from...)
We have a system that is running Ultrix.
We have a VAX cluster (5 machines I think) running VMS (puke!)
The ultrix and vaxes are getting the same news feed as they are controlled
by the same department (Information Systems and Computing (aka ISC)). They
have their heads up their asses because they do NOT know what they are
doing. They get a news feed that is about (last I checked) 5 days behind
this one.
This newsfeed is coming through somewhere else (I don't know where) and we
get a news packet about every 8 minutes or so. This one is controlled by
the Computer Science Department (CS). Now, ISC could get thier news feed
from the CS dept., but they don't. They would rather PAY to get it from
somewhere else....go figure!
I don't know...I just go to school here...and sometimes I don't even do
that!
oh, yeah, We don't keep the news around long because of the amount of disk
space that the systems have. From what I can gather, the space is limited
and with all the stuff that people do, news takes a low priority (and I can
understand that...) so they have a few day limit.
>I mailed the administrator to request an extension for soc.bi & received a
>reply saying that this would be done within the next few days; however,
>when I login this morining, there's a message waiting from him to say that
>he's just noted which group I want extending & he won't do it, which has
>pissed me off somewhat, considering that other individual newsgroups have
>been extended to 7 days. I don't suppose that there's anything I can do
>about this, but I wanted to have a bit of a rant here & get it off my chest.
Depends, does your school have a no censorship, no discrimination on the basis
of sexual attraction policy? Ask around, complain to a student group or to an
administration appeals panel or something, you might even wanna organize a
protest. I sure would like to have 7-day expiry.
Why does everyone want to complain first? Don't bitch! Send him mail
asking for his reasons for not extending the expiration time. He may have
checked to see how many people read it, and if only 3 people read it, why
keep an extra 200 messages for 3 people?
>Perhaps if a few more people request an extension, something may get done,
>so all you muffins out there at Liverpool Uni, come out & have a moan at the
>Comp Lab!
>
>Paul
Nick
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
- Kevin Colagio...student at large - I am looking - In Gods we trust, =
= aka = for something - All others pay cash. -
- KDC5072@cs.rit.edu - to put here. - -Vladimir Taltos =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.195256.25262@colorado.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 19:52:56 GMT
In article <1992Mar27.165011.24372@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>> 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.
We're discussing that. If nothing else, a set of posting guidelines
will almost certainly go into a FAQ.
>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.
It already is. Try calling a female black coworker a "nigger cunt"
and see what happens. As I recall, these laws were derived from
the principle of "human dignity," which holds (among other things)
that you should not be ridiculed/ostracized/prejudiced for things
beyond your control such as race, gender, national origin, religious
beliefs, etc.
Ridiculing someone over something they have control over, such as
belief in a flat earth or the inherent moral superiority of redheads,
is quite different from ridiculing someone over something they have
no control over, such as race or being a victim of violent crime.
>>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.
Once again, think of "human dignity." Now think of legally recognized
harassing speech. NOT hate speech, which is general to an entire class
of people, but speech which says, for instance, "I am your boss and I
expect you to behave as a subserviant manner since you are a woman [or
black or...]." Whether you agree with it or not, our elected representatives
have held that society has a greater interest in prohibiting such speech
than in requiring people who are offended find other employment.
BTW, the boss is still free to say "... subserviant manner since you
are a subordinate."
A very limited similar form of protection would seem to apply to
victims of crime. Imagine being told you were being pulled from a
project because "management doesn't trust you since your house was
burgarized."
>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.
I'm not trying to restrict other newsgroups. I'm simply pointing
out an area where more control may be desirable.
While I don't know that Net.Cops is the solution, I should point
out they already exist on an ad hoc basis. They are called sysadmins,
and while a few refuse to get involved in _any_ issue, others are
quick to revoke net access for rather trivial matters. The guy
who posted the "Straight A's" article to every newsgroup springs
to mind. Curiously, I don't recall seeing anyone on alt.censorship
mention protesting his loss of net access...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Giles The menu is not the meal.
bear@fsl.noaa.gov -- Alan Watts
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.204839.9059@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 20:48:39 GMT
bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>In article <1992Mar27.165011.24372@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>We're discussing that. If nothing else, a set of posting guidelines
>will almost certainly go into a FAQ.
Posting guidelines is a good idea. Do not, however, expect sites
to enforce your guidelines for you.
>>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.
>It already is. Try calling a female black coworker a "nigger cunt"
>and see what happens. As I recall, these laws were derived from
>the principle of "human dignity," which holds (among other things)
>that you should not be ridiculed/ostracized/prejudiced for things
>beyond your control such as race, gender, national origin, religious
>beliefs, etc.
[...]
You recall incorrectly. The laws were derived from an effort to stop
sexual (and racial) discrimination in the work place. They apply only
to work places. They do not apply to all forums. They do not apply all
things beyond your control (for example, they do not apply to
intelligence). They do not apply to all forms of ostracization, etc.
- 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 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.210856.9459@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 21:08:56 GMT
bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
[...]
>A very limited similar form of protection would seem to apply to
>victims of crime. Imagine being told you were being pulled from a
>project because "management doesn't trust you since your house was
>burgarized."
[...]
If you are an employee of a private company in the U.S. and don't have
an employment contract, you could be fired for this reason (or almost
any other reason or no reason.) The things you can't be fired for are
few. They include being trying to organize a labor union, being
African American, being a woman.
Among the infinite number of reasons you can be fired are:
Reporting defective products to upper managment.
Running for office and being of a different party than your boss.
Saying bad things at work about President Bush.
[These examples are from the ACLU Public Policy Report "Liberty at
Work: Expanding the Rights of Employees in America", 1988.]
- 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 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U of Illinois at Chicago Penalties Policy
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.220714.11320@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 22:07:14 GMT
I made an error in the archive. The U. of Illinois at Chicago
policy wasn't where I said. It is now. Sorry for the error.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
policies/uicvm.uic.edu
=================
"Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources", a policy of the
University of Illinois at Chicago's Computer Center (Critiqued).
=================
policies/uicvm.uic.edu.critique
=================
Critique of "Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources", a
policy of the University of Illinois at Chicago's Computer Center.
Summary: This is the most creatively repressive policy I read in a
long time. The policy gives the false illusion of explicitness and due
process. In fact, however, it makes almost everything illegal and
subject to harsh and disproportionate punishment. It then gives the
Computer Center expansive discretion on enforcement and punishment.
The effect for users is the same as if there was no policy at all.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send other-comp-policies uicvm.uic.edu
send other-comp-policies uicvm.uic.edu.critique
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/policies/uicvm.uic.edu
pub/academic/policies/uicvm.uic.edu.critique
--
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 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ncsu.eos,ncsu.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Complain about EOS and get threatened with academic misconduct
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.214812.15815@ncsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 21:48:12 GMT
You may remember a post from me on the newsgroup ncsu.eos about a month
ago in which I complained about students playing games on the EOS dialup
server. Well, I recently checked my mail on EOS and found that someone didn't
like my complaint -- enough so that they sent me a threatening e-mail
message charging me with academic misconduct. I'll note that (a) I have
not played games on the dialup server and (b) this person was obviously
trying to get some dirt on me, otherwise they wouldn't have looked at the
files in my directory.
If this is how complaints are handled, then I'd like to have my account
removed immediately, and to have my $100 refunded. I refuse to be forced
to pay for an account where I am threatened if I complain about the
services provided.
---------------begin included text------------------------------------
From willis@eos.ncsu.edu Fri Mar 6 21:39:37 1992
Return-Path:
Received: from eos03a.eos.ncsu.edu by eos05a.eos.ncsu.edu (5.65b/SAM 07-20-90 10:07:54)
id AA09109; Fri, 6 Mar 92 21:39:37 -0500
Received-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 21:39:37 -0500
Received: from c00313-11pa.eos.ncsu.edu by eos03a.eos.ncsu.edu (5.65b/SAM 07-20-90 10:07:54)
id AA28802; Fri, 6 Mar 92 21:39:34 -0500
Posted-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 92 21:39:31 EST
Received: by c00313-11pa.eos.ncsu.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C)
id AA08000; Fri, 6 Mar 92 21:39:33 -0500
From: willis@eos.ncsu.edu
Message-Id: <9203070239.AA08000@c00313-11pa.eos.ncsu.edu>
To: dsholtsi@eos.ncsu.edu
Subject: Dialup0 utilization
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 92 21:39:31 EST
I observing your use of dialup0, I find you in an ill position to complain
about the setup there. Since there is a compy of our games policy in your
directory I assume that you are aware of it. Since you responded to my post
on ncsu.eos, I also can assume that you understand what we consider games.
Please refrain from use of dialup0 for recreational use. PERIOD. Any future
violation of this policy will result in action against you for academic
misconduct.
Bill Willis
---------------end included text----------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.bi] Re: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <9203302331.AA23791@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 11:31:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
From: pierce@husc4.harvard.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.133338.10468@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 30 Mar 92 18:33:37 GMT
In article <92090.103840SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK writes:
>I mailed the administrator to request an extension for soc.bi & received a
>reply saying that this would be done within the next few days; however,
>when I login this morining, there's a message waiting from him to say that
>he's just noted which group I want extending & he won't do it, which has
>pissed me off somewhat, considering that other individual newsgroups have been
>extended to 7 days.
How is he defending this decision?
--
____ Tim Pierce /
\ / pierce@husc.harvard.edu / See it and understand.
\/ (aka twpierce@amherst.edu) /
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
From: revans@euclid.ucsd.edu (Ron Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <31136@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Date: 31 Mar 92 01:39:47 GMT
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.
> bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>It already is. Try calling a female black coworker a "nigger cunt"
>and see what happens. As I recall, these laws were derived from
>the principle of "human dignity," which holds (among other things)
>that you should not be ridiculed/ostracized/prejudiced for things
>beyond your control such as race, gender, national origin, religious
>beliefs, etc.
Take a look at posts from b-cpu flooding the net.
Jewish Holocaust survivors are mocked as addled or
liars. Would you restrict b-cpu speech because of its
contempt for human dignity?
I personally have ridiculed people mercilessly for their
religious beliefs. Would you like to try to put a stop
to my speech? I will give you one example. I have
ridiculed those fundamentalist Muslims who believe that
Allah calls for the killing of a mother whose child is
not from her husband, and those who believe that Allah
approves of the death sentence for Salman Rushdie.
>Ridiculing someone over something they have control over, such as
>belief in a flat earth or the inherent moral superiority of redheads,
>is quite different from ridiculing someone over something they have
>no control over, such as race or being a victim of violent crime.
What is your point? We are now to restrict the speech
of people who ridicule the obese, but only if the obesity
is due to a hormone problem rather than to something
controllable like plain overeating?
Maybe we should prohibit the use of the term "obese"
altogether and require "gravitationally challenged"
instead.
I don't recognize "freedom from ridicule" as a human right. This seems
to be the right you to wish exercise.
>Once again, think of "human dignity." Now think of legally recognized
>harassing speech. NOT hate speech, which is general to an entire class
>of people, but speech which says, for instance, "I am your boss and I
>expect you to behave as a subserviant manner since you are a woman [or
>black or...]." Whether you agree with it or not, our elected representatives
>have held that society has a greater interest in prohibiting such speech
>than in requiring people who are offended find other employment.
>BTW, the boss is still free to say "... subserviant manner since you
>are a subordinate."
The boss may be free to say "...subservient manner since you
are short," even tho a person cannot very well choose his
height.
>I'm not trying to restrict other newsgroups. I'm simply pointing
>out an area where more control may be desirable.
More control means more restriction.
--
Ron Evans (revans@math.ucsd.edu)
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ncsu.eos,ncsu.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Complain about EOS and get threatened with academic misconduct
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.025936.19530@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 02:59:36 GMT
Here is some more information. According to Doug Holtsinger, Bill
Willis is a staff member. Presumably, then the posted email is
official communications. Also, presumably Bill Willis searches user
files at will.
- Carl
>---------------begin included text------------------------------------
>From willis@eos.ncsu.edu Fri Mar 6 21:39:37 1992
[...]
>To: dsholtsi@eos.ncsu.edu
>Subject: Dialup0 utilization
>Date: Fri, 06 Mar 92 21:39:31 EST
>I observing your use of dialup0, I find you in an ill position to complain
>about the setup there. Since there is a compy of our games policy in your
>directory I assume that you are aware of it. Since you responded to my post
>on ncsu.eos, I also can assume that you understand what we consider games.
>Please refrain from use of dialup0 for recreational use. PERIOD. Any future
>violation of this policy will result in action against you for academic
>misconduct.
>Bill Willis
>---------------end included text----------------------------------------
--
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 30 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: <9203310325.AA24732@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 15:25:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@hawk.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: EMAIL PRIVACY
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.000038.4435@rice.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 00:00:38 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.
[deleted...]
> 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 the U.S., there is a statute (USC 18, Ch. 121, Sec. 2701-2710)
regarding the legality of accessing stored electronic communications.
The law pretty clearly makes exceptions for the providers of the
electronic communication service. In other words, the postmaster does
have the right to view the mail without penalty in the course of
providing communication service. Service providers are obligated by
the law to keep what they see confidential (not divulge it to others)
except under certain circumstances (they can divulge the contents to
the intended recipient, etc.). This legal issue is separate from the
"ethical" issue, but to the extent that laws delineate ethics, it is
ethical in the U.S. for a postmaster to view the text of e-mail in the
course of providing the communication service.
Any institution may choose to further limit the right of its
postmasters to see e-mail text, but in the U.S. at least, they are not
legally obligated to do so.
> 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 law states:
Sec 2702. (b) Exceptions. -- A person or entity my divulge the
contents of a communication --
(5) as may be necessary incident to the rendition of the service or
to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that
service; or
(6) to a law enforcement agency, if such contents --
(A) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and
(B) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime.
While most "crimes" at a University don't fall under the criminal
code, I think a reasonable extension could be made that University
officials charged with maintaining academic discipline are part of the
University's "law enforcement." I am speaking from the perspective of
a private university. The extensibility of this to a public
university in the U.S. is not something that I can answer.
Clearly the statute allows for illegal activity to be divulged to
others. Undoubtedly the purpose of divulging communications in these
cases is so that the proper authority can take action to protect
whatever may be endangered.
> 3) Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
> widely known and accepted?
Sure, although a code that can apply to all postmasters everywhere may
have to be so broad as to be essentially non-restrictive. Each local
site should be encouraged to develop a code. But remember, a code of
ethics is far different than a policy or regulation. A code of ethics
comes down to "we want to be good people and do the right thing, so
this is what we will try to do most of the time." Depending on how
the code is worded, there may be no way for anyone to do anything to a
postmaster who violates the code, other than say, "Bad postmaster!"
> 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 don't know if it would be more acceptable, but it would certainly be
more prudent. Users should at least have the right to understand the
privacy limitations of their system, even if some of them don't agree
with those limitations. For example, the following is Owlnet's (the
Rice University School of Engineering educational network) policy
regarding privacy of all data, not just e-mail:
Although Owlnet will not regulate the content of electronic mail or
other files, Owlnet system management, in order to preserve the
integrity or operational state of the network, may find it necessary to
look at, without your prior consent, any data or files of yours that
exist on the system.
You should be aware that no computer security system, no matter how
elaborate, can absolutely prevent a determined person from accessing
stored information that they are not authorized to access. Thus,
while Owlnet tries to provide a reasonable level of confidentiality for
information stored on the network, we cannot *guarantee* the
privacy or confidentiality of any information stored on it. Therefore,
if there is any information that you absolutely do not want another
person to see or access, then you should not store it on Owlnet.
This policy exists to make you aware of the inherent limitations on
your ability to maintain your desired level of privacy or
confidentiality of information stored on the network.
We plan to revise the above policy to make sure that people understand
that e-mail is included in what may be seen by sysadmins.
We also plan to incorporate the following language into our
policies and user information (please pardon the LaTeX syntax). This
information has already been distributed to the faculty, and will be
distributed in similar language to the students soon. Note that this
is specific to UNIX, but something similar could be used as
appropriate for other environments:
\section{Owlnet and the Academic Environment}
\subsection{Implications of the UNIX System for Academic Work}
There are several, perhaps subtle, implications in using a UNIX
computer network such as Owlnet in an academic setting that you as an
instructor should be aware of. These implications concern who can see
what on the system.
While Rice and its students pride themselves on their academic
integrity and honesty, we all realize that maintaining confidentiality
of some academic work is prudent and necessary. You should be aware
that as a default condition, any student may view, though not modify in
place, the files of any other student. On a UNIX system, if one can
view a file (``read'' it), one can also copy the file to someplace
else. Once it is copied, it can then be modified or used by the person
who copied it. Students have some simple-to-use tools at their
disposal to change the accessibility of their files by other students,
but it requires that they take some action to modify the default access
permissions. Generally speaking, a student can set access permissions
to either allow all students access, or no students access. This can
be done on a file-by-file and/or directory-by-directory basis. To
facilitate finer control of the permissions to better accommodate the
variety of arrangements under which students do their work, Owlnet has
provided some tools for you and your students to use. These are
described in section \ref{facilities}.
A second, related implication is that unless you take similar
measures, all of your files that reside on Owlnet are readable, but
not modifiable in place, by any student or faculty member.
Thirdly, you should be aware that the system administrators have the
privilege to view and modify any file on the system, regardless of the
access permissions applied by the file owner. This privilege is only
used when operationally necessary, and they seek to obtain the consent
of the file owner before doing so. However, there may be instances
where, in order to maintain the integrity or operational state of the
network, the system administrators may have to access data without
obtaining the data owner's prior consent. Owlnet's system
administrators are Information Systems employees and carefully
screened and trained student employees.
The other important instance in which the system administrators may
access and/or make available to others data or files without the data
owner's prior consent is at the direction of authorized University
officials conducting an official investigation into academic or other
misconduct. This includes the Honor Council. In these instances,
Owlnet management and system administrators are acting in the role of
information providers and/or advisors on the technical aspects of the
network, and will provide relevant information or advice without
prejudice to all parties involved in the investigation who request such
information.
Lastly, you should be aware that electronic mail messages are stored
on the system as text files. While these files by default have a much
higher level of access protection (only the owner may view or modify
the file), they are nevertheless files and can be accessed by the
system administrators under the conditions described above.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ncsu.eos,ncsu.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: willis@ecovsb.ncsu.edu (Dr. William E. Willis)
Subject: Re: Complain about EOS and get threatened with academic misconduct
Message-ID: <7020166876734@ecovsb.ncsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 04:38:07 GMT
In article <1992Mar30.214812.15815@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>You may remember a post from me on the newsgroup ncsu.eos about a month
>ago in which I complained about students playing games on the EOS dialup
>server. Well, I recently checked my mail on EOS and found that someone didn't
>like my complaint -- enough so that they sent me a threatening e-mail
>message charging me with academic misconduct. I'll note that (a) I have
>not played games on the dialup server and (b) this person was obviously
>trying to get some dirt on me, otherwise they wouldn't have looked at the
>files in my directory.
>
As I recall you did not complain about games being played on Eos, you
complained about the idle job timeout and the fact that you could not
leave a job running for long periods of time. I have not looked at files
in your directory, nor, to my knowledge, has any of my staff. It is our
policy not to look into directories at anytime unless there is an
indication that a particular account has been breached by an unauthorized
user or unless asked to do so by the owner of the account.
>If this is how complaints are handled, then I'd like to have my account
>removed immediately, and to have my $100 refunded. I refuse to be forced
>to pay for an account where I am threatened if I complain about the
>services provided.
>
It so happens that at the time of your complaint, I was closely monitoring
usage of dialup0. We have been trying to decide how to address remote
connection problems in a rational way without overloading the computing
center's line bank. After reading your message I looked at the network
connections on dialup0 and found a process owned by your account connected
to a MUD somewhere out there in network land. I have been warning all
those using dialup0 for MUDs, IRC, etc. of our policies for sometime and
referred to your complaint only because I had just read it.
All complaints are heard and are considered in setting of priorities
for immediate problems and in planning for future development. We are
currently developing batch job services which will allow Eos users to
submit computationally intensive jobs for execution in a ordered fashion
on various computational resources.
Once again, all complaints are welcome and are duely considered. Although
we cannot resolve all problems immediately, I believe that most people who
have put forward issues of policy and/or implementation have found their
issue to have been addressed in an open and factual manner. Even so, it
is frustrating to hear a complaint and in the next minute find the complainer
violating the policies which govern the object of their complaint.
Bill Willis
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 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: <1992Mar31.080440.10496@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 08:04:40 GMT
In article <1992Mar29.215249.29729@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>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.
Its awfully hard to ftp something when you don't know it exists. As far
as I know no printed magazine has even acknowledged the existance of
linux, and few acknowledge the existance of gnu. And I doubt you will
see them telling us how to ftp.
Of course if you can't afford the disk space for news your library won't
have the money for magazines anyways :-)
--
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 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: edguer@alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: Complain about EOS and get threatened with academic misconduct
Message-ID: <9203311422.AA10339@alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 14:28:20 GMT
> Here is some more information. According to Doug Holtsinger, Bill
> Willis is a staff member. Presumably, then the posted email is
> official communications. Also, presumably Bill Willis searches user
> files at will.
And presumably Carl Kadie is the type of person who makes presumptions
without first checking the facts. Something he seems to despise and
argue against as a policy for system managers but which he seems quite
happy to indulge in himself.
Presumably Carl Kadie does not understand that just because a person
is an employee does not mean that they can have un-official communications.
[although the letter, in this case, was an informal "official" communication]
Presumable Carl Kadie does not understand that posting e-mail between
two individuals is just as unethical [and in fact is illegal without the
consent of the sending party] as a system manager looking though files
on a system. He demonstrates his willingness to repost a message which
did include electronic mail, without first verifying that the sender was
willing to release the document.
Way to go Carl. Keep up the good work.
Aydin Edguer
Resident, Planet Earth
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ncsu.eos,ncsu.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Complain about EOS and get threatened with academic misconduct
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.143254.558@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 14:32:54 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
I read email posted by a computer user, saying:
>>From willis@eos.ncsu.edu Fri Mar 6 21:39:37 1992
[...]
>>Since there is a compy of our games policy in your
>>directory I assume that you are aware of it.
And wrote: "Also, presumably Bill Willis searches user files at will."
In another note, Dr. Willis writes: "I have not looked at files in
your directory, nor, to my knowledge, has any of my staff. It is our
policy not to look into directories at anytime unless there is an
indication that a particular account has been breached by an
unauthorized user or unless asked to do so by the owner of the
account."
I apologize for my apparently incorrect presumption.
- 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 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [unl.general] ***NUSEF MEETING***
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.143723.660@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 14:37:23 GMT
From: dlinder@unlinfo.unl.edu (daniel linder)
Subject: ***NUSEF MEETING***
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.214926.7054@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Lines: 24
*******NUSEF ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING*******
Concerned about YOUR civil liberties as applied to email, electronic
bulletin boards, Usenet, etc.? Then don't miss the organizational meeting of
NUSEF (Nebraska University Students for Electronic Freedom)
WHEN: Tuesday, March 31, 7 p.m.
WHERE: Ferguson Room 215
Topics to be discussed include: the recent alt.* removal, various
organizational-type things, and the composition of a petition oposing
the alt.* removal and possible solutions to be presented to CRC and
the Academic Senate.
Questions?
Contact Dave Burchell burchell@cse
Lesli Thorn dlinder@unlinfo (until further notice!)
--
| Dan Linder dlinder@unlinfo.unl.edu | Worf: "I am shooting on level 14." |
| If my school does not take me | Guinan: "I suppose I could come |
| seriously, why would you think I | down to that level..." |
| would be the one to speak for them? ;-) 8-) :-O |
--
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 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Ethics of reposting informal official email (Re: Complain about ...)
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.150654.1167@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 15:06:54 GMT
edguer@alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
[...]
>Presumable Carl Kadie does not understand that posting e-mail between
>two individuals is just as unethical [and in fact is illegal without the
>consent of the sending party] as a system manager looking though files
>on a system. He demonstrates his willingness to repost a message which
>did include electronic mail, without first verifying that the sender was
>willing to release the document.
[...]
I did not post the original article which included the electronic
mail. The author of that article posted it to
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk (and his local newsgroups) himself.
I did quote the email in a follow up to the original article. I don't
think that this violated Dr. Willis's copyright because the
communications was official and my quote was short. I didn't think the
my quote was unethical because the communications was official and
already posted to CAF-Talk. I don't know of the user's quote was
ethical.
So the question is:
It is generally ethical/unethical to "publish" official (but perhaps
informal) email communications from university officials.
(Followup: Is it more ethical if the communications is released via a
state Freedom of Information request or a FERPA 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 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Publicizing computer-media censorship
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.152657.1753@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 15:26:57 GMT
One place good place to report censorship incidents is the Newsletter
on Intellectual Freedom. Reports here may help increase awareness of,
for example, computer-media censorship. The Newsletter only prints
reports that are documented with newspaper articles.
This rest of this article is a repost from October.
========================
The American Library Assocation has a bimonthly newsletter that
reports on censorship (of all kinds). To report censorship to them
send a copy of a newspaper articles that documents the censorship to:
Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom
Office for Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611
If the censorship involves academic computers, I'd also love to get a
copy of relevant newspapers articles. Send me email for mailing
information.
- 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 31 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: <9203311601.AA27628@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 04:01:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
From: tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman)
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.93417.15939@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 14:34:16 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:
Well, are you a faculty member? Is the network member a faculty member?
I really think it isn't up to technical managers and staff to decide what
is an academic use of a machine or network.
For instance, on some of the programmable muds, I think we are seeing the
development of a unique operating environment where one can 'carry' around
items to aid you in programming or editing.
But I'm not here to argue the merit of a MUD, I really think that should
be up to the Faculty Senate or Academic Computing Committee at your
institution. If your FACULTY decide that an item should go, then it should
go. For instance, here at the University of Kentucky, a telecommunications
class used a local chat program as part of the course material. Many
would argue that a chat is purely game-like, but when it is part of a
course, how can you argue that it doesn't have academic merit?
As for the included letter: How nice of the individual to let you know
of the situation. Of course, it could also be looked at as if you don't
manage your system well enough to even know what resources are being
used!
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Joe Random User - Podunk University
>To: Administrative Contact
>Subject: Interactive INTERNET games
--
Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek
Institutional Research and Planning bitnet: vaatek@ukcc.bitnet
#7 Administration Building internet:tek@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] News from Cornell...
Message-ID: <9203311605.AA27659@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 04:05:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: wayner@cs.cornell.edu (Peter Wayner)
Subject: News from Cornell...
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.140319.17470@cs.cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 14:03:19 GMT
This morning I woke up to find the following article in the Cornell
Daily Sun (the student newspaper.) The headline reads, "Student Says
CIT Broke State Laws. Cornell Monitors Account of Virus Syspects'
Friend". (CIT="Communications and Information Technologies." They are
the people who maintain the networks and the computer workstations
around the campus. They are not the CS department.)
The student, Randall Swanson, said in the article that CIT's computers
record everytime he logs into the machine vax5. (A general machine on
which students automatically receive accounts.) When he logs on, the
article reports that a program named, "sys$manager:spy" is executed
and it sends electronic mail to three people at CIT telling them that
he just logged on. Randall Swanson says that the program sends the
e-mail note with his name attached without informing him that it is
doing it. This, he claims, is forgery.
Apparently Randall Swanson is being watched in connection with the
MBDF virus that was traced back to Cornell several weeks ago. Randall
Swanson told the Sun that he was not involved in the case and CIT
would not tell him why they were watching him. Moreover, the
surveillance began two days after Swanson wrote a letter to the Daily
Sun criticizing the way that CIT was investigating the case. In that
letter, Swanson wrote, "I think it can be clear that certain people at
CIT can be discounted as unreliable sources who are only interested in
the sensationalism of the moment."
CIT's head, Stuart Lynn, denies that CIT did nothing wrong and was
quoted in the Daily Sun as saying, "CIT reserves the right to
investigate suspected violations using all appropriate means."
Lynn told the Sun that e-mail is not private and was quoted as saying,
"Don't send anything electronically that you wouldn't want to see on
page one of the New York Times." Lynn told the Sun that they were not
reading Swanson's email, they were just noting when he logged in and
out of the machine and this information is available publically.
---------------------
Who's hyping who? You decide.
--
Peter Wayner Department of Computer Science Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY 14850
EMail:wayner@cs.cornell.edu Office: 607-255-9202 or 255-1008
Home: 116 Oak Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 607-277-6678
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.160224.3363@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 16:02:24 GMT
In article <1992Mar29.215249.29729@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> 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.
I do still remember when we did not have news. We simply didn't know
about the stuff which was available. So even though you're right that
ftp != news, that does not imply that they are not correlated.
Btw, simply because someone is posting from an .edu address does not
mean that he is a student. But this might be too elaborated for a
bigot like you. (Oh yes, and since the studentship seems to be so
correlated with the treatment of someones posting for you: I'm also
not a student -- I received my Dipl.-Inform. with honors.)
--
Joachim
Darmstadt, Germany
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ncsu.eos,ncsu.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: cddukes@c00399-346dan.eos.ncsu.edu (You don't know?)
Subject: Re: Complain about EOS and get threatened with academic misconduct
Message-ID: <70205799417079@c00399-346dan.eos.ncsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 16:06:34 GMT
In article <7020166876734@ecovsb.ncsu.edu> willis@ecovsb.ncsu.edu (Dr. William E. Willis) writes:
>As I recall you did not complain about games being played on Eos, you
>complained about the idle job timeout and the fact that you could not
>leave a job running for long periods of time. I have not looked at files
>in your directory, nor, to my knowledge, has any of my staff. It is our
>policy not to look into directories at anytime unless there is an
>indication that a particular account has been breached by an unauthorized
>user or unless asked to do so by the owner of the account.
I wish to disagree with this statement. I know of atleast two instances
where an account was looked through even though neither of the require-
ments you gave for looking through the account were there. The account
had not been broken into, nor had the user requested for ECO to look
through the account.
It is worth noting that this decision to monitor dialup usage has required
a network monitoring program that traces socket connections back to
the user initiating them. While I don't know if it was written locally
or not. I am fairly certain that it took some of EOS's limited human
resources to get it running.
And to implement the ban of certain users on dialup0, login had to be
rewritten. I'm not a unix systems administrator, nor do I play one on
TV. But I believe that that ban could have been implemented with a shell
script similar to the one that follows.
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
# These parameters would probably be set by command line.
$banfile = shift || 'default ban file';
# This is just a list of users to be banned from a machine.
$passfile = shift || 'Athena default passwd file';
$epassfile = shift || 'normal password file';
# That file is now world readable... And it is of absolutely no help to
# Hackers because it does not contain encrypted passwords.
open (BF,$banfile);
open (PF,$passfile);
open (EPF,"> ".$passfile);
@banned = ;
@passes = ;
foreach $pass (@passes) {
foreach $ban (@banned) {
print (EPF $pass) if $pass =~ /^$ban/;
}
}
close BF;
close PF;
close EPF;
#Actually it would probably run faster by executing hesinfo several
#times.
---------
One other thing. Where can someone pick up the packet monitoring program
you are using on dialup0? I know of atleast one other person that is
interested in seeing how you track the sockets back to the users.
Was it written in house (If so how many man hours did it take to write),
or was it picked up from some outside source.
>Once again, all complaints are welcome and are duely considered. Although
>we cannot resolve all problems immediately, I believe that most people who
>have put forward issues of policy and/or implementation have found their
>issue to have been addressed in an open and factual manner. Even so, it
>is frustrating to hear a complaint and in the next minute find the complainer
>violating the policies which govern the object of their complaint.
I have made several complaints about how sendmail is set up on this system.
For those that do not know. This system has its name services set up so that
*.uucp is a MX record that hands things off to mcnc.mcnc.org.
This is a good idea. However sendmail on EOS is configured to trap *.uucp
addresses and try and send them via UUCP. This could actually work well
if EOS was configured to directly deliver mail to local UUCP sites and forward
it off for non local UUCP sites. EOS does not have any UUCP configuration
that I can find. Or atleast none that sendmail will recognize.
As I have received no response for my suggestion that EOS no longer have
sendmail filter out *.uucp. (No response... Not even a "Go away Chris")
I am posting the patch file neccesary to get EOS working with UUCP.
*** sendmail.cf.old Fri Jan 3 13:10:01 1992
--- sendmail.cf Tue Mar 31 10:30:09 1992
***************
*** 72,78 ****
# These are pseudo domains used internally. They are not part of
# the real Internet system and must not be allowed to escape.
#
! CIlocal uucp dnet
# The $j macro is the name presented to remote SMTP servers when
--- 72,78 ----
# These are pseudo domains used internally. They are not part of
# the real Internet system and must not be allowed to escape.
#
! CIlocal dnet
# The $j macro is the name presented to remote SMTP servers when
I believe that you wish to execute
"sendmail -bz"
to get sendmail listening to the patch.
Chris "the PakRat" Dukes trying not to wreak havoc as: cddukes@eos.ncsu.edu
"!!!!!!!!!!SUOIXONBO EROM DNA REDUOL WON 0.4 SURIV ERUTANGIS GNIPPIHS WON"
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
From: del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.090814.637@fnx.uucp>
Date: 30 Mar 92 09:08:14 GMT
In article <1992Mar27.175711.3759@wpi.WPI.EDU> entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>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
A) You are talking about desktop PC prices here. For a mini-computer as would
normally be running a University news system, the cost is much, much more.
Especially if you add in the monthly cost for the maintenance contract.
(To the guy who claimed he had done budgets for computer centers and
insisted SCSI disks were cheap - bogus. Big iron computers don't use
SCSI because the throughput ain't there.)
B) 300Mb is not 'quite a respectable news service'. 300Mb will get you about
4 days of news if you take a full feed and expire everything equally. I
run 400Mb dedicated to news on my desktop PC, and I force expire of all
the 'junk' groups (my judgement) at half a day.
>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.
C) There is more to running news than just the disk space. I spend more time
dicking around with the alt.* groups than with *ALL* the other groups
combined!
D) While the disk space to keep the alt.* groups may not be high, it may be
more than the value of the information. alt.* groups have almost no
value when taken as a whole.
--
del AKA Erik Lindberg uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del
Who is John Galt?
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
From: del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,unl.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar30.100610.1094@fnx.uucp>
Date: 30 Mar 92 10:06:10 GMT
In article <1992Mar25.045937.7616@seeker.mystic.com> mikeho@seeker.mystic.com (Michael Ho) writes:
...
>>Bullshit. If the University had discontinued receiving certain alt groups
>>because of content, such as alt.sex, then *that* may be objectionable. In
...
>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.
When talking about alt.*, this is much more than just the first three
letters of the group name. It defines a news hierarchy. At what level
should the administrators deal with news groups? There are over 1,200
newsgroups in just a typical 'major' subset of a full feed. What algorithm
would be appropriate to determine value/megabyte to apply to each group?
The question becomes absurd pretty quickly.
> 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.)
Why don't you check before making statements like this? I just checked on
this system, and rec.* and alt.* are approximately equal, and the pictures
groups are axed here. It's not hard to argue that rec.* has a higher
information content/MB than alt.*
> 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.
How about this:
alt.* 50MB
rec.* 49MB
soc.* 14MB
talk.* 5MB
soc.* and talk.* are pretty insignificant compared to alt and rec. And
rec has redeeming social value :-) Actually, an ideal situation would
be that the news administrator could allow the alt.* groups that actually
have real information in them to continue to exist. But that action
would lead to even more screams of censorship. This appears to be about
the only way they even have a chance of reducing the newsgroup load
without getting nailed for censorship, and they don't even seem to be
successfull using this approach.
>CRC (which, I must note, was my employer for the better part of three
>years).
This little footnote was almost buried in all the rhetoric about
justification of newsgroups via space. I suspect you could have done
a lot more for your point by expounding more on your direct experiences
during that time.
--
del AKA Erik Lindberg uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del
Who is John Galt?
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer , HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] News from Cornell...
Message-ID: <9203311813.AA20450@jonquil.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 07:59:11 GMT
A few commments on the latest Cornell news:
(Peter Waymer's posting inserted)
> This morning I woke up to find the following article in the Cornell
> Daily Sun (the student newspaper.) The headline reads, "Student Says
> CIT Broke State Laws. Cornell Monitors Account of Virus Suspects'
> Friend". (CIT="Communications and Information Technologies." They are
> the people who maintain the networks and the computer workstations
> around the campus. They are not the CS department.)
> The student, Randall Swanson, said in the article that CIT's computers
> record everytime he logs into the machine vax5. (A general machine on
> which students automatically receive accounts.) When he logs on, the
> article reports that a program named, "sys$manager:spy" is executed
> and it sends electronic mail to three people at CIT telling them that
> he just logged on. Randall Swanson says that the program sends the
> e-mail note with his name attached without informing him that it is
> doing it. This, he claims, is forgery.
Although vax5 is a "general machine", it (with cornella)
is the only one which provides dial-up access for most
undergraduates. Most undergrad Unix accounts are in the Undergrad Sun
Facility, which is on Internet, and thus reachable
from vax5. The USF has no dial-up access of its own.
Vax5 is also the only machine which undergrads can read News on.
> Lynn told the Sun that e-mail is not private and was quoted as saying,
> "Don't send anything electronically that you wouldn't want to see on
> page one of the New York Times." Lynn told the Sun that they were not
> reading Swanson's email, they were just noting when he logged in and
> out of the machine and this information is available publically.
This is obviously a reference to the Robert Morris case, in which rtm's
email was tapped, providing evidence against him in the Internet "worm"
case. Excerpts from this email were widely quoted in the media.
> CIT's head, Stuart Lynn, denies that CIT did [any]thing wrong and was
> quoted in the Daily Sun as saying, "CIT reserves the right to
> investigate suspected violations using all appropriate means."
This is a strange quote. The Sun also says: "As the person in charge,
Lynn said he ultimately decides what are the 'appropriate means' CIT
can use when faced with a suspected violation of campus policy or
state or federal law". It doesn't appear as though Swanson is
currently being accused of anything, though.
The CIT policy (as available from 'cuinfo' (reachable by
"telnet cornellc.cit.cornell.edu 300")) does state this, explicitly.
It also says, though, "Members of the University community are expected
to .. observe .. the privacy of or other restrictions placed on data or
information stored on transmitted across computers, EVEN WHEN SUCH
INFORMATION IS NOT SECURELY PROTECTED". [emphasis added].
----
I think CIT has put themselves in a difficult situation here. My
understanding from "sources" in CIT is that Blumenthal & Pilgrim (the
alleged virus authors) plan to make part of their defense on the
grounds that CIT used inappropriate action. This sort of behavior,
although probably not strictly against Cornell codes, will certainly
undermine their stance.
This is quite too bad; I (and many other Cornell CS students) are really
hoping to see B & P get fried.
--
Eric Scheirer -- Cornell U. -- 607 253 2431 -- horj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
"Small change can often be found under sofa cushions" -- Lazarus Long
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ncsu.eos,ncsu.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: pjkelle@eos.ncsu.edu (Pat Kelley)
Subject: Re: Complain about EOS and get threatened with academic misconduct
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.165055.27448@ncsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 16:50:55 GMT
In article <7020166876734@ecovsb.ncsu.edu> willis@ecovsb.ncsu.edu writes:
>leave a job running for long periods of time. I have not looked at files
>in your directory, nor, to my knowledge, has any of my staff. It is our
>policy not to look into directories at anytime unless there is an
>indication that a particular account has been breached by an unauthorized
>user or unless asked to do so by the owner of the account.
Hmmmm. How recent is this policy? I seem to distinctly remember having my
whole directory tarred up in krb's directory with system:anyuser rl rights
last summer. (The system anyuser rights was an accident; as soon as krb
found out about it, he changed it.)
All in all, I really doubt that Dr. Willis's statement was meant to
be a rigorous definition of policy and I would be very surprised if there
were no clause for checking the directories of someone suspected of
security/policy violations.
Pat
pjkelle@eos.ncsu.edu - Enemy of Bagel Dogs around the world...
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Censorship vs. Selection
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.200454.8580@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 20:04:54 GMT
"Selection ... begins with a presumption in favor of liberty of
thought; censorship, with a presumption in favor of thought control.
Selection's approach to the book is positive, seeking its value in the
book as a book and in the book as a whole. Censorship's approach is
negative, seeking vulnerable characteristics wherever they can be
found -- anywhere within the book, or even outside it. Selection
seeks to protect the right of the reader to read; censorship seeks to
protect -- not the right -- but the reader himself from fancied
effects of his reading. The selector has faith in the intelligence of
the reader; the censor has faith only in his own.
In other words, selection is democratic while censorship is
authoritarian, and in our democracy we have traditionally tended to
put our trust in the selector rather than in the censor."
-- Lester Asheim, 1953, quoted in _Battle of the Books: literary
censorship in the public schools, 1950-1985, by Lee Burress.
--
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 31 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 (a side note)
Message-ID: <9203312056.AA29565@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 08:56:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
From: n13@krypton.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (Leonard J. Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: RE: EMAIL PRIVACY (a side note)
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Mar 92 17:53:56 GMT
I received a letter from a user at a .com site asking me the following
question in response to my earlier post on this group.
First, my statement made earlier in addition to the question that I
was making comments on:
>> 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.
To which someone on the net asked the question: (paraphrased)
: What is to stop any use from using an encryption tool and encoding the
: body of the message so that none may read it without decoding the message.
When I made my reply to the origional message, I should had been more
specific and said, "The Postmaster should have the ability to look at the
body of the message (regardless of what's in that message)." What I would like
to preserve for the Postmaster is the ability to see the message body, not
necessarily the meaning of the message. If you encrypt a note and send it
to somebody, fine. I, as a Postmaster, would still want to have the ability
to see that you are sending an encrypted message by examining the message
body.
Here is yet another concern of mine, and a situation to clarify.
In our environment, we have mixed hardware and software types. The two most
important types of HW/SW combinations that come to mind are 1) a DEC Vax
running VMS and 2) a Decsystem running Ultrix. Currently the software package
that is on the Decsystem supports all of the snifty headers that Usenet wants.
The VMS Decnet package does not. If you receive mail on our VMS machine who's
origin is from Usenet, 90% of your mail headers are in the BODY of the message.
Now, if I were the Postmaster of the VMS system and I were attempting to debug
a piticular users mailing problems, I would want to be able to read the body
of the message that was sent because that's where most of the important headers
are. To restrict a mail program from showing anyone else than the owner of the
message what the body of the message is just doesn't make sense to me.
Notes:
Yes, in VMS there are ways around the above problem if you have
the correct privs. Yes, in the case described above you could always get the
users permission to look at his mail. Yes, there are better software mailing
packages for VMS that would solve this "mail-headers-in-the-body-of-the-mail-
message" problem. Yes, I know my problem is using VMS and not Un*x. :-)
However there will always be a case in which you can't fix, upgrade, or
contact the person simply to cure the situation due to {money, manpower,
poly-ticks, etc}. Because of these reasons, this problem must be looked at.
Last Note:
The person who mailed me was not identified because I was not able to
reach him to get his permission to post his e-mail on the net.
Leonard Schmidt
n13@krypton.Mankato.MSUS.EDU
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ncsu.eos,ncsu.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jaherr@eos.ncsu.edu (JASON ALAN HERR)
Subject: Re: Complain about EOS and get threatened with academic misconduct
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.203453.5048@ncsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 20:34:53 GMT
Now waitaminit:
Bill Willis sez :
As I recall you did not complain about games being played on Eos, you
complained about the idle job timeout and the fact that you could not
leave a job running for long periods of time. I have not looked at files
in your directory, nor, to my knowledge, has any of my staff. It is our
policy not to look into directories at anytime unless there is an
indication that a particular account has been breached by an unauthorized
user or unless asked to do so by the owner of the account.
Well, I wonder. How often is this policy abided by and if it isn't abided
by ECO, does that mean we don't have to abide by their policies? When
those in
command break their own rules, they are no longer really in command.
I think much too much time is spent worrying on how to stop people
from using
dialup for "immoral" purposes. I'ld like to see the 2 billion null
processes
on dialup be killed so i can recieve zephyrs and do other work with the
twenty
minute wait. (I realize I am exaggerating a bit, but I have learned not
to ruin
a good story with the facts.) Please don't preach to us about
priorities until
dialup0 can run clean. The time spent on that logon script to keep
cddukes
out of dialup could have been spent writing a logout script that kills
off
excess processes. hrmmmmm. Whaddya think?
--
Jason Alan Herr aka Overkill (it's a long story)
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ncsu.eos,ncsu.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: willis@eos.ncsu.edu (Dr. William E. Willis)
Subject: Re: Complain about EOS and get threatened with academic misconduct
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.222539.9871@ncsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 22:25:39 GMT
In article <1992Mar31.165055.27448@ncsu.edu>, pjkelle@eos.ncsu.edu (Pat Kelley) writes:
|>Xref: taco ncsu.eos:418 ncsu.general:98 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3366
|>Newsgroups: ncsu.eos,ncsu.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
|>Path: taco!eos.ncsu.edu!pjkelle
|>From: pjkelle@eos.ncsu.edu (Pat Kelley)
|>Subject: Re: Complain about EOS and get threatened with academic misconduct
|>Message-ID: <1992Mar31.165055.27448@ncsu.edu>
|>Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
|>Reply-To: pjkelle@eos.ncsu.edu (Pat Kelley)
|>Organization: North Carolina State University
|>References: <1992Mar30.214812.15815@ncsu.edu> <7020166876734@ecovsb.ncsu.edu>
|>Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 11:50:55 EST
|>
|>In article <7020166876734@ecovsb.ncsu.edu> willis@ecovsb.ncsu.edu writes:
|>
|>>leave a job running for long periods of time. I have not looked at files
|>>in your directory, nor, to my knowledge, has any of my staff. It is our
|>>policy not to look into directories at anytime unless there is an
|>>indication that a particular account has been breached by an unauthorized
|>>user or unless asked to do so by the owner of the account.
|>
|>Hmmmm. How recent is this policy? I seem to distinctly remember having my
|>whole directory tarred up in krb's directory with system:anyuser rl rights
|>last summer. (The system anyuser rights was an accident; as soon as krb
|>found out about it, he changed it.)
If you will recollect Pat, you were in the process of a rather serious
breach of security at the time and that snapshot of your directory proved it.
The fact that it had system:anyuser rl rights for a while was a mistake and
was corrected post haste.
|>
|> All in all, I really doubt that Dr. Willis's statement was meant to
|>be a rigorous definition of policy and I would be very surprised if there
|>were no clause for checking the directories of someone suspected of
|>security/policy violations.
|>
The policy clearly needs refining and publishing. See previous message...
Bill Willis
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,unl.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.221948.9349@clarinet.com>
Date: 31 Mar 92 22:19:48 GMT
Yes people, by crying wolf on the non-issues, you distract attention from
the real newsgroup bannings that are out there.
If somebody cuts alt because it's big and noisy, and that's the real reason,
you have to accept it. It's what the hierarchies are *there* for, so that
people can cut some and keep others. This is why they were created. You
can't insist everybody take all the net -- that's crazy and will only get
people to brand your arguments as fringe.
If people cut a group like alt.sex because it's *dirty* or rec.humor because
it's *racist*, then you have a real target to go after. It's pretty
easy to see that when a site cuts a group like rec.humor.funny, which proably
has the lowest cost/reader on the net, that they're doing it because they want
to control what you read. It is not so obvious when they cut "alt."
If they cut all of alt just because there is alt.sex in there, that's another
story, but be prepared to prove that's why they did it. (As was the case
at the U of Waterloo.)
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: News Group Readership Monitoring
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 16:11:43 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.161143.16171@bilver.uucp>
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 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.
...
>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)
Yes. Loss of sympathy for sure.
I have a program that reads every users .newsrc everyday. And then the
expire is based on that. Unread groups get expired the day they come
in. But if someone subscribes to that group then the expire lets it
stay for x number of days. No deletion is neccessary. It just sort
of maintains itself.
I don't have to look at users .newsrc files, as the system does that
for me. I know what is/is not being read by looking at explist. If a
user encrypted his .newsrc I'd probably think about elminating their
use, or just tell them they are on their own if they have problems.
It's a two way street - users and admins must work together, not
against each other.
--
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.uucp
- ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From caf-talk Caf Mar 31 00:00:00 1992
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,unl.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Mar 92 21:37:15 GMT
del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes:
>--
>del AKA Erik Lindberg uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del
> Who is John Galt?
yeah, who is john galt?
---
Stephen Buckley / my opinions are not in the public domain. they are
sbuckley@sfu.ca / shareware. if you agree with them, you are required
TrueNorthStrong&Free / to send me $15 and a postcard of your hometown.
1-800-REALITY / further upgrades available to registered users.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 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: <1992Apr1.002802.14942@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 00:28:02 GMT
In article <1992Mar30.090814.637@fnx.uucp> del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes:
>In article <1992Mar27.175711.3759@wpi.WPI.EDU> entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>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
>
>A) You are talking about desktop PC prices here. For a mini-computer as would
> normally be running a University news system, the cost is much, much more.
I'm talking about the prices that any reasonable person can get news service
for. If you mini computer disks cost to much stick an extra disk onto a
workstation someplace, invest $1000 for a 386 to run news on, etc. News
is not an airlines reservation system...
> Especially if you add in the monthly cost for the maintenance contract.
If the maintenance contract cost more than the drive don't get it :-)
> (To the guy who claimed he had done budgets for computer centers and
> insisted SCSI disks were cheap - bogus. Big iron computers don't use
> SCSI because the throughput ain't there.)
This is a red herring, doing things the least cost effective way as an
excuse for censorship is silly. You don't need a mainframe for an NNTP
server, use a small machine where you can buy disks for a sane price.
>B) 300Mb is not 'quite a respectable news service'. 300Mb will get you about
> 4 days of news if you take a full feed and expire everything equally. I
> run 400Mb dedicated to news on my desktop PC, and I force expire of all
> the 'junk' groups (my judgement) at half a day.
One other point that should be made, a few changes in the news software
would cut the disk space usage tremendously. Instead of storing each message
as a seperate file have a file for each news group. I bet you could pay a
student less than $1000 to make these improvements.
These arguments always come down to:
Well our computer center chooses to do things in the least efficient way
possible, we insist on spending 20 times what we should on equipment,
therefore we can't offer any of these services because they would cost
[insert amount that makes you laugh until you pass out here].
This is like a library refusing to carry certain books because they want
all book shelves built out of gold.
--
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 Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 06:06:47 GMT
In <1992Mar30.090814.637@fnx.uucp> del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes:
>A) You are talking about desktop PC prices here. For a mini-computer as would
> normally be running a University news system, the cost is much, much more.
> Especially if you add in the monthly cost for the maintenance contract.
> (To the guy who claimed he had done budgets for computer centers and
> insisted SCSI disks were cheap - bogus. Big iron computers don't use
> SCSI because the throughput ain't there.)
A quick check of several large news servers around the network reveals that
most are running on workstation class systems, mostly Suns and Decs, and
similiar. The news server here used to be an old Sun 3 system until it was
recently upgraded to a Sun Sparc IPC. I'd bet the vast majority of news
servers are using normal old SCSI disks. (Modern SCSI disks are more than
fast enough for even a heavily used news server.)
>B) 300Mb is not 'quite a respectable news service'. 300Mb will get you about
> 4 days of news if you take a full feed and expire everything equally. I
> run 400Mb dedicated to news on my desktop PC, and I force expire of all
> the 'junk' groups (my judgement) at half a day.
A quick check of the latest stats from uunet reveals that current traffic
for everything is around 36 megs per day for *EVERYTHING*. This isn't just
a full USENET feed, but all the various oddball hierarchies as well. Just
the normal USENET feed would be roughly 30 megs per day. Including the
overhead for history files, you should get over a week's worth of news on
this 300 meg disk. A week's worth should be good enough for most users.
Or you can get a 600 meg disk for $1300. (Bare Fujitsu 680 meg formatted
drive which yields around a 620 meg unix type filesystem. 5 year warranty.)
>C) There is more to running news than just the disk space. I spend more time
> dicking around with the alt.* groups than with *ALL* the other groups
> combined!
What are you doing which takes up all this time? About all I have to do
to my news system is adjust the expiration or do an emergency expire every
so often if an unespected blast of news comes through. I only have to tinker
with things maybe twice a month.
>D) While the disk space to keep the alt.* groups may not be high, it may be
> more than the value of the information. alt.* groups have almost no
> value when taken as a whole.
If you're going to start making value judgements on things, do it fairly.
There are many alt groups which are quite valuable. As well, there are
some mainstream groups which some could call worthless. Making generalizations
about a whole hierarchy is just plain bigoted.
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 Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,unl.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Newspaper article at U. of Nebraska (alts)
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.144216.22086@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 14:42:16 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[This is a copy of a letter I sent to the _Daily Nebraskan_ last week.]
I've been asked in email if the letter has been printed. I am told
that it was printed Monday (3/30/92).
- 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 Apr 1 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: <9204011457.AA04134@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 02:57:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: sjohns@mango.ucs.indiana.edu (shane alan johns)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <1992Mar31.194230.26631@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 92 00:42:24 GMT
What I would like to know is whether or not MUDs actually are forbidden
by Internet. If they ARE, then whether or not a sys.admin believes it is
educational is irrelevant! What does Internet have to say on the issue of
MUDs? Is it an improper use of Internet?
Shane
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 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: <9204011457.AA04143@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 02:57:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID:
Date: 1 Apr 92 04:57:46 GMT
In <1992Mar31.194230.26631@news.cs.indiana.edu> shane alan johns writes:
>What I would like to know is whether or not MUDs actually are forbidden
>by Internet. If they ARE, then whether or not a sys.admin believes it is
>educational is irrelevant! What does Internet have to say on the issue of
>MUDs? Is it an improper use of Internet?
First of all, there is no global policy for all of Internet. Internet is
a collection of individual networks each with different policies regarding
proper use. In the US, a major backbone provider is NSFNET which has a
policy which basically says that all traffic must be towards research or
education. They use a lot more words to say this, but it is still very
vague. Other networks have policies similiar to NSFNET. Some have little
or nothing in the way of restrictions.
NSFNET policies is what we most need to examine here because they are the
backbone provider for most educational sites in the US, and their policies
are also the most restrictive. However, the policy is vague. So you are
left with making a decision on whether there are any research or education
aspects to MUDs. They just pass through this test. You also have to compare
MUD to other uses of the network, and here you will see that in comparison,
MUD is less marginally legitimate to other network uses such as recreational
programs, images, etc available for ftp or on USENET, which is delivered
over Internet at many sites.
It has often been said that MUDs have many different aspects. Examining
these will make things a little clearer:
1> Gaming (puzzle solving, adventures, battling, etc.)- This is the least
legitimate aspect of MUDs. On many MUDs, this is also a minor part of
the experience. (I'm mostly familiar with TinyMUCKs though. Other types
of servers are more geared to the gaming aspect.) Some gaming may require
programming though.
2> Social- This is little different from IRC or some USENET groups. It
is just a little bit different because of the role-playing involved.
3> Building- About the best analogue to this is something creative like
writing or art. This may be considered educational. It may also involve
some programming.
4) Programming- This has legitimacy written all over it. However most
users never do any of this.
As well as these, there are also the people who write the MUD servers and
clients. Again, a minority of users, but those who do have done some
pretty amazing things. Some MUDs take on aspects of Operating Systems
with background processes, scheduled tasks, etc. Many clients are quite
advanced as well.
And don't forget that this is currently the only working and widely
available example of virtual reality. VR is a legitimate research
area, so people writing MUD servers qualify as doing research in this
area. So what if it doesn't have spiffy 3-d 24-bit color graphics?
MUDs can at least run on machines which don't cost half a million
dollars.
But back to the question at hand. Has NSF said no to MUDs? Not yet.
Some individual sites have said no to MUDs, but it is up to them to
enforce this policy locally, not globally.
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 Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: junger@gls47212.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger)
Subject: Legality of quoting letters
Message-ID: <303@gls47212.law.cwru.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 13:42:27 GMT
Ayudin Edguer, Also Known As edguer@alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu, recently
posted the following gross mistatement of the law relating to the
publication of letters to this list:
Presumable Carl Kadie does not understand that posting e-mail
between two individuals is just as unethical [and in fact is
illegal without the consent of the sending party] as a system
manager looking though files on a system. He demonstrates his
willingness to repost a message which did include electronic
mail, without first verifying that the sender was willing to
release the document.
I shall not here address Mr. Edguer's remarkable ethics, except
to say that, since there is nothing unethical in the posting of e-mail
between two individuals, Mr. Edguer must consider it ethical for a
systems manager to look through files on a system.
On the other hand, his statement that it "is illegal without the
consent of the sending party" to post e-mail between two individuals
is--to the extent that it is not simply incoherent--FALSE, and so
mischevious that I feel it necessary to explain what the law actually is
with respect to the publication by the recipient (or someone acting
under the authority of the recipient) of a private communication from
another person.
The fundamental point is that it is not a crime of any sort for
the recipient to publish the communication, nor is it, except perhaps in
the most egregious circumstances, any sort of civil wrong--any sort of
`tort'.
What may have misled Mr. Edguer--other than his desire to be
able to send outrageous communications to those with whom he disagrees
(and I have been the recipient of a number of such messages from him)
and then avoid the embarassment of being publicly called to task for
having sent them. . . . As I was saying, what may have misled Mr.
Edguer, is the fact that the author--the "sending party"--has a peculiar
sort of property right in the expression--the exact word, not the
information or thought, if any--contained in a letter (and possibly has
an analogous right in the expression contained in an electronic
communication). This right, which is sometimes called a "common law
copyright" is not violated by fair use of the letter or communication,
and it is certainly fair use to publish a letter from a systems
administrator that clearly indicates that he examines users' directories
on his system without the users' permission.
In general, the only remedy that the holder of a common law
copyright in letters has is to seek a court injunction against the
publication of the letters; until the injunction is issued by
the court--and it would not be in the case of Mr. Willis's
communication--the defendant has done nothing for which damages can be
assessed. (The only exception that I can think of would be the case
where the recipient published for profit an entire collection of letters
from the author; in that case I would not be surprised if the author
could collect the publisher's profits, but such a recovery is not
properly called damages, and is not what Mr. Edguer is nattering about.)
I must admit, however, that Mr. Edguer is such a bully that it
is probably easier, if one has received a communication from him, to
describe it as the sort of repressive drivel that it is, rather than
expose oneself--as I have done--to a threat of suit for quoting his
exact words. If he wants to object to your description, he can always
publish his own words. But when dealing with normal people--even with
other systems administrators--I don't think you have anything to worry
about if you should happen to copy one of their communications to this
list.
Certainly the quotation of Mr. Willis's communication which
contained the line: "Since there is a compy of our games policy in your
directory I assume that you are aware of it", by the recipient to
protest Mr. Willis's examination of his directory was a fair--and in
fact a protected--use of that communication. The fact that Mr. Willis
claimed to know the contents of the directory is not overcome by Mr.
Willis's later disingenuous assertion that "I have not looked at files
in your directory, nor, to my knowledge, has any of my staff." He
clearly _had_ examined the user's directory without permission. Of
course, if he could have prevented the recipient from posting the
communication, he might have been able to get away with his disclaimer.
Peter D. Junger
Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs, et al.] Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for you!)
Message-ID: <9204011523.AA04410@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 03:23:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,alt.bbs.internet,comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for you!)
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.20514.9282@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 92 07:05:14 GMT
rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy) writes:
|Well, it seems to me you are just being a spoiler. I doubt this has
|affected you economically, at least not to any great extent, so why make
|such a big deal out of it. To be honest, adult gifs are the last thing
|I'd be interested in, but a lot of people are. If you offered your stuff
|for sale in a format similar to the one their using, I would have a lot
|more sympathy for your cause, since there was a more legit channel to go
|through. It still seems silly, and I would think you could find
|something better to complain about.
Someday, it will affect me economically, I promise you. Yes, I have a
stake.
Even if I didn't, it's a matter of principle. People are against
software piracy to the point of being rabid. Well a copyright
violation is a copyright violation. I'm pointing out a huge
inconsistency in policy and thinking.
That is my prerogative, fortunately. I choose what I wish to care and
politic about. Anyone who doesn't like it, simply do a kill on me.
Obviously many people are taking the issue seriously. And it won't go
away, either. Hear me now or hear me later :), there *will* be a huge
flap about all the illegal stuff flying around.
Wouldn't it be cool if it's contained sooner, and no one gets sued for
25 million dollars, and CNN doesn't pick it up and describe Usenet as
a child pornography network*? And 100 universities don't drop anything
remotely controversial when they're under media scrutiny?
Sean
* - It's not, but news reporters have the least clue about Usenet of
anyone in the world. We all know that.
--
|``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 Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs, et al.] Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police
Message-ID: <9204011524.AA04423@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 03:24:13 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,rec.photo
Subject: Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police
Message-ID: <56672@cup.portal.com>
Date: 31 Mar 92 18:42:33 GMT
> Also, on a different but related tack.. how extensive IS this problem of
> scanned images on the net. I've never come across any. Where are they all?
They are in subgroups of alt.binaries and alt.sex.
> Is this all a big fuss over a relatively small problem, interesting though it
> is, or is the discussion a preparation for the time when it DOES become a big
> problem? Please understand that I'm not being critical of this discussion,
> just curious.
Here are the top seven newsgroups by volume, from the lists on news.lists.
This is slightly edited to fit in 80 columns:
No. of $ Cost % of Cumulative
Rank Kbytes Articles per Site Total % of Total Group
1 21410.7 531 56.50 5.2% 5.2% alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
2 15296.4 382 40.37 3.7% 8.9% alt.binaries.pictures.misc
3 11321.1 271 29.88 2.8% 11.7% alt.binaries.pictures
4 11204.6 3845 29.57 2.7% 14.4% bionet.molbio.genbank.updates
5 6079.5 139 16.04 1.5% 15.9% alt.sex.pictures
6 5651.7 120 14.91 1.4% 17.3% alt.binaries.pictures.fractals
7 5118.8 124 13.51 1.2% 18.5% comp.binaries.os2
I believe that the above is for two weeks. Just from a disk space perspective,
these groups can easily be a big problem. Note that the cost per site is
rather high, also. If someone told me that I was spending >$100 every two
weeks to get scanned images from $10 worth of magazines, I'd think that
there was a problem somewhere...
Tim Smith
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs, et al.] Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for
Message-ID: <9204011526.AA04486@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 03:26:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: klaus@captain-crunch.ai.mit.edu (Klaus B. Biggers)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,alt.bbs.internet,comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for
Message-ID: <23069@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 92 00:45:21 GMT
In article bobl@bobsbox.rent.com (Bob Lindabury, SysAdmin) writes:
>In article <1992Mar29.200816.9087@mp.cs.niu.edu> tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas) writes:
>>In article deej@gorilla.nbn.com (Donna Corner Holmes) writes:
>>ONLINE TODAY (Mar 28) reported that PLAYBOY MAGAZINE is suing Event Horizons
>>BBS for copyright violations. According to the story, PLAYBOY repeatedly
>>asked EH to stop prior to the suit.
>Bravo! Huray! It's about time. If any System Administrators are
>reading this I suggest they also stop the distribution of
>alt.sex.pictures as it is 90% copyrighted scans.
Bravo! Huray! It's about time. If any Office Managers are
reading this I suggest they also destroy all photocopiers and
video recorders and tape recorders as 90% of the things they
are used to duplicate are copyrighted.
And while we're in a police state attitude:
1) Lets get rid of radar detectors, they're only used to speed.
2) Lets get rid of sports cars, same reason as above.
3) Lets get rid of radio scanners, they're only used in the commission
of crimes.
4) Lets get rid of CB radios, they're only used to keep track of where the
police are.
5) Lets ban alcohol, people only get drunk and drive or rob others or rape
others after they've been drinking it.
6) Condoms are definitely out. They only promote dangerous sex.
7) Ditto on the pill.
8) Guns are definitely no go.
etc. etc. etc.
Come on guys... suing sys admins who allow newsfeeds which include
some copyrighted material is like suing Xerox because people use their
machines to copy some copyrighted material... Or like suing SONY
because people use their sound equipment to copy copyrighted
cassettes,... Or like suing RCA because people abuse copyrights by
copying videotapes. Snowballs chance in hell.
Oh, and by the way... This message is Copyright 1992, Klaus B.
Biggers. Anyone who distributes this in whole or in part, including
any of the header material will be in violation of applicable
copyright laws... So don't include any of it in your flames. Also, any
host which allows any part of this message to be posted after the
initial posting will also be held in violation of the copyright.
Pretty radical position eh??
-klaus klaus@ced.utah.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for y
Message-ID: <9204011527.AA04500@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 03:27:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for y
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Mar 92 23:10:09 GMT
> >All they have to do is go for the biggest copiers. Hit UUNET and a few
> >of the big schools and a couple large companies with copyright infringement
> >suits, and the connectivity of the picture groups will drop to near zero
> >real fast.
>
> As will the connectivity of all of the rest of USENET, or at least the alt.*,
> rec.*, soc.*, talk.* hierarchies. Hit people with a suit for one group, and
> get scared and drop everything not essential to research. If of course, the
> lawsuit doesn't end in the complete banning of USENET by court order.
Yup, yup, yup. But, hey, why should the corporate greed mongers give a
damn about the rest of us out here, as long as they have their toys and
are sure we can't ever play with them. Maybe all the netters could just
boycott playboy, since playboy or whoever is doing us some severe harm.
(Then again, maybe only like three people out there buy it in the first
place...oh, devastating to their circulation, hmm?)
"Sometimes what you say is going to fly right in the faces of the
powerful people who really run this world, but you don't care...you know
it's your place to challenge authority..."
Rockerboy
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 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 from Cornell...
Message-ID: <9204011528.AA04514@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 03:28:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: wayner@cs.cornell.edu (Peter Wayner)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: News from Cornell...
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.025240.17959@cs.cornell.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 92 02:52:40 GMT
wayner@cs.cornell.edu (Peter Wayner) writes:
I got a letter from Stuart Lynn, the director of CIT, today in response
to a query I sent him. I figured I would outline what he said and
clarify the earlier piece I wrote which was based only upon one source,
the Daily Sun. Here are the salient points:
1) The quote about the public nature of e-mail was taken out of
context. A userguide at the CIT says that people may often not be
aware of the ease at which people can and will forward e-mail messages
around the net. Ergo the cavaet not to send anything that you wouldn't
want to appear on the cover of the NYT. He said that they will only
read mail if they have a strong feeling that the Campus Code of
Conduct (i.e. don't cheat ... don't kill and everything in between)
is being violated. He stressed, as I noted, that they were only watching
public information about a student logging onto the machine.
2) Cornell's counsel does not feel that the ECPA of 1986 applies to it
because it is not providing e-mail services "to the public." Only to
the members of the Cornell Community.
Of course Cornell freely considers all members of the public for
membership in the community and it doesn't discriminate. So the
Transitivity of the law doesn't seem to hold. Go figure.
Viruses and Cornell just always seem to dig up such excitement.
Here's the original message:
>This morning I woke up to find the following article in the Cornell
>Daily Sun (the student newspaper.) The headline reads, "Student Says
>CIT Broke State Laws. Cornell Monitors Account of Virus Syspects'
>Friend". (CIT="Communications and Information Technologies." They are
>the people who maintain the networks and the computer workstations
>around the campus. They are not the CS department.)
>The student, Randall Swanson, said in the article that CIT's computers
>record everytime he logs into the machine vax5. (A general machine on
>which students automatically receive accounts.) When he logs on, the
>article reports that a program named, "sys$manager:spy" is executed
>and it sends electronic mail to three people at CIT telling them that
>he just logged on. Randall Swanson says that the program sends the
>e-mail note with his name attached without informing him that it is
>doing it. This, he claims, is forgery.
>Apparently Randall Swanson is being watched in connection with the
>MBDF virus that was traced back to Cornell several weeks ago. Randall
>Swanson told the Sun that he was not involved in the case and CIT
>would not tell him why they were watching him. Moreover, the
>surveillance began two days after Swanson wrote a letter to the Daily
>Sun criticizing the way that CIT was investigating the case. In that
>letter, Swanson wrote, "I think it can be clear that certain people at
>CIT can be discounted as unreliable sources who are only interested in
>the sensationalism of the moment."
>CIT's head, Stuart Lynn, denies that CIT did nothing wrong and was
>quoted in the Daily Sun as saying, "CIT reserves the right to
>investigate suspected violations using all appropriate means."
>Lynn told the Sun that e-mail is not private and was quoted as saying,
>"Don't send anything electronically that you wouldn't want to see on
>page one of the New York Times." Lynn told the Sun that they were not
>reading Swanson's email, they were just noting when he logged in and
>out of the machine and this information is available publically.
>---------------------
>Who's hyping who? You decide.
>--
>Peter Wayner Department of Computer Science Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY 14850
>EMail:wayner@cs.cornell.edu Office: 607-255-9202 or 255-1008
>Home: 116 Oak Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 607-277-6678
--
Peter Wayner Department of Computer Science Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY 14850
EMail:wayner@cs.cornell.edu Office: 607-255-9202 or 255-1008
Home: 116 Oak Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 607-277-6678
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Policy Sample: EFF House Rules (version 2.0)
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.154828.24451@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 15:48:28 GMT
[Here are the rules for *.eff.org, the computers of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, a private, not-for-profit organization.]
1. No unauthorized attempts to gain root access or access to any account
not belonging to you on this or any other EFF system.
2. No use of this or any other EFF system as a staging ground to crack
other systems.
3. No use of this or any other EFF system through unauthorized
dial-up access.
4. No use of this or any other EFF system for illegal or criminal
purposes.
5. All users are responsible for their own telecom access charges, if any.
6. Any user who finds a possible security hole on any EFF system is
obliged to report it to the system administrators. If you're not
sure, report it, don't try to use it.
7. Users are responsible for all use of their accounts, including
choosing safe passwords and ensuring file protections are set
correctly.
8. Sharing passwords is not permitted.
9. Please keep in mind that many people use the EFF systems for day to
day work. Obstructing this work by consuming gratuitiously large
amounts of system resources (disk space, CPU time) or by
deliberately crashing the machine(s) will not be tolerated. In
general we will ask you to clean up your disk space and/or stop your
own processes except in emergencies; please cooperate by running
large jobs at night and by using the "nice" command to lower the
priority of CPU-intensive processes.
10. All users should be on notice that the system administrators do
periodic security checks of EFF systems, including password checks.
Any user with a "bad password" will be notified via email. If the
user does not change passwords within a timely manner, the account
will be locked until the person in question contacts, *via
telephone*, one of the system administrators to reinstate the
account in question.
11. Electronic mail on this system is as private as we can make it.
Attempts to read another person's electronic mail or other protected
files will be treated with the utmost seriousness. The system
administrators will not read mail or non-world-readable files unless
absolutely necessary in the course of their duties, and will treat
the contents of those files as private information at all times.
Bounced mail is directed to the system administrators in the form of
*headers only* for purposes of assuring reliable e-mail service.
--
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 Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: rnp@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rob Procter)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: electronic frontier foundation
Message-ID: <30620@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 1 Apr 92 10:27:22 GMT
Could someone please tell me the email address for the electronic frontier
foundation and/or ftp address.
Thanks,
Rob Procter.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9204011608.aa21190@s.s.ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 16:08:15 GMT
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: morgan
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Legality of quoting letters
References: <303@gls47212.law.cwru.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.110811.21183@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 16:08:11 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
X-Bytes: 2162
Lines: 39
junger@gls47212.law.cwru.EDU (Peter D. Junger) writes:
> Certainly the quotation of Mr. Willis's communication which
>contained the line: "Since there is a copy of our games policy in your
>directory I assume that you are aware of it", by the recipient to
>protest Mr. Willis's examination of his directory was a fair--and in
>fact a protected--use of that communication. The fact that Mr. Willis
>claimed to know the contents of the directory is not overcome by Mr.
>Willis's later disingenuous assertion that "I have not looked at files
>in your directory, nor, to my knowledge, has any of my staff." He
>clearly _had_ examined the user's directory without permission.
This is not clear by any means. Many systems administrators use auto-
mated programs/scripts to generate user accounts. For instance, the
"user creation" scripts I use (and which I wrote) automatically place
certain files in the user's directory, namely .profile, .login, and/or
.cshrc (for the non-Unix reader, these are "startup files", roughly
equivalent to AUTOEXEC.BAT for DOS, LOGIN.COM for VMS, or PROFILE EXEC
for CMS).
The user may delete one (or all) of those files after I install them,
but I can honestly say that there was, at one time, a copy of those
files in each user directory.
It may be that Mr. Willis' "user creation" procedures automatically place
a copy of their policy statement in each created directory. In fact, I'm
considering the implementation of this very technique. It's quite possible
that Mr. Willis intended to say "Since a copy of our games policy was placed
in your directory......"; that would indicate a non-invasive situation.
I am not defending Mr Willis' actual (or alleged) actions; I'm merely
stating that you CAN, in some situations, make assumptions about the
contents of a user directory without examining it.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
"I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: electronic frontier foundation
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 18:05:55 GMT
Rob> == Rob Procter
Rob> Could someone please tell me the email address for the electronic
Rob> frontier foundation and/or ftp address.
General email queries should be mailed to eff@eff.org.
The anonymous ftp archive is kept on ftp.eff.org; the /pub/EFF
directory is a good place to look (in particular, check out the file
/pub/EFF/EFF.about).
--
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 Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to UNL CRC: Removal of alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.192701.28737@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 19:27:01 GMT
[Here is the Statement of Purpose from the Nebraska Students for
Electronic Freedom, adopted at the organizational meeting of NUSEF
held March 31, 1992 at UNL. - Carl]
Nebraska University Students for Electronic Freedom
Statement of Purpose
1) Promote academic freedom on University computer and network
systems. Champion the free exchange of ideas and the
extension of first-amendment rights to computer and network
systems.
2) Work for protection of privacy on University computer and
network systems, including protection from invasions of
personal privacy by other users, as well as the
administration.
3) Provide the Computing Resource Center and University
administration with feedback and suggestions to help
them better serve the computing needs of the University
community. Act as a "watch dog" group for CRC and the
University administration. Lobby for protection of
electronic freedom and privacy.
4) Educate and inform the University community, especially
those without much direct experience with computing and
networking resources, about the importance of protecting
academic freedoms and privacy on electronic systems.
Inform the University community about CRC and administrative
policies that may affect their use of, or the availability
of, University computer and network systems.
5) Strive to broaden access to electronic communications systems
to a larger portion of the University community.
=======================
Dave Burchell Mailing list manager burchell@cse.unl.edu 477-9282
Lesli Thorn Presiding officer 436-8641
Jim VandeVegt Recording secretary vandevec@cse.unl.edu 436-9775
======================
--
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 Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: Perot and AUP
Message-ID: <199204012223.AA02280@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 12:23:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: brad@looking.clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Perot and AUP
Message-ID: <9203281200.aa28083@looking.clarinet.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 20:00:25 GMT
There is a distinction between action on USENET and action on the internet.
USENET exists far beyond the internet, and is not subject to its rules.
The people subject to any AUP are the sites who have agreed to an AUP,
and were required to follow that AUP in setting up their USENET feeds
using NNTP over AUP-governed networks.
The presumption here is that the site decided that it wanted a USENET
feed for AUP approved purposes -- support of research and education.
Inherent in that decision is that a USENET feed is not controllable. You
can't stop messages that violate the AUP and which are of little use to
you in support of R&E from coming in along with the messages that you
do want -- and which indeed are one of the major purposes of the network
in may people's eyes.
Because of that inability to filter, it means that one can only judge
if the feed, *taken as a whole* satisfies the AUP. In many cases, it does.
Under no circumstances to joe users off the internet who post commercial
messages violate the AUP. They may not know it exists, and they are
certainly not responsible for the rules of all the links out there.
It's like suggesting that on an international net, if one country has a law
against a certain type of posting and another doesn't, people in the latter
country somehow have to be bound by the laws of the most restrictive
country.
--
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 Apr 1 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: <9204012225.AA09859@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 10:25:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
From: a0s5108@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Neal and Mara Priestly)
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.172238.23329@nic.umass.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 17:22:38 GMT
If Joe Random User has such a problem he should address it at his site.
Umass had the problem of actually getting a telnet port for legitimate
system needs. The Ops Manager looked at who was using the ports for what
and determined that the problem was muds. Myself and a friend concurred
with his analysis *as wizes of a mud we were playtesting* and agreed with
his solution. Our mud is gone. (OK, I lied, Pid has it on 2 tapes, and
I have it on 2 tapes.) And telnet is restricted between 8am and 5pm local.
You can only access the 'default' ports during these hours. A reasonable
application of a clock-lock algorythm in response to a definable reasonable
problem. I would have posted said solution to JRU and told him to contact
our OpsMan for the actual fix.
PS: I don't even know if the OpsMan knew we had the Diku up. He green
lighted it in his living room over a few Coors in a vuage hypothetical
sense and to the best of my knowlege the mud came up n times at n<10
-Neal
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
Subject: Re: Privacy perfect news management (was Re: News Group Readership)
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.154242.11251@bilver.uucp>
Date: 1 Apr 92 15:42:42 GMT
In article <1992Mar27.180455.22822@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>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.
That scheme would severly impact the more popular newsgroups, and would
have everyone scrambling to read before expiry.
For example, before the split of the comp.sys.amiga into a hierarchical
structure, the group was running over 700 articles per day. Currently
on this system they occupy (in their new form) about 3 megs of disk
space.
Conversly another group in comp, such as comp.sys.sequent has a total
of 8 messages. If you expired ONLY on disk useage the amiga group
would have a half life of about a day, while sequent could hang around
for months.
It really needs to be self-balancing on the amount of space consumed
and the amount of readers. Or space, number of readers, with
tabulation on read and unread, and maybe phase of the moon thrown in
for good measure :-)
in a day
--
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.uucp
- ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: 1 Apr 92 18:01:15
Message-ID:
In article <1992Mar29.021938.13211@wpi.WPI.EDU> entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
In article <1992Mar28.060842.20567@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>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.
I too detect a great likelihood that censorship is masquerading as
cost-saving here. I'd bet that many students would contribute much
more than $1 to receive the alt.* hierarchy, even stripped of
useless, redundant and bloated groups like alt.sex.pictures. (That,
and possible objections to using the net as a copying machine for
legally-protected works, are my only complaints with such groups---
not any offensive content.) Technical groups often receive a
tryout period there, and some of the others can be pretty good (I
have high hopes for the new alt.politics.elections or whatever).
Only in our wonderful polity would the customers who pay up to
$100,000 for four years of mediocre and disdainful "educational"
services be referred to as "suck-at-the-public-teat .edu students".
I'm tempted to use some strong language at the officious Mr.Deignan.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
(Boston and New Hampshire AMC, and Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 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: <1992Apr2.010217.5328@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 01:02:17 GMT
In article <1992Mar27.180455.22822@eff.org> 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.
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
>That scheme would severly impact the more popular newsgroups, and would
>have everyone scrambling to read before expiry.
[...]
If readers found themselves scrambling, they could increase the disk
quota.
- 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 Apr 1 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: <9204020108.AA10554@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 13:08:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Is this privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.231551.9394@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 1 Apr 92 23:15:51 GMT
There has been a lot of discussion of this in the last week, so I'm not going
to quote large amounts of material.
Please understand that the following thoughts are my own opinion, based on 7
years of systems administration at Stanford and 2 years before that at the
University of Chicago. I am no longer affiliated with either institution,
although the Stanford folks have been kind enough to allow me to keep an
account.
The short answer to your subject-line question is "yes." (Perhaps not in a
legal sense, but certainly in a social one.) You have given information about
each of the people to whom you sent your message to all the others to which
they may not be entitled by the regulations of your school.
We worked very hard to make all such communications private at Stanford, in
that we sent individualized messages to each account that was expiring. We
also sent them more than 10 days in advance--the system as I set it up let them
know a month in advance, with a second notice going out two weeks later, and a
final notice going out a week before the account expired. (Of course, I had
8000+ active accounts on the system; with 250, you probably don't need quite so
much notice...)
Your department needs to contact the registrar, to determine what the school's
policy is regarding registration status information. It may be that anyone who
asks can find out whether someone is registered or not; it may be that no
matter what the status is (such as, never been heard of), the official answer
is "We cannot give out that information." (In which case the information could
still be gotten by anyone with a real need to know, but legal channels would be
followed.)
The aggrieved student can sue--anyone may sue for anything, in this land of the
litigious--but if your school's policies are such that this information was
freely available, you should have no problem.
But the final upshot of all this is that you should be more careful of people's
feelings in your work as a sysadmin. As I first stated, you may not have
violated the student's privacy in a legal sense, but you certainly did, however
unwittingly or unwillingly, in a social sense.
Let me repeat that these are my own opinions. They do not necessarily reflect
those of the current systems administrators of this system, the facility in
which it resides, or Stanford University as a whole.
--
Rich Alderson 'I wish life was not so short,' he thought. 'Languages take
such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.'
--J. R. R. Tolkien,
alderson@leland.stanford.edu _The Lost Road_
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <9204020109.AA10563@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 13:09:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
From: v115qha3@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Donald R Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.222555.12052@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 92 22:27:00 GMT
The CONSULTANT at UB is going to take MY VAX acct. away
unless I "unpost" a post that I posted to one of our
news groups.......The story goes like this.....
I was reading some group called something like sunyab.offline..
..or something like that...and someone posted something about
the first amendment going to the shitter at UB.....I posted this
...." Subject: Fuck censorship
Amendment 1"
that was it.
so this asshole sends me e-mail saying that I am harassing all
UB vax users...etc....and that I should take that message off
of that group......I sent him e-mail saying....." so are
you saying that you will take my acct. away unless I do.."
he said "yes...etc.".......I need help.....
does anyone know the legality of his actions....
Is there a precident......???
Does anyone know of any cases involving colleges and this sort of
thing????
I need help soon...like right now....e-mail at once...
while I still have my acct.....
thanks in fucking advance................Don at UB
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.015817.23678@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 01:58:17 GMT
In alt.censorship, v115qha3@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Donald R Miller)
writes:
>The CONSULTANT at UB is going to take MY VAX acct. away
>unless I "unpost" a post that I posted to one of our
>news groups.......The story goes like this.....
[...]
I think you are on firm ground here.
(The end of this note includes extensive references to on-line
material in the Computers and Academic Freedom [CAF] archive.)
Two federal court cases, _UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_ and _Doe v. U.
of Michigan_ (full text available on-line in the CAF archive), have
said that students at state schools have a right to free expression
and that overly broad anti-harassment rules do not override this
right. One of the court decisions even mentions email.
_Doe_ also mentioned the _Papish v. U. of Missouri_, the Supreme Court
Decision that said a university student could not be expelled for
distributing an underground newspaper sporting the headline
"Motherfucker acquitted" on the grounds that "the mere dissemination
of ideas--no matter how offensive to good taste--on a state university
campus may not be shut off in the name alone of conventions of
decency." (I don't know about your student newspaper, but my student
newspaper uses "fuck" frequently.)
Also, you should look at your student handbook. My student handbook
guarantees free expression and says that University control of
resources shall not be used as a device of censorship. Moreover, in
cases of real harassment, it outlines the due process procedure that
must be followed. At no school that I know of are sys admins (or even
professors) authorized to enforce harassment rules against students.
All enforcement must go through the proper channels.
Also, the Supreme Court has said that students at state universities
can only be punished only after due process. In my opinion, you have a
legal right to due process (a hearing, if you want it; an appeal, if
you need it, etc) before you are suspended from the computer.
Finally, be careful not to break any rules. For example, even if you
are suspended from the computer unfairly, don't use someones elses
account to get back on. If you do, they'll get you.
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.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/mills-v-bd-of-ed
=================
Summary from the ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition
by Janet. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61. It says
before you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to
know the specific acts you are charged with committing and the
specific rules that those acts violate.
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
=================
Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer,
et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court
says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter
is trivial or there is an emergency.
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
=================
Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.),
Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). It
reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process
is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency.
Also,
=================
uiuc.code.excerpts
=================
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
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?
=================
law/README
=================
CAF Law 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 law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send caf-law
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 or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).
=================
=================
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 caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send caf-law mills-v-bd-of-ed
send caf-law goss-v-lopez.fischer
send caf-law goss-v-lopez.mnookin
send acad-freedom uiuc.code.excerpts
send acad-freedom caf
send caf-law README
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/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/mills-v-bd-of-ed
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
pub/academic/uiuc.code.excerpts
pub/academic/caf
pub/academic/law/README
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.022739.26045@colorado.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 02:27:39 GMT
In article <1992Mar30.204839.9059@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar27.165011.24372@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>>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.
>
>>It already is. Try calling a female black coworker a "nigger cunt"
>>and see what happens. As I recall, these laws were derived from
>>the principle of "human dignity," which holds (among other things)
>>that you should not be ridiculed/ostracized/prejudiced for things
>>beyond your control such as race, gender, national origin, religious
>>beliefs, etc.
>[...]
>
>You recall incorrectly. The laws were derived from an effort to stop
>sexual (and racial) discrimination in the work place. They apply only
>to work places. They do not apply to all forums. They do not apply all
>things beyond your control (for example, they do not apply to
>intelligence). They do not apply to all forms of ostracization, etc.
Why should society want to stop sexual/racial discrimination?
After all, plenty of people were quite happy with the previous
environment.... That is where "human dignity" comes in. (For
CS types: imagine a tree structure with "human dignity" at the
root with "freedom from discrimination in the workplace" on
one brance, "freedom of speech" on another, "freedom of worship"
on a third, etc).
Most government agencies (EEOC, Dept. of Labor) are concerned with
discrimination in the work place, but that is not the only place.
State universities are another area with anti-discrimination laws.
_Private_ universities are another, if their students receive
Federal student financial aid. (I don't agree with the logic in
the last case, but last I heard it was being upheld).
After you remove the *.com, *.mil, *.edu and most *.com sites,
you aren't left with many U.S. internet sites.
BTW, I know that a company is not _required_ to take action if
sue@companyA.edu complains about bob@companyB.com (= your site).
However, if tina@companyB.com has a problem with bob as well
and her lawyers/EEOC finds out about the complaint from sue@
companyA.edu, they would expect you to realize that bob could
cause problems for his coworkers as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Giles The menu is not the meal.
bear@fsl.noaa.gov -- Alan Watts
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.023619.1380@colorado.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 02:36:19 GMT
In article <1992Mar30.210856.9459@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|If you are an employee of a private company in the U.S. and don't have
|an employment contract, you could be fired for this reason (or almost
|any other reason or no reason.) The things you can't be fired for are
|few. They include being trying to organize a labor union, being
|African American, being a woman.
|
|Among the infinite number of reasons you can be fired are:
| Reporting defective products to upper managment.
| Running for office and being of a different party than your boss.
| Saying bad things at work about President Bush.
| [These examples are from the ACLU Public Policy Report "Liberty at
| Work: Expanding the Rights of Employees in America", 1988.]
|
|- Carl
I had the impression that most state courts would find for "wrongful
terminations" in cases like that. At least, that is the impression
given by the articles in the business section of the newspaper
regarding involuntary termination of employees -- the need to
document problems, give the employee a chance to fix them, redocument
the problems and only then fire the employee.
(To be clear, I am referring to "firings" above. "Layoffs" are
an entirely different situation).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Giles The menu is not the meal.
bear@fsl.noaa.gov -- Alan Watts
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.032514.10636@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 03:25:14 GMT
bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
[...]
>State universities are another area with anti-discrimination laws.
[...]
The courts have said that these laws and their goals do not justify
blanket prohibitions of "hate speech" on campus.
- 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 -- 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 Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.034003.10862@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 03:40:03 GMT
In article <1992Mar30.210856.9459@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
|If you are an employee of a private company in the U.S. and don't have
|an employment contract, you could be fired for this reason (or almost
|any other reason or no reason.) The things you can't be fired for are
|few. They include being trying to organize a labor union, being
|African American, being a woman.
[...]
bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>I had the impression that most state courts would find for "wrongful
>terminations" in cases like that.
[...]
That's what most people think until they are fired.
"Americans get [legally] fired for such things as refusing to falsify
medical records, in Alabama (_Hinrichs v. Transquilaire_, 1977);
refusing to vote the way their employer wished, in Missouri (_Bell v.
Faulkner, 1934); protesting the concentration of carcinogens in
childrens' medication produced by their employer, in New Jersey
(_Pierce v. Orth Pharmaceutical Corp._, 1977); or merely being
eligible for substantial commissions that the employer didn't wish to
pay, in Massachusetts (_Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.,_ 1977)."
From the ACLU Public Policy Report "Liberty at Work: Expanding the
Rights of Employees in America", 1988.
As of 1988, Montana was the only state to outlaw wrongful discharge.
- 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 Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: Perot and AUP
Message-ID: <199204020340.AA10893@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 17:40:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David J. Farber)
Subject: Re: Perot and AUP
Message-ID: <9204020116.AA09700@pcpond.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 01:16:30 GMT
Seems to me that the US got very upset with the Finns when they had
on their systems material that the US authorities felt was
inappropriate for US people to access. I HEAR tell we strongly
insisted it be "removed" from access else the networks connection
would be terminated.
I wonder if for example, a Finn sent a message to a Japanese which
contained material deamed illegal by the US and that message passed
via the US and was detected, could the Finn, if he came to the US on
business, be arrested at the border.
Email is not covered under the Postal Conventions.
Ah the ... we set to ....
Dave
--
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 Apr 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.035347.11188@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 03:53:47 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>As of 1988, Montana was the only state to outlaw wrongful discharge.
[...]
I have some more recent information. According to the undated, but
recent, ACLU Briefing Paper #12: The Rights of Employees:
"At this writing, 15 states have enacted laws that restrain employers
from prohibiting legal activities as a condition of employment. For
example, Colorado law makes it 'a discriminatory or unfair employment
practive for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee
due to the employee's engaging in any lawful activity off the premises
of the employer during nonworking hours ...'"
Here in Illinois, we don't have as much protection as you folks in
Colorado, but we have some; we can't be fired for (legal) smoking off
the job.
- 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 Apr 2 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: Thu, 02 Apr 1992 03:06:30 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Apr02.030630.17856@anomaly.sbs.com>
entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>If you mini computer disks cost to much stick an extra disk onto a
>workstation someplace, invest $1000 for a 386 to run news on, etc. News
>is not an airlines reservation system...
Too bad a decent 386 machine with OS and appropiate hardware necessary to
make it a viable news server would cost several times more that your quoted
figure.
But then again, should we expect nothing less from a suck-at-the-public-teat
.edu user?
>If the maintenance contract cost more than the drive don't get it :-)
You obviously haven't dealt with many DP department budgets.
[...then proceeds to babble about modifying the USENET news software
provided on the net...]
>This is like a library refusing to carry certain books because they want
>all book shelves built out of gold.
No, simply some books come with gold covers, and don't have much useful
content.
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 Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: Perot and AUP
Message-ID: <199204021414.AA17705@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 04:14:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: steve@cise.cise.nsf.gov (Stephen Wolff)
Subject: Re: Perot and AUP
Message-ID: <9204021322.AA04985@ncri>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 13:22:26 GMT
->Seems to me that the US got very upset with the Finns when they had
->on their systems material that the US authorities felt was
->inappropriate for US people to access. I HEAR tell we strongly
->insisted it be "removed" from access else the networks connection
->would be terminated.
Not to my knowledge. We notified the administration of NORDUNET that the
material was inappropriate for transmission across the NSFNET Backbone.
They told us it was also inappropriate for NORDUNET, and took it as an
internal NORDUNET matter.
We did NOT threaten that "the networks connection would be terminated";
we know that's a Doomsday machine and I'm not Dr. Strangelove.
-s
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 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: <199204021415.AA17787@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 04:15:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely,
Subject: Re: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk] Re: U of Delaware Code
Message-ID: <199204021008.AA14042@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 19:34:36 GMT
>Here in its entirety is the paragraph that two people have
>commented on to Carl:
> sending frivolous or excessive messages, either locally or
> off-campus [including electronic chain letters and unauthorized
> electronic "bulk" mailings];
>Anyone have suggestions for how better to word the e-mail stuff in this
>paragraph?
Perhaps you could exchange "unsolicited" for "unauthorised" (in the sense that
the recipients neither request nor condone the mailings!). If, by
unauthorised, you mean that students are not allowed to have alias mail files
for more than (say) 5 people, then perhaps "unauthorised" is the appropriate
word.
>Richard Gordon richard@brahms.udel.edu
Mark N.
Mark Neely,
Articled Clerk + Tutor, Law School, Northern Territory Uni. Darwin NT Australia
neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.su
Disclaimer:
The views expressed herein are neither a reflection of the views held by
my employer nor those of the NTU. They are not to be taken (unless otherwise
indicated) as a formal legal opinion or advice given in my professional
capacity.
--
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 Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: Perot and AUP
Message-ID: <199204021534.AA20402@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 05:34:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David J. Farber)
Subject: Re: Perot and AUP
Message-ID: <9204021348.AA10455@pcpond.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 13:48:17 GMT
I am glad to hear that the old wives tale was in error. BTW do you
have a copy of the NORNUNET AUP?
Also, any idea of the other part of my note:
"I wonder if for example, a Finn sent a message to a Japanese which
contained material deamed illegal by the US and that message passed
via the US and was detected, could the Finn, if he came to the US on
business, be arrested at the border.
Email is not covered under the Postal Conventions."
Begin forwarded message:
To: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David J. Farber)
Subject: Re: Perot and AUP
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 92 08:22:26 EST
>From: Stephen Wolff
->Seems to me that the US got very upset with the Finns when they had
->on their systems material that the US authorities felt was
->inappropriate for US people to access. I HEAR tell we strongly
->insisted it be "removed" from access else the networks connection
->would be terminated.
Not to my knowledge. We notified the administration of NORDUNET that
the
material was inappropriate for transmission across the NSFNET
Backbone.
They told us it was also inappropriate for NORDUNET, and took it as
an
internal NORDUNET matter.
We did NOT threaten that "the networks connection would be
terminated";
we know that's a Doomsday machine and I'm not Dr. Strangelove.
-s
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.alf-l] Re: Hate Speech Regulation
Message-ID: <199204021545.AA20536@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 05:45:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.alf-l
From: DREWWE@SNYMORVA.BITNET (Bill Drew -- Serials Librarian)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Regulation
Message-ID: <199204021533.AA20279@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 15:21:00 GMT
I can't let this comment go by with out answering it.
>No matter how offensive, illegal or improper an item is libraries MUST
>hold such items. How restrictive access to such material is is another matter.
Has R.C. Jamieson forgotten the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS?
>Historians, sociologists, psychiatrists, etc etc take for granted libraries
>will preserve such material. I see no issue whatsoever and have had no problems
>in placing questionable material in our most secure and most difficult
>to access classes.
What gives you the right to say that material is
questionable once it is in your collection? Making material
inaccessible by using claassification defeats the whole idea of
libraries (even or especially research libraries).
Section 53.1.10 of the ALA policy manual states:
"Restricted Access to rare and special collections is SOLEY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE MATERIALS, and must in NO WAY LIMIT ACCESS TO THE
INFORMATION OR IDEAS CONTAINED in the materials.
The last paragraph of 53.1.11 states:
"Intellectual freedom, the essence of equitable library services,
promotes no causes, furthers no movements, and favors no viewpoints.
It only provides for FREE ACCESS to all expressions of ideas through
which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be
explored."
>A librarian who believed otherwise would be rather out of place in a
>research library anywhere in the world...
I know a large number of librarians at some of the best research
libraries in the world that would dispute your point. I am not
against your charging for borrowing priviledges or allowing only
limited physical access to fragile material. The ideas in that
material MUST be available to ALL.
-Bill Drew-
******************************************************************
Wilfred Drew (call me "BILL")
Serials/Reference/Computers Librarian
SUNY College of Agriculture & Technology
P.O. Box 902, Morrisville, NY 13408-0902
Bitnet: drewwe@snymorva SUNYNET(DECnet): smorv::drewwe
InterNet: drewwe@SNYMORVA.CS.SNYMOR.EDU
Voice: 315-684-6055 Fax: 315-684-6115
--
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 Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [info.labmgr] Ethics statement
Message-ID: <9204021631.AA16405@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 04:31:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: info.labmgr
From: GA.LJH@isumvs.BITNET (Linda Hutchison)
Subject: Ethics statement
Message-ID: <199204012113.AA20676@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 20:55:25 GMT
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
ISU has had a computer ethics statement in place for over a year. Originally
the statement was a statement of ethics from the Computation Center, but we
worked through the Dean of Students Office, the university lawyer(s) and the
Administrative Data Processing Center (the Computation Ctr is the academic
center on campus) to make this a campus-wide policy.
The Dean of Students Office feels the statement has strengthened their ability
to prosecute computer-related violations.
For what it's worth, the following is ISU's policy (we have a new version in
the works that addresses items such as displaying obscene material on
workstations in public labs, but it's not official thus not ready for
distribution):
*************************%cut here%*******************************************
Iowa State University endorses the following statement of Software
and Intellectual Rights that was developed through EDUCOM, a non-profit
consortium of colleges and universities committed to the use and
management of information technology in higher education.
"Respect for intellectual labor and creativity is vital to
academic discourse and enterprise. This principle applies to
works of all authors and publishers in all media. It encom-
passes respect for the right to acknowledgment, right to
privacy, and right to determine the form, manner, and terms of
publication and distribution.
"Because electronic information is volatile and easily
reproduced, respect for the work and personal expression of
others is especially critical in computer environments.
Violations of authorial integrity, including plagiarism,
invasion of privacy, unauthorized access, and trade secret and
copyright violations, may be grounds for sanctions against
members of the academic community."
The above statement provides a guide for the ethical use of computer
facilities whether one is using a microcomputer, minicomputer, mainframe
computer or supercomputer, or computer network, and whether the computer
files, programs, or data are stored on floppy disk, hard disk, magnetic
tape, or other storage media. Computer facilities and files owned by
others should be used or accessed only with the owner's permission.
Viewing or using another person's computer files, programs or data
without authorized permission is unethical behavior and an invasion of
that person's privacy. Such behavior, if used for personal gain, is
plagiarism. Ethical standards apply even when material appears to be
legally unprotected. Improper use of copyrighted material may be
illegal.
The following guidelines govern ethical computer use at Iowa State
University:
# Unauthorized access to restricted data bases is unethical.
# Use of computer facilities by an individual must be authorized by
the owner or administrative unit. Prior permission to use another
user's computer account or user-id must be acquired from the owner
of the account, who is responsible for its use. Changing another
person's password is considered a form of harassment and is
unethical behavior.
# Users are responsible for their use of computer hardware, accounts
and user-ids. These should be used only for the stated purpose;
e.g., instructional class accounts must be used only to support the
given courses. University computer facilities are not to be used
for private monetary gain unless specifically authorized for such
use.
# Users must not browse, access, copy or change private files without
authorization, nor change public files without authorization.
Users must not attempt to modify the computer systems or software
in any unauthorized manner. The use of invasive software, such as
"worms" and "viruses" destructive to computer systems, is unethical
and illegal. Copyrighted software must only be used in accordance
with its license or purchase agreement. Users do not have the
right to receive and/or use unauthorized copies of software, or
make unauthorized copies of software for themselves or others.
# University computing facilities are a valuable resource for
University use and they should be conserved. Users should properly
utilize these resources to minimize any unnecessary impact of their
work on others; i.e., users should avoid excessive game playing,
etc.
# Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden. Also disallowed
are random mailings and any message of commercial or political
nature. BITNET users must also abide by the BITNET Usage
Guidelines.
# Hardware, software, manuals, supplies, etc., must not be removed
from computing sites without proper authorization.
# Abuse or misuse of any computer hardware or software will be
regarded as illegal and/or unethical behavior.
Violations of the University Code of Computer Ethics are treated like
any other ethical violation as outlined in the Student Handbook and
applicable faculty and staff handbooks. Violators may also be billed
for illegal use of the computer systems and may be prosecuted for
statutory violations, including Chapter 716A, Computer Crime, of the
Iowa Code.
#########################
Copyright (c) 1989 by Iowa State University
Permission to reproduce all or part of this document for noncommercial
purposes is granted, provided the author and Iowa State University are
given credit. To copy otherwise requires specific permission.
Linda Hutchison ||
Manager, Consulting and Publications || (515) 294-1578
291 Durham -- Computation Center || BITNET: GA.LJH@ISUMVS
Iowa State University || Internet: GA.LJH@ISUMVS.IASTATE.EDU
Ames, IA 50011-2041 || FAX: (515) 294-1717
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [info.labmgr] Re: Computer Policy Statement
Message-ID: <9204021631.AA16420@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 04:31:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: info.labmgr
From: NU025216@ndsuvm1.BITNET (Brian Abraham)
Subject: Re: Computer Policy Statement
Message-ID: <199204012129.AA24760@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 20:56:53 GMT
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
NDSU POLICY ON MISUSE OF COMPUTER FACILITIES
Individuals who use North Dakota State University computer facilities
must assume the responsibility for using these resources in an
appropriate manner. Misuse of computer facilities is considered a
violation of University policy and may also be a violation of law if
data of other computer users are disturbed or the privacy rights of
individuals are violated.
All users of the NDSU computer facilities are therefore required to
comply with the following:
1. Files, signons, usernames, passwords and computer output belonging
to an individual or to the institution are considered to be personal
property. Users shall not examine, change, or use another person's or
institutional files, output, or usernames for which they do not have
explicit authorization.
2. Users shall not deliberately attempt to degrade system performance
or capability. Loopholes in the computer system, knowledge, or special
passwords shall not be used to damage a system or file, or to change or
remove information in a system or file without authorization.
3. No obscene or offensive material shall be entered into the computer
or sent through any electronic system.
4. Unauthorized copies of copyrighted material shall not be created,
distributed, or knowingly utilized.
5. The University computer systems shall not be used for commercial
purposes without written authorization of the Director of the Computer
Center.
6. Students who violate this Policy shall be subject to the disciplinary
procedures and sanctions provided for in the NDSU Student Conduct
Handbook. Violations by faculty or staff may result in appropriate
employment sanctions.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.162222.30684@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 92 16:22:22 GMT
(This article is based on a similar one in the December 1991 CAF-News)
Universities that prohibit offensive expression in computer media, may
be prohibiting on-line searches of library catalogs.
Libraries all of the world are working to make their on-line catalogs
available via the Internet. But do these on-line catalogs violate the
speech restrictions on some universities?
For example, suppose you telnet into Illinet Online ("telnet
garcon.cso.uiuc.edu 620"). This on-line catalog has holding
information for most the the libraries in the State of Illinois.
You are looking for an arts magazine:
----Illinet session---
LCSgated>f t magazine of the arts
SUMMARY DISPLAY
RESULT: 38 bibliographic items.
LCSgated>s 24
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DISPLAY
FUCK YOU; A MAGAZINE OF THE ARTS NEW YORK
uc 10-053242
LCSgated>
---- end session------
Now that your interest has been aroused, you try:
---- Illinet session-----
LCSgated>f t fuck $ all
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DISPLAY
1. Moe, David Ishtar Robinhood fuck spelling : a poem / c1978. 5
leaves, sewn at center; unpaged ocm04-147599
2. Fuck hate : :poems / ca. 1966: :4: p. ocm07-408611
3. FUCK YOU; A MAGAZINE OF THE ARTS uc 10-053242
4. McCloskey, Michael. FUCK YOU; A VOLUME OF SHORT STORIES. uc
12-031984
5. MICHELS, PETER M. FUCK THE WAR. 1972. uc 17-000346
6. B.A.L.L. (Musical group) Period (another American lie) :sound
recording: / :1987: 1 sound disc ocm17-376469
LCSgated>
---end session---
It looks like that consultant at Buffalo needs to tell the library
computer systems they need to remove such entries or else their
connection to Buffalo's computers will be cut off.
Conclusion: I see nothing wrong with narrowly-drawn rules against
harassment, but there is no place for rules against offensiveness in a
University. As this example shows, to prohibit offense, is to prohibit
free inquiry.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/cafv01n45
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-news cafv01n45
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/news/cafv01n45
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [info.labmgr] Ethics statement
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.174625.23219@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 17:46:25 GMT
This is a critique of Computer Ethics Statement for Iowa State
University. The due process protection of the policy is good. The
privacy protection is unclear. Free expression protection is poor.
(The policy imposes speech restrictions on email and other computer
media. Specifically, it prohibits rude expression and any expression
of a political nature. In my opinion, these speech restrictions
violate academic freedom and the law.)
>From: GA.LJH@isumvs.BITNET (Linda Hutchison)
>Subject: Ethics statement
>Message-ID: <199204012113.AA20676@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 20:55:25 GMT
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>ISU has had a computer ethics statement in place for over a year. Originally
>the statement was a statement of ethics from the Computation Center, but we
>worked through the Dean of Students Office, the university lawyer(s) and the
>Administrative Data Processing Center (the Computation Ctr is the academic
>center on campus) to make this a campus-wide policy.
I think the policy could be improved with wider participation.
Specifically, computer users should formally participate. Also,
because the policy involves important issues of academic freedom, the
faculty senate and academic freedom committee should be involved.
The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, the main
statement of academic freedom for students in the U.S., says: "The
student body should have clearly defined means to participate in the
formulation and application of institutional policy affecting academic
and student affairs."
[...]
>*************************%cut here%*******************************************
[...]
> Viewing or using another person's computer files, programs or data
> without authorized permission is unethical behavior and an invasion of
> that person's privacy.
Does this apply to sys admins? What is the procedure for sys admins to
acquire authorization to search user files? Is it compatible with the
University's general privacy policy (which usually prohibit
unreasonable searches in assigned office space and dorm rooms)?
[...]
> The following guidelines govern ethical computer use at Iowa State
> University:
> # Unauthorized access to restricted data bases is unethical.
I dislike this use of the word "unethical". Thousands of things in
life are unethical and yet allowable. I think the policy could be
clearer by replacing "unethical" with "prohibited".
[...]
> Copyrighted software must only be used in accordance
> with its license or purchase agreement.
Some copyrighted software has no license or purchase agreement. I
suggest the following wording:
Copyrighted software must be used in accordance with
terms of the copyright. Licensed software must be used
in accordance with its license.
[...]
> # Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
> or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden.
In my opinion, it is unethical and illegal to strictly forbid rude
expression. It is the general policy of most universities (especially
state universities) to encourage free expression. For example, at my
school, the U. of Illinois, the student code says:
"A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus
is a member of the University community of which all members have at
least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from
institutional censorship;"
...
"III. Campus Expression
A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the
University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order."
Vague speech restrictions have no place on campus and have been
consistently overturned by the courts. For example, _UWM Post v. U. of
Wisconsin_ decision, the explicitly mentions email.
Restrictions based on the tone material are especially inappropriate.
(I'm paraphrasing from an ACLU handbook on teacher's legal rights
here.) Generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment [or Academic Freedom -cmk], does not lose that
protection because its tone is sharp. Discussions will not always be
models of decorum. A court observed that "often those with the power
to appoint will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it
convenient to use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to
squelch them."
> Also disallowed
> are random mailings and any message of [...] political
> nature.
This prohibition is much too broad. Many messages have a political
nature. For example, I would think that most messages by a political
science professor would have a political nature. If this clause was
added in response to a specific law (perhaps prohibiting *some* types
of *partisan* political activity), the computer policy should be
revised to include the exact wording of the law. If there is no law,
this clause should be removed.
[...]
> #########################
> Copyright (c) 1989 by Iowa State University
> Permission to reproduce all or part of this document for noncommercial
> purposes is granted, provided the author and Iowa State University are
> given credit. To copy otherwise requires specific permission.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
uiuc.code.excerpts
=================
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
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 acad-freedom student.freedoms
send acad-freedom uiuc.code.excerpts
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/student.freedoms
pub/academic/uiuc.code.excerpts
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
--
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 Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [info.labmgr] Ethics statement
Message-ID: <9204021930.AA19767@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 07:30:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: info.labmgr
From: MOLINARO@UKCC.UKy.EDU (Mary Molinaro)
Subject: Ethics statement
Message-ID: <199204021433.AA02308@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 14:10:04 GMT
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 92 16:49:55 EST
From: Terry
To: Computer Lab Managers
Subject: Re: Ethics statement
I liked the statement in general but one section disturbs me
==================
# Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden. Also disallowed
are random mailings and any message of commercial or political
nature.
===============
I understand the motives of the above. It is well intentioned. I think it
has no place in a university code of ethics.
The censorship of political speech is *at minimum* what the 1st
amendment was intended to stop, - in fact it is much broader than that.
It does not protect obscenity - but most things called obscene are not, under
law. It does not protect some types of harassment. It certainly protects
rudeness & offensivenes. It protects the use of words I never use.
I realise that a school (even a government school) is not the gov't
and may be legally able to restrict speech. You own the computers, etc.
On the other hand you may *not* be able to.
But do we want to limit our own ethics by what we can get away with?
I submit that any attempt to censor speech on newsgroups, mailing
lists, or private mail is a serious mistake.
Some newsgroups are moderated and the moderator can cut anything
s/he likes. Fine. Others have only peer pressure to control content. Fine.
Private e-mail is *private*. Keep it that way.
I firmly believe electronic communication deserves the same legal
treatment as the US mail (better, given erstwhile CIA mail-tapping) or phones.
I dissaprove of rudeness,racism,sexism and a lot of other things.
Freedom of speech and thought are a value of the very highest priority and
must be protected even if we don't like what someone says. Universities
above all should respect these rights!
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET Readership report for Mar 92
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.195244.10079@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 19:52:44 GMT
[Excerpted from an article in news.lists. - Carl]
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes:
>This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Mar 92.
>Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
>
> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
> | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
> | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
> | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
> | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
> | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
> | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
> | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
> | | | | | | | | who read this group.
> V V V V V V V V
> 1 270000 5560 69% 2139 8135.4 24% 0.04 13.0% alt.sex
> 2 230000 4679 84% 864 1602.9 21% 0.01 10.9% misc.jobs.offered
> 3 210000 4273 83% 1482 1825.5 32% 0.02 10.0% misc.forsale
> 4 200000 4054 82% 69 162.5 0% 0.00 9.5% rec.humor.funny
> 5 180000 3695 81% 1830 2881.1 6% 0.03 8.6% rec.humor
[...]
> 387 31000 631 78% 341 816.1 44% 0.04 1.5% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
> 734 18000 359 56% 77 264.4 47% 0.02 0.8% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
[...]
> 754 17000 341 73% 1 1.8 100% 0.00 0.8% comp.org.eff.news
[...]
>1138 7000 143 46% 1 7.8 0% 0.00 0.3% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
>1818 49 1 0% 103 342.5 0% 0.07 0.0% nyu.sunmanagers
>1819 49 1 0% 60 892.5 0% 0.27 0.0% ar.info-unix
>1820 49 1 0% 49 410.7 0% 0.15 0.0% ar.unix-wizards
>1821 49 1 0% 12 21.7 0% 0.00 0.0% ar.info-snmp
>1822 49 1 0% 5 5.3 0% 0.00 0.0% nyu.kerberos
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <9204022250.AA21342@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 10:50:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
From: mw4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Weinstock)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <0dqpLIi00Uh_44_I0Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 92 18:43:32 GMT
On 01-Apr-92 in censored at UB.....NEED HEL..
user Donald R Miller@ubvmsd.c writes:
>The CONSULTANT at UB is going to take MY VAX acct. away
>unless I "unpost" a post that I posted to one of our
>news groups.......The story goes like this.....
>I was reading some group called something like sunyab.offline..
>..or something like that...and someone posted something about
>the first amendment going to the shitter at UB.....I posted this
>...." Subject: Fuck censorship
> Amendment 1"
>that was it.
>so this asshole sends me e-mail saying that I am harassing all
>UB vax users...etc....and that I should take that message off
>of that group......I sent him e-mail saying....." so are
>you saying that you will take my acct. away unless I do.."
>he said "yes...etc.".......I need help.....
>does anyone know the legality of his actions....
>Is there a precident......???
>Does anyone know of any cases involving colleges and this sort of
>thing????
>I need help soon...like right now....e-mail at once...
>while I still have my acct.....
>thanks in fucking advance................Don at UB
Although I'm not a lawyer, I think that because it is a state-funded
school, and because the state, like the federal gov't, cannot create
laws that abridge freedom of speech, the school cannot enforce this
rule. There have been cases where speech codes at schools have been
struck down as being uncostitutional.
For those who don't think that e-mail is covered by speech, there was a
recent posting about a historian who wants to document White House
e-mail. The response has been that e-mail is like a phone conversation,
which is usually not archived. Therefore they should not be documenting
it in history.
hope this helps.
-mark
sigs suck
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs, et al.] Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for you!)
Message-ID: <9204030254.AA22436@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 14:54:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
From: kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,alt.bbs.internet,comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for you!)
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.231419.28157@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com>
Date: 2 Apr 92 23:14:19 GMT
In article rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy) writes:
>> Although software piracy is almost impossible to stop, it is possible
>> to stop illegal postings to Usenet. That's what I was addressing;
>> materials illegally posted to Usenet.
>>
>> Sean
>
>Well, it seems to me you are just being a spoiler. I doubt this has
>affected you economically, at least not to any great extent, so why make
>such a big deal out of it. To be honest, adult gifs are the last thing
>I'd be interested in, but a lot of people are. If you offered your stuff
>for sale in a format similar to the one their using, I would have a lot
>more sympathy for your cause, since there was a more legit channel to go
>through. It still seems silly, and I would think you could find
>something better to complain about.
I have to agree with Rockerboy. Why should we be spoilers? And why
should we just stick to gifs? Why not post copyrighted software for
people to pirate off the net? Hell it won't effect me economically to
any great extent if we post software by microsoft, lotus, etc. Just
as long as you don't post any Unisys network management software to the
net I'll be just fine.
Anyone interested in voting on the group names for posting the
pirated software? Maybe we could have a heirarchy by computer type
and sofware manufacturer, like:
alt.piratedsoftware.ibmpc.lotus
alt.piratedsoftware.ibmpc.microsoft
alt.piratedsoftware.macintosh.adobe
alt.piratedsoftware.macintosh.apple
alt.piratedsoftware.unix.atandt
Hey this would probably just fall under "fair use" anyway. You're
allowed to make backup copies of commerial software, why not just
use the net as your backup device. That way if your office burns
down to the ground, you can just get the copy off of the net instead
of trying to put your burnt backup disks into your replacement pc.
Who cares if a side effect of this would be tempting thousands of
people to pirate it?
Damn, you know as electronic imaging becomes more popular, there
are going to be all kinds of new sales channels to buy the images
through. You know what that means, we'll have to start paying
for the images.
>"Sometimes what you say is going to fly right in the faces of the
>powerful people who really run this world, but you don't care...you know
>it's your place to challenge authority..."
Yeah, posting copyrighted software by microsoft might just make a
powerful person like Bill Gates pissed, but so what? And lets
screw the little guys like photographers too while we're at; and
we can laugh even harder because we know the little guy doesn't
have the financial or legal resources to do as much about it. Hey
we even get to laugh in the faces of the law makers with this one
too.
> Rockerboy
For all those peole who may be as dense as "Rockerboy", I'm just
joking!!!! 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken McFadden kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com
Unisys Corporation kjm@cnmsa.tredydev.unisys.com
P.O. Box 203 work: (215) 648-3742
Paoli, PA 19301 home: (215) 675-0382
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 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: <9204030255.AA22451@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 14:55:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
From: peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Apr3.013330.23763@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
Date: 3 Apr 92 01:33:30 GMT
Lee Story writes
. .
> I too detect a great likelihood that censorship is masquerading as
> cost-saving here. I'd bet that many students would contribute much
> more than $1 to receive the alt.* hierarchy, even stripped of
> useless, redundant and bloated groups like alt.sex.pictures.
If an institution decides that providing a full news feed is
not in their interest I don't see that we can "demand" that they
provide one. One the other hand, I would think that if the students
wanted to donate the money to their Student Society and have
them provide such a machine then there is a free speech issue
if the institution refuses to allow the machine on the net
or tries to control which groups are allowed on the machine.
Well-informed consumers can always "vote with their feet" and
refuse to attend institutions that don't provide you with a
news feed, if it's that important to you. The way I have always
explained it to people is that you are entitled to free speech,
but I'm not obliged to buy you the soapbox.
For example, anyone who wants access to the Internet can pay CERFnet
$20 per month and $10/hour to access a user code through a 1-800
from anywhere in the U.S. If your university would not let you make
the call you'd have a complaint. That doesn't mean they have to pay
your subscription to CERFnet just to get you news.
My own experience with this issue comes from running a "non-sponsored"
Internet link into our Comp. Sci. department for several years
which our Comp. Centre (and institution as a whole) refused to fund.
I was charged with providing user codes (and thus Usenet, etc) only to
ugrads enrolled in our courses and all Comp. Sci. grad students and
profs. I was abused at the end of each semester by those I had to
kick off and by those I refused codes. The feeling was that it was
such a useful service that I was obliged to provide it to all. As
I funded the entire Internet link with "creative bookkeeping" and
fancy footwork I never took these entreaties as seriously as the
supplicants would have liked.
This is not to say that I believe that denying access to the Internet
is a "good thing". After several years of pushing the Comp. Centre
now provides access to the Internet for departments and two
weeks ago (!!) we finally inaugurated a campus-wide news feed.
Still, there are no campus-wide terminal facilities open to all
comers. Each department is expected to fund their own computer
labs. If yours doesn't want to provide one you can change majors,
enroll in strategic courses in other departments or change
institutions.
A bad policy? Perhaps. And there are mechanisms to have such policies
changed. I once suggested to a student who _really_ wanted news
access that he spearhead a funding drive through the Student Society
to buy a machine for general access to Internet services. He complained
that it would take so long that he'd have graduated by the time
the machine was up and running. Told me where his priorities were.
In closing, I am _not_ trying to duck potential cases of censorship,
but I think we do have to keep things in perspective. Despite what
some people seem to be insisting running a Usenet feed is not just
a matter of finding a spare $1,000 and a machine from which to hang
the disk. This may be true if you were the only person to read news,
but on a campus of 25,000 people you need to worry about Usenet admin,
backups, the load that the feed (and newsreading by thousands of
people a day) will place on both the network and the host machine.
At a large institution I'd recommend a dedicated machine, and that's
going to cost well over $10,000 to set up. There reaches a point where
such services are not a "marginal" increase on existing hardware.
> Only in our wonderful polity would the customers who pay up to
> $100,000 for four years of mediocre and disdainful "educational"
> services be referred to as "suck-at-the-public-teat .edu students".
> I'm tempted to use some strong language at the officious Mr.Deignan.
To be fair, when I went to a publicly funded community college in
California I was only paying a fraction of the cost of my education.
The rest was paid from the collective pockets of Californian taxpayers.
I wouldn't use his harsh words, but I read Mr. Deigan's crack to
mean that people who were not paying the full cost of a service
do not necessarily have the right to still demand full service.
There really is no such thing as a free lunch and those paying the
bills have some say as to what goes on the menu. If you don't
like that, open your own restaurant....
- peterd
From caf-talk Caf Apr 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Apr3.042601.14428@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 04:26:01 GMT
del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes:
}entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
}>You can run quite a respectable news service on a $1000 300Mb disk, thank you
}A) You are talking about desktop PC prices here. For a mini-computer as would
} normally be running a University news system, the cost is much, much more.
} Especially if you add in the monthly cost for the maintenance contract.
} (To the guy who claimed he had done budgets for computer centers and
} insisted SCSI disks were cheap - bogus. Big iron computers don't use
} SCSI because the throughput ain't there.)
Fact: We run a NNTP news server for >600 machines, >6000 users on a
system with SCSI disks.
Fact: We pay < $3/MB for disk.
Fact: Our maintenance costs average less than 5% of purchase cost.
Fact: I deal with a multi-million dollar/yr budget.
Fact: Our `big iron' mainframe reads news from this system.
}B) 300Mb is not 'quite a respectable news service'. 300Mb will get you about
} 4 days of news if you take a full feed and expire everything equally. I
} run 400Mb dedicated to news on my desktop PC, and I force expire of all
} the 'junk' groups (my judgement) at half a day.
Fact: we are using about 600MB for news with expiring at 3, 2, & 1, 1/2
week(s) depending on hierarchy.
}C) There is more to running news than just the disk space. I spend more time
} dicking around with the alt.* groups than with *ALL* the other groups
} combined!
Fact: Our news admin wrote scripts to automate `dicking' with alt groups
(now he leads a normal productive life :-)
}D) While the disk space to keep the alt.* groups may not be high, it may be
} more than the value of the information. alt.* groups have almost no
} value when taken as a whole.
Pretty humorous, considering I'm reading this in an alt group.
John
From caf-talk Caf Apr 3 00:00:00 1992
From: vadim@informix.com (Vadim Temkin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.cis,soc.culture.soviet,talk.politics.cis,talk.politics.soviet,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.msdos.programmer
Subject: The First Independent Newspaper for Programmers in the Ex-USSR !
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Apr 92 00:13:41 GMT
"3.30+" - the name of the first independent newspaper for programmers. Two
issues were published in Minsk (capital of Belorus and Commonwealth of
Independent States). 10,000 copies of these issues (2 x 5,000) easily
found their way to wast programming community of the ex-Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, enthusiastic founders of the newspaper have no enough
financial and technical resources to continue ...
Does anyone in the world of computers have an idea how to help the
new-born baby ?
If you want to browse already published issues we'll be happy to mail
you a copy. Do you read Russian ?
Arkady Zalan (arkady@informix.com)
Vadim Temkin (vadim@informix.com)
From caf-talk Caf Apr 3 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: <9204031441.AA25026@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 02:41:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 3 00:00:00 1992
From: pollock@milton.u.washington.edu (Joe Pollock)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <1992Apr3.043718.24178@u.washington.edu>
Date: 3 Apr 92 04:37:18 GMT
Small aside here; I've been following this discussion for a while, and I'm
a bit confused. Are we trying to argue a social problem on technical
grounds? I've picked up hints that some people have more problems with
the *users* than with the *resources*. Is there a reluctance to deal with
what is a subtle, subjective social problem rather than a quantifiable
technical one? I'm not saying it IS a social problem, just that I'm
suspecting that one may exist.
At this time, I haven't had to deal with this one, but will in the near
future.
Anyone up for a discussion of the intersection of system administration
and campus social policy?
pollock@u.washington.edu | "Brock Adams likes spotted owls and
| young chicks"
|
| Hamilton Farms Sign, I-5, Centralia, WA
From caf-talk Caf Apr 3 00:00:00 1992
From: gws6860@tamsun.tamu.edu (Gary Wayne "Goober" Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <11789@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Date: 3 Apr 92 20:58:13 GMT
In article <1992Apr02.030630.17856@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
--But then again, should we expect nothing less from a suck-at-the-public-teat
--.edu user?
You seem to be stuck on this theme...I'll just point out that the fees that
we have to pay at A&M include computer-related fees. We pay a lab fee
for any class that includes a lab, including a computer lab...this is
most all C.S. courses. In addition, *all* A&M students pay a seperate
computer-use fee, regardless of what classes they are taking: english,
computer science, or underwater basketweaving. We seem to have fairly
open-minded news-support people, too.
- gary (i like teats) smith
--
Racism Sucks!
From caf-talk Caf Apr 3 00:00:00 1992
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <1992Apr04.003809.29084@anomaly.sbs.com>
Date: 4 Apr 92 00:38:09 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I think you are on firm ground here.
I think you're on shakey ground.
First, you don't know what the post said (funny how that was "mysteriously"
omitted from the cry of "censorship").
Although expression of ideas are protected, some forms of "free speech" are
not. For instance, I cannot yell "fire!" in a theatre. Nor can I post an
article which says "Let's kick the shit outta some fuckin' queers!" which
clearly advocates violence against another person or group of people.
>(The end of this note includes extensive references to on-line
>material in the Computers and Academic Freedom [CAF] archive.)
So does just about everything you post.
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 Apr 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <1992Apr4.081838.29273@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1992 08:18:38 GMT
In article <1992Apr04.003809.29084@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com
(Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> >I think you are on firm ground here.
>
> I think you're on shakey ground.
Because of your use of "you" in the next sentence, I imagine you
are refering to Carl here, even though the structure of your sentence
appears to indicate Don.
> First, you don't know what the post said (funny how that was
> "mysteriously" omitted from the cry of "censorship").
Don asked for suggestions; someone in that situation has it in hir
best interest to include the relevant portions. Leaving out some
important quote when asking for help wouldn't help him, and I don't see
why you are being so caustically suspicious.
> Although expression of ideas are protected, some forms of "free speech"
> are not. For instance, I cannot yell "fire!" in a theatre. Nor can I
> post an article which says "Let's kick the shit outta some fuckin'
> queers!" which clearly advocates violence against another person or
> group of people.
Well, okay, let's look at non-protected speech, starting off with
the "'Fire!' in a theatre" topic:
From a post to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk: (Sorry, I don't have
the author's name anymore; it might be Carl.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first case was Schenck v. United States (249 US 47; 39 S. Ct 247;
63 L. Ed 470 (1919)), decided a week before Debs. The opinion was
written by Holmes.
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
falsely shouting fire in a theatre, and causing a panic. It does not
even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may
have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether
the words used are used in such circumstances and are of a nature as
to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a
question of proximity and degree."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a post that most certainly is Carl's:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this will help folks understand where the line lies.
(This response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill
of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression.)
In 1919 the Court agreed that there was no right to speech
that advocated violence. Indeed, it want even farther saying that any
speech that had a 'tendency' to cause a volation of the law could be
punished. This principle was used to convict a Socialist for mailing
antiwar leaflets.
In 1925 the Court established stronger speech protections, stating
that speech could not be punished unless it presented 'a clear a
present danger' of imminent harm. In 1931, this was used to overturn a
conviction based on a California law. That law make it illegal to
publically salute a red flag -- the symbol of (violent) revolution.
In 1950's during the second Red Scare, the Court backtracked saying
that the clear-and-present-danger principle did not apply to speakers
who advocated overthorwing the government, no matter how remote the
danger of such an occurrence might be. (This paved the way for jailing
policitial activists, loyalty oaths, etc).
In the 1969 case of Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down
the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism
law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or
punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action'
and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First
Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence. The
Brandenberg test is the law today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not at all clear that even posting a hate-article would pass
such a test; there are problems with both spatial and temporal proximity,
as well as intent and likeliness. However, it's not at all clear that
Don's article contained such material.
> >(The end of this note includes extensive references to on-line
> >material in the Computers and Academic Freedom [CAF] archive.)
>
> So does just about everything you post.
It is too bad you appear to be antagonistic because Mr. Kadie uses
references, quotes from documents that actually Mean Things, and even goes
so far as to assist you in helping check to make sure he's right.
> 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 /
--
David E. Hollingsworth
starpath@bard.mit.edu
NeXTMail: yummy
From caf-talk Caf Apr 4 00:00:00 1992
From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Apr4.060001.20329@alphalpha.com>
Date: 4 Apr 92 06:00:01 GMT
In article jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>Or you can get a 600 meg disk for $1300. (Bare Fujitsu 680 meg formatted
>drive which yields around a 620 meg unix type filesystem. 5 year warranty.)
People keep saying things like this. Could someone please give me a phone
number that I can call to get at 600meg external drive (with power supply
and compatible with Sun's brain-dead SCSI drivers) for $1300? I'm serious
here, I certainly haven't ever seen any.
--
Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere
617/497-2922 | info@alfalfa.com
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 4 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
Message-ID: <1992Apr3.114333.17989@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 11:43:33 EST
In article <1992Apr2.022739.26045@colorado.edu> bear@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>>>It already is. Try calling a female black coworker a "nigger cunt"
>>>and see what happens. As I recall, these laws were derived from
>>>the principle of "human dignity," which holds (among other things)
>>>that you should not be ridiculed/ostracized/prejudiced for things
>>>beyond your control such as race, gender, national origin, religious
>>>beliefs, etc.
>>[...]
>>
>>You recall incorrectly. The laws were derived from an effort to stop
>>sexual (and racial) discrimination in the work place. They apply only
>>to work places. They do not apply to all forums. They do not apply all
>>things beyond your control (for example, they do not apply to
>>intelligence). They do not apply to all forms of ostracization, etc.
Having read the Meritor decison, I agree. I don't recall anything about
"human dignity" being the basis for that decision.
>Why should society want to stop sexual/racial discrimination?
>After all, plenty of people were quite happy with the previous
>environment.... That is where "human dignity" comes in. (For
>CS types: imagine a tree structure with "human dignity" at the
>root with "freedom from discrimination in the workplace" on
>one brance, "freedom of speech" on another, "freedom of worship"
>on a third, etc).
>
>Most government agencies (EEOC, Dept. of Labor) are concerned with
>discrimination in the work place, but that is not the only place.
>State universities are another area with anti-discrimination laws.
>_Private_ universities are another, if their students receive
>Federal student financial aid. (I don't agree with the logic in
>the last case, but last I heard it was being upheld).
You have a mistaken understanding. Anti-discrimination laws apply
to the *university* itself--no to the individual students who may
attend, for example. Universities that receive any form of federal
financial aid (including aid to students--although few schools receive
*only* this form of federal aid) are explicitly subjected to regulation
by various civil rights acts (e.g., the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, etc...)
There is even an effort underway to require all federally-aided universities
to uphold free speech/expression rights at the level required of public
institutions. (Aside--does anyone know the current status of that bill?)
But you are absolutely wrong about the Meritor decision applying to
universities, in general. First of all, the Meritor decision applies only
to *employees* (typically, supervisors) in their role as agents of the
employer. Secondly, anti-hate speech codes have (at least) twice been
struck down at the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin.
In one of the decisions (sorry, I can't recall which, offhand), the decision
explicitly stated that the principle of Meritor was not applicable to an
academic environment.
You need to distinguish between what you would *like* for the law to be
(or what you *assume*, through some logic of your own, the law to be), and
what the law actually is.
--
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 Apr 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <1992Apr5.181423.8403@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 18:14:23 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
[...]
>First, you don't know what the post said (funny how that was "mysteriously"
>omitted from the cry of "censorship").
[...]
I guess you missed it. Here is the original post again.
- Carl
========================
From: v115qha3@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Donald R Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <1992Apr1.222555.12052@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 92 22:27:00 GMT
The CONSULTANT at UB is going to take MY VAX acct. away
unless I "unpost" a post that I posted to one of our
news groups.......The story goes like this.....
I was reading some group called something like sunyab.offline..
..or something like that...and someone posted something about
the first amendment going to the shitter at UB.....I posted this
...." Subject: Fuck censorship
Amendment 1"
that was it.
so this asshole sends me e-mail saying that I am harassing all
UB vax users...etc....and that I should take that message off
of that group......I sent him e-mail saying....." so are
you saying that you will take my acct. away unless I do.."
he said "yes...etc.".......I need help.....
does anyone know the legality of his actions....
Is there a precident......???
Does anyone know of any cases involving colleges and this sort of
thing????
I need help soon...like right now....e-mail at once...
while I still have my acct.....
thanks in fucking advance................Don at UB
--
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 Apr 5 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: <9204051835.AA04489@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 08:35:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <1992Apr3.161255.2704@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 21:12:55 GMT
a0s5108@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Neal and Mara Priestly) writes:
|If Joe Random User has such a problem he should address it at his site.
|Umass had the problem of actually getting a telnet port for legitimate
|system needs. The Ops Manager looked at who was using the ports for what
|and determined that the problem was muds. Myself and a friend concurred
|with his analysis *as wizes of a mud we were playtesting* and agreed with
|his solution. Our mud is gone. (OK, I lied, Pid has it on 2 tapes, and
|I have it on 2 tapes.) And telnet is restricted between 8am and 5pm local.
|You can only access the 'default' ports during these hours.
This is not a reasonable or forward looking solution. There are a
substantial number of non-game-related Internet services accessable by
telnetting to a specific port. And there will be more, many more, in
the future.
A better solution is to instruct the mud players to stop, and if they
don't, use due process on them. Don't punish people who wish to use
academic resources because some people play muds.
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 Apr 5 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 from Cornell...
Message-ID: <9204051908.AA04641@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 09:08:13 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 5 00:00:00 1992
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: News from Cornell...
Message-ID: <1992Apr4.203135.20879@panix.com>
Date: 4 Apr 92 20:31:35 GMT
There are several issues this case raises.
The first is "was the user's privacy violated by having the system
administrator's track his logins?" I would have to say no, as many
users of multi-user computer systems know how to get a listing of
who is on the system. Since this knowledge is fairly common, the user
had no reasonable expectation of privacy. If there is no expectation
of privacy, there can be no violation of privacy.
The forgery allegation is a bit silly; the administrator wasn't trying
to pass the messages off to anyone as being from the user, and the
administrator knew what the messages meant.
Possible legitimate complaints would be harassment or maybe even "chilling
effect" of the activity on the user's speech (Cornell does receive federal
funding, after all). But on the facts presented in the Sun article, these
would be a stretch, indeed. I can't make a case for it, anybody else want
to try?
--
Steve Barber sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of
generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.bi] Re: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <9204051932.AA04681@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 09:32:28 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 5 00:00:00 1992
From: SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <92094.043101SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Date: 3 Apr 92 03:31:01 GMT
Well, here's the latest on the situation.
Firstly, I have been rebuked for posting the original article here, rather
than to a locally distributed group. On reflection, I'm inclined to agree
that telling the world about a local administrative issue was not such a
wonderful idea.
The arguments from the Computer Lab are as follows.
1. The current news software on the main research machine (an IBM
3081) is only just keeping up with the volume of news. The expiry
times are an attempt to make the best use of limited resources.
2. Users of the IBM 3081 sign a form which contains the clause:
"Information (including software) accessed by use of the Computer facilities
may be used only for University purposes (University teaching, research, and
administration)."
In the eyes of the Computer Lab, this means that they are not obliged
to carry any soc.* or rec.* groups at all. In other words, the
objection to soc.bi is on the grounds of its content, but is not a
direct discrimination agains bisexuality.
This all seems fair enough; had those reasons been offered in the first place
instead of a flat refusal, I would not have been so annoyed.
To the person who said that complaining was not the best action (sorry, I've
lost the attribution - it comes of reading news on one machine & preparing
articles on another): I agree. Posting directly to soc.bi was effective, in
as much as it motivated several local readers to mail the Computer Lab, but a
private correspondence with the Computer Lab staff concerned, coupled with a
post to a local newsgroup would probably have been a better use of network
resources. I apologise for this.
One final point. I believe that the University does have a non-
discrimination clause in its constitution, although I'm not sure of the exact
wording. However, a refusal to extend the expiry time of soc.bi from 3 days
to 7 probably does not count as discrimination. Were soc.bi to be banned
from the IBM, or posting to the group prevented, then a violation of the
non-discrimination clause could be deemed to have been made.
As has already been mentioned, the answer is to login frequently & try to keep
up to date.
Should any developments of note occur, I shall summarise them here, but
otherwise, it may be better to let the thread drop.
Thankyou to those who have posted/mailed me on this subject.
Paul Gould, sbit37@uxb.liv.ac.uk
Dept of Biochemistry,
University of Liverpool
From caf-talk Caf Apr 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society] Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <9204052028.AA04847@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 10:28:15 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 5 00:00:00 1992
From: nolan@tssi.com (Michael Nolan)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1992Apr4.050354.13778@tssi.com>
Date: 4 Apr 92 05:03:54 GMT
tjlee@iastate.edu (Tom Lee) writes:
> Hello; I'm a student at Iowa State University. Right before
>finals week last semester, the computation center instituted a new
>Usenet policy. Newsgroups dealing with sex and drugs were made
>unavailable on all systems on campus. Those few people who ran their
>own machines could fill out a form and get access for their machine, but
>most students don't own workstations, let alone VAX's. If a student has
>an account on the oldest, hardest to use machine on campus, then that
>student can also fill out a form and get access, although without
>benefit of any sort of easy-to-use newsreader. Furthermore, there is
>obviously a list somewhere of people who have requested access to these
>restricted newsgroups.
[Additional remarks and Policy Statement deleted]
As one who has been watching the University of Nebraska-Lincoln struggle
with newsgroup access questions, I find the Iowa State University policy
substantially more enlightened than the one which surfaced virtually without
warning at UNL a month ago.
As I understand the ISU policy statement, access to all of the 'big 7'
groups is pretty easy, and access to the restricted subset of the alt
groups is possible, but perhaps inconvenient. (I guess this depends on
how difficult it is to get access to the systems which permit access to
the restricted groups, which is not indicated in either the student's post
or the policy statement.)
I find the argument that there is a list of those who have requested access
to the restricted groups specious. There are likely lists of what books
I have checked out from the library, and what videotapes I have rented
from my local video store, but I don't see that decreasing library usage
and video stores aren't closing by the thousands. There is also probably
a list (at least temporarily) of who you have sent e-mail to, sendmail
and smail both maintain a log of these things. Playboy not only maintains
a mailing list but will sell it to virtually anybody who has the money.
(Although it is possible to be excluded from such list sales, I've always
wondered what percentage of their subscribers do so.)
The ISU policy statement seems to recognize the anarchical nature of
USENET, where offensive or even possibly illegal posts can be made to
inappropriate and otherwise innocuous groups and then disseminated worldwide
in hours if not minutes, and of the virtual impossibility of policing
the groups. It recognizes that there are people who only want access to the
'serious' groups and don't want to be bothered with even rec. It
acknowledges the evolving state of newsreaders, and the ever-growing
number of people, within and outside of academia, who have net access.
I tend to disagree with ISU's assessment of the current state of news
software; it should be possible to automatically keep new users from
inadvertently accessing restricted groups, by tagging them as 'unsubscribed'
initially. Similarly, readers wanting only the 'serious' subset can have the
entire rec hierarchy unsubscribed, and could even have their profile or rc
files set to not automatically add new groups. (A local newsgroup could
inform users of new groups and give them the option to subscribe to them.)
I think most UNL students would happily trade the ISU policy for the one
that they now have. I am more on the side of the ISU administration on
this one, although I hope that students and administrators can pursue this
further in an atmosphere of enlightened and dispassionate reasoning, not
of polemics and inflammatory rhetoric.
As institutions, academic and otherwise, struggle with emerging information
technologies, which Usenet typifies, these disagreements will continue.
I note that ISU, unlike UNL, is facing the question of access to newsgroups
as a function of their content and not just a question of economics of
news storage or CPU usage, although these are also issues which have
their place in any organization that does not have unlimited funds, which
in the long run is all of them. I find the ISU policy more one of informed
consent than censorship.
---
Michael Nolan
nolan@tssi.com
From caf-talk Caf Apr 5 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <9204052055.AA04959@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 10:55:32 GMT
nolan@tssi.com (Michael Nolan) writes:
[...]
>I find the argument that there is a list of those who have requested access
>to the restricted groups specious. There are likely lists of what books
>I have checked out from the library, and what videotapes I have rented
>from my local video store, but I don't see that decreasing library usage
>and video stores aren't closing by the thousands.
"The ethical responsibilities of librarians, as well as statutes in
most states and the District of Columbia, protect the privacy of
library users." -- American Library Association's "Policy Concerning
Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information about Library
Users". (The full policy is available on-line. Access information is
at the end of this note.)
If your library is like most, it does not keep a record of the books
you check out. The importance of this policy was reinforced when the
FBI started going on warrantless "fishing expeditions". (For more
information see John O. Christensen's _The FBI, libraries, and the
library awareness program controversy: selected references_, 1990.
As for videotapes, a federal law requires that the video store keep
this information confidential. The videostore is liable for breaches
confidentiality.
[...]
>I find the ISU policy more one of informed consent than censorship.
[...]
The American Library Association's "Statement on Labeling" addresses
this:
================================================
STATEMENT ON LABELING
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Labeling is the practice of describing or designating materials by affixing a
prejudicial label and/or segregating them by a prejudicial system. The
American Library Association opposes these means of predisposing people's
attitudes toward library materials for the following reasons:
1. Labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
censor's tool.
2. Some find it easy and even proper, according to their ethics, to
establish criteria for judging publications as objectionable. However,
injustice and ignorance rather than justice and enlightenment result
from such practices, and the American Library Association opposes the
establishment of such criteria.
3. Libraries do not advocate the ideas found in their collections. The
presence of books and other resources in a library does not indicate
endorsement of their contents by the library.
A variety of private organizations promulgate rating systems and/or review
materials as a means of advising either their members or the general public
concerning their opinions of the contents and suitability or appropriate age
for use of certain books, films, recordings, or other materials. For the
library to adopt or enforce any of these private systems, to attach such
ratings to library materials, to include them in bibliographic records,
library catalogs, or other finding aids, or otherwise to endorse them would
violate the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
While some attempts have been made to adopt these systems into law, the
constitutionality of such measures is extremely questionable. If such
legislation is passed which applies within a library's jurisdiction, the
library should seek competent legal advice concerning its applicability to
library operations.
Publishers, industry groups, and distributors sometimes add ratings to
material or include them as part of their packaging. Librarians should not
endorse such practices. However, removing or obliterating such ratings -- if
placed there by or with permission of the copyright holder -- could constitute
expurgation, which is also unacceptable.
The American Library Association opposes efforts which aim at closing any path
to knowledge. This statement, however, does not exclude the adoption of
organizational schemes designed as directional aids or to facilitate access to
materials.
Adopted July 13, 1951. Amended June 25, 1971; July 1, 1981; June 26, 1990, by
the ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
====================================
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/confidentiality.1.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Policy on Confidentiality of
Library Records"
=================
library/confidentiality.1.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Policy on Confidentiality of
Library Records"
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send library-policies confidentiality.1.ala
send library-policies confidentiality.1.ala
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/library/confidentiality.1.ala
pub/academic/library/confidentiality.1.ala
