From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 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: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 11:40:40 GMT
In <1992Apr4.060001.20329@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>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.
Several people have asked me in email about this too, so I guess it is
a pretty burning question. Here is how I answered email queries, with
some additional information. Sorry for getting off topic; this is only
because of popular demand.
The price is from the current ads for MacDirect. They advertise
in MacWorld, MacWeek, and probably other Mac magazines as well.
The current issue of MacWorld lists it for $1288. We currently
have one of these in our Sun 4/330 system. When our Wren IV
drive bit the dust last fall, I found that the best prices for
SCSI drives were in the Mac periodicals. The MacDirect price
includes formatting, cabling, brackets and other paraphenalia
for sticking it in a Mac system, and I was able to talk them down
in price about $50 for just the drive itself. They delivered it
promptly, charging a very reasonable amount for overnight shipping,
and included the brief technical manual for the drive explaining
all the jumper options (if you stick this on a non-sync Sun, all
you need to do is take out the sync jumper). It comes with a
5 year warranty and has a MTBF of 200,000 hours. They were also
very patient in dealing with our picky accounting office when
trying to sort out getting the purchase order through. We bought
it with both cost and longevity in mind, since we don't pay for
service contracts. It's a nice fast drive, and the only drawback
is that it is 'chatty', but it's not too bad.
As you can see, for the bare drive itself you will pay around $1250
with shipping (assuming you can get the price break I did) for just
the bare drive. They also sell it in an external case with power
supply for $1388, but I believe that the interface would be the
centronics type connector, not DB50. For a Sun system you'd have to
invest in the proper cable to connect it, which should cost you
around $50. Again, the drive comes with Mac paraphenalia, so you
might be able to talk them down in price a little. In any case,
for $1500 at most you could connect this to your system if your
system supports SCSI, or as low as about $1250 if you have an open
drive bay (5.25" full height).
MacDirect's number is 1-800-621-8467. From a quick scan of the
current MacWorld, this still looks like the best deal in this size
range. There are other vendors with good prices listed, so you
might want to pick up a copy of a Mac magazine and see for yourself.
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 | "when you gonna make up your mind?
(805) 893-4113 | when you gonna love you as much
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | as i do?" -Tori Amos
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin, et al.] EMAIL PRIVACY SUMMARY
Message-ID: <9204061433.AA07189@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 04:33:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.privacy,comp.admin.policy
From: simong@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (simon alexander gregory)
Subject: EMAIL PRIVACY SUMMARY
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 06:02:39 GMT
Due to the vast number of responses I received to my offer of a
summary, I have decided to post the article, rather then mail it out
individually. The summary is as follows :
ELECTRONIC MAIL ETHICS - Questionnaire Summary on EMAIL PRIVACY.
----------------------------------------------------------------
By: Simon. Gregory. (April 1992)
--------------------------------
Author Profile:
---------------
Name : Simon. Gregory.
Occupation: Student
Course : Science/Engineering (3rd year)
Email: simong@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au
Institution: University of Melbourne
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Disclaimer:
-----------
This article does not, in any way, attempt to express my own or Melbourne
University's opinions on this issue. It is simply an impartial summary
of some feelings expressed within the computing community.
Abstract:
---------
Email privacy is an issue which is currently the subject of much debate.
Should electronic mail be treated with the same respect as traditional
'snail mail', or should it be viewed in a completely different light?
Just what are the rights of the postmaster, or the owner of the system
on which electronic mail is being sent? - Is it really necessary for
them to have the ability to read the text of any message they choose?
There are no definite answers to these questions, and there probably never
will be, however one thing is for certain : as our Society becomes
increasingly more reliant on computers, the issue which will not
disappear, or reduce in significance, but rather become an important
and integral aspect of our future lives.
Introduction:
-------------
The following letter was placed on the world-wide news network, in the
groups : comp.admin.policy, comp.risks and comp.society :
I am currently engaged in an assignment based on the pros and
cons of the monitoring of email systems, and the opinions of
various different groups of people regarding this sensitive issue.
I would appreciate any forthcoming replies, giving information or
opinions on the topic. Please include your occupation with your
reply.
As a general guide, I include the following questions:
1) Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
to look at the text of an article?
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?
3) Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
widely known and accepted?
4) Would it be more acceptable if people were made aware
of when and on what systems reading of mail by an outside party
could occur?
Your cooperation would greatly be appreciated,
Thankyou.
Simon. Gregory.
Within a few hours, I had been (happily) inundated with responses,
apparently demonstrating a keen interest, and possibly a little concern,
over the issue of Email Privacy.
The eventual response to my letter (after being posted for 3 working days)
totaled over 8000 lines of text, spread between well over 50 respondents. The following is a summary of the general ideas expressed, and trends
illustrated within the replies.
Who Responded :
---------------
Respondents were from all over the World, with (predictively) the
majority coming from the U.S.A. There were also many replies from
Australia and the U.K.. There were a multitude of other countries
involved, two of the more noteable (or unexpected) being Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia.
There was also a wide diversity of occupations. Systems Administrators,
Postmasters and Students were by far the most common, however employees
of companies using email were also represented, in addition to several
employers and owners of systems. A wide overview of opinions was thus
obtained.
Thankyou :
----------
I would like to express my gratitude to all of the respondents to my
request for assistance, without whom this would not have been possible.
TEXT :
------
Should the postmaster, or others have the right or ability
----------------------------------------------------------
to look at the text of an article [email letter] ?
--------------------------------------------------
There was a general consensus that both the Postmaster and the System
Administrator currently have the ABILITY to examine the contents of any
Electronic Mail that comes through their system. (although some
Postmasters claimed to have installed certain protection routines
to prevent them from doing so. They no doubt have the ability to
override this, however). A heated debate erupted, however, over
whether this power should continue to exist, and for what reasons.
Respondents can (approximately) be divided into three main groups :
- Students at Universities.
- Postmasters, System Administrators, and owners or
managers of computer systems.
- Other users. (employees etc.)
Perhaps predictively, each group seemed to have the same characteristic
opinion expressed by the vast majority of respondents within that
group.
Many students expressed their opposition to the monitoring of email
IN ANY FORM, and not only opposed the RIGHT of a postmaster to look
at mail, but also challenged whether the ABILITY should continue to
exist.
Some compared the email to traditional 'pen and paper' type mail, with
one Computer Science graduate stating :
"[email] should be given at least the same treatment that First
Class mail is given in the US: The address of the sender and
receiver can be noted (and any info on the outside of the
envelope), but the envelope cannot be opened."
This opinion was echoed by others :
" If we are going to establish a tradition where people use
email like they use regular mail, they must have the EXPECTATION
of privacy. Granted, people know that regular mail can be
intercepted, steamed open and read, but they also know that this
is illegal (unless a warrant has been issued). Unless we
establish the same legal protection for email as regular mail,
we relegate it to a situation where unknown administrators,
with unknown rules, and unknown accountability can take whatever
action they feel needed for "technical purposes." This is a
shaky way to establish a new form of communication."
Another student, having been a system manager in the past, pointed
out that :
"you have a system operator providing a service to his users.
He may well own the machine, so why should there be areas of
the machine that he may not probe etc. If information is being
passed which is detrimental to his system security (for example),
then surely he should be able to read this??"
However, he concludes (with his own opinion) :
"Email is quickly become a important (and potentially the most
important) form of communication around the world. I think it
is imperetive that the information and views expressed and
shared between two users should be respected and that meer
citizens (ie. those not enpowered by the state) should not be
legally allowed to intercept and read these messages."
One Student clarified the question :
"I do not think that anyone should have the right to arbitrarily
monitor e-mail. If the systems policy CLEARLY states that
e-mail will be monitored then the user of the account has given
up this right."
While students appeared to be overwhelmingly opposed to email monitoring,
general users and employees seemed to take a more moderate approach,
with a wide range of opinions being expressed.
A Ph.D working at the University of Mississippi was of the opinion that:
"The ability to look at email on the system should be to allow
the SysAd to solve user problems AT THE INVITATION OF THE USER."
And :
"[eventually] Postmasters will not be able to look at the "inside
of the envelope" no matter how hard they try. They should get
used to only being able to see headers, because regardless of the
ethics involved, technically it will be [made to be] impossible."
This was supported by an Acedemic Systems Consultant :
"I think this whole issue will disappear quite soon,
pending the widespread acceptance of public-key cryptography
standards and the wide availability of software that can take
advantage of such. With such software, the body of a message
would always be encrypted with the recipient's public key, and
privacy would be ensured. Sometimes technology can pre-empt
policy!"
One respondent points out :
"in reality, they [postmasters] do need the ability [to read
mail], since oftimes the only way to figure out what is going
wrong with a piece of mail is to look in the file that contains
it to examine the headers. In a situation like that, it is
very difficult to avoid seeing at least SOME of the text of
the message."
Some came out in support of owner/operators of systems having the
right to examine mail, due to them paying for the service. In one
letter, I was urged to consider the following :
"- who is paying for the email facility?
- what is the potential damage that can be done to/by the
email user?"
This person continued :
"if the postmaster is the person responsible for the email
facility at the institution that pays for the facility,
then you can't expect privacy."
And concluded :
"Now suppose you're an individual who subscribes to email and
pays for it. In this case, you'd like to be protected from
people flooding your mailbox with nonsense."
Many also differentiated between computer systems in different settings,
generally leaning towards monitoring of academic mail, due to this
being an environment in which system 'vandalism' is most likely to
occur. Email, they believed, could often reveal such actions before
any damage was done.
System Administrators, on the other hand, generally came out in favour
of monitoring email, although to various different extents.
One states:
"[postmasters should have the ability to read email] to find out
who the mail should be forwarded to. Just like the postoffice
can open undeliverable mail to find out where to send it to."
A slightly stronger viewpoint :
"[I] really don't think "right" enters into it since the
system administrators are the one's that, in effect, own the
machine. It is a pragmatic issue, not one that should be
looked at with any more importance than that, UNLESS the owners
and/or administrators of the system have guaranteed the privacy
of such communications. In the absence of any such assurance
or guarantee, I believe the participants of a conversation via
someone else's machine should not *expect* any such privacy."
There were many different views of the postmasters actual role, with
many Postmasters also being System Administrators, and therefore having
significant concern over potential damage to the system.
Some were of the opinion that :
"the postmaster's sole role is to insure the smooth delivery
of mail."
And that Postmasters should :
"1. Hear and see no evil [do not look]
2. Speak no evil [if you have to look or see accidentally,
never divulge what you see]"
As another put it :
"I believe that if you treat the medium with the same respect
afforded to a private conversation or phone conversation you
will find the answers to your ethical questions have already
been resolved. A systems administrator is in essence a postal
worker with an undetectable letter opener."
Others felt that it was their prime responsibility to prevent potential
damage to the system.
As one replied :
"as an administrator at a government computing facility, I
have to prevent the use of my machines for illegal purposes.
This, I consider, gives me the right to read any mail that
I see fit."
Not everyone fully opposed or supported email privacy. One person
in particular came up with a potential solution to the problem,
which was that :
"certain sites sign on as "secure" routing facilities,
guaranteeing that messages routed through their systems will
not be inspected. Once a database of "secure" sites is
established, then the software (such as the pathalias database)
could be modified to accept a "secure" flag to route only via
those sites at the expense of connectivity or time. Many sites
with limited resources (such as ours) would be reluctant to agree
to such statement, and they (we) could be excluded from the
"secure" listing, but included in a (probably larger) listing
that could be used for non-secure routing."
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?
--------------------------
In general the copying of a computer assignment was not considered to
be sufficiently important to warrant a sacrifice of privacy :
"i would favour full rights to the postamster to examine and
take action on user mail, as far as it relates to the safety
and well being of the system. anything outside of that (for
eg., copying assignments) is something i think, that falls
outisde [outside] the jurisdiction of the postmaster."
Potentially damaging or illegal information, however, was viewed in
a completely different light. Many felt that, in some cases, one's
personal privacy should be sacrificed for the common good :
"if an offence is uncovered, it should be dealt with,
regardless of how the information was acquired. But if the
information was acquired unethically, *another* offence
(acquiring information unethically) has been committed, and
this offender should be dealt with as well."
One respondent compared the "sending of hacking information or viruses
by email" to "passing national secrets via telephone." and argued that
since, in this case a phone tap would be authorised, similar measures
should be permissible with email, assuming that there is sufficient
evidence of such misbehaviour.
Another compared it to the "real" Post Office :
"if I cannot deliver a package, I open it to see whom it is
intended to go to. If I happen to discover some rather
raunchy pictures, that's no business of mine. (IMO) However,
if I discover explosives, I'm at LEAST going to contact
my supervisor for further instructions! If it's obviously
rigged for detonation, call the police. SOMEONE has committed
a serious crime, and I have knowledge of it. As a good
citizen, I believe that I should report it."
Others, however, were opposed to the sacrifice of privacy, under
any circumstances :
"the postmaster shouldn't see this anyway. This goes back
to the post office & the phone company. Where does it stop? I
can call someone and tell them we're going to spread a virus,
so why shouldn't I be able to send email. It should be treated
exactly as any other form [of communication]."
"NO. What this means is a potential 'Big Brother is Watching
You'. The dangers to the freedom of people are in my opinion
far greater than the benefits from being able to read
peoples mail."
Perhaps an intermediate approach :
"given that this is similar to any other sort of eavesdropping,
the right thing to do, for me, is to sit down with the person,
in an environment free of eavesdroppers, tell them what I know,
what kind of a position it puts me in, and what I want them
to do about it - which is get it out of my sight and never let
me see it again on the systems I'm responsible for."
Should postmasters have a written code of ethics, which is
----------------------------------------------------------
widely known and accepted?
--------------------------
Overwhelmingly, the response was 'yes' :
"YOU BET YOUR A** THEY SHOULD! And make them SIGN IT TOO! So
that later on, they cannot claim ignorance after the fact."
"Yes and the tools to make it possible to follow the code in a
practical way."
Others pointed out that :
"Maybe this would be a good idea - its a lawyers paradise
however."
There were a few, though, who believed a written code to be unnecessary :
"I'd rather not put it down in writing: I want to reserve the
right to do anything to anyone at any time, but to have the
users' trust that I won't abuse this. A written document is
not necessary if your sysadmin is trustworthy, and is useless
if he isn't."
"I think the relation between the sysadmin(s) and the users
should be based on trust. No list of rules can compensate for
that."
Some felt that there probably should be a policy, but doubted that
it could be agreed upon, while others thought that agreement was
not necessary :
"As far as acceptance goes, if the policy is unacceptable
to the user, the user shouldn't be on that system."
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?
------
There was a general feeling that if users ARE to have their mail
monitored, it is important to make them aware of this :
"People should be told if their email is being monitored since
there is a reasonable expectation that it is NOT being monitored.
Then the user can decide if encryption should be used, or if a
phone call would be more private than email."
"There is *never* any justification for disturbing privacy
without letting the person know that it's possible. You have to
give them the option of refusing to use the service."
A few felt that no such notice is necessary, however :
"Anybody *EVER* assuming that email is secure is just plain
stupid."
It was thought by some, that reading Email could not be made more
acceptable, even if a warning were to be in place :
"THIS DOESN'T MAKE MONITORING ANY LESS OFFENSIVE!"
"Of course but not preferable to privacy."
"Not particularly; it's never acceptable"
Conclusion :
------------
It appeared, overall, that the system users were most often opposed to
the monitoring of Email, although there were some who were supportive,
under certain circumstances.
System Administrators and Postmasters, on the other hand, almost always
maintained that they had the need to monitor mail for a variety of
different reasons, although opinions on the extent to which such
monitoring should occur varied quite markedly. Generally, owners
or managers of systems also supported this point of view, since as
effective owners, they felt it was their right to do as they pleased,
and that they required some form of control over the traffic that passed
through their often "limited resources".
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 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: <9204061734.AA08851@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 07:34:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: info.labmgr
From: kadie@herodotus.CS.uiuc.EDU (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Computer Policy Statement
Message-ID: <199204061412.AA15580@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:42:30 GMT
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
NU025216@ndsuvm1.BITNET (Brian Abraham) writes:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>NDSU POLICY ON MISUSE OF COMPUTER FACILITIES
[...]
>3. No obscene or offensive material shall be entered into the computer
>or sent through any electronic system.
[...]
The prohibition against offensive material is likely illegal. (As
well as being an improper restriction of academic freedom.)
Taken literially, it would prohibit a faculty members and students at
NDSU from using library computer systems.
For example, suppose a faculty member telnet'd into Illinet Online
with the command
telnet garcon.cso.uiuc.edu 620
This on-line catalog has holding information for most the the
libraries in the State of Illinois.
She is 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------
She has just violated NDSU policy.
- 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."
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom caf
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 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: <9204061743.AA08951@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 07:43:28 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.society
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 00:39:19 GMT
[Moderator's note: the following discussion is highly technical
and laden with computer jargon. Nevertheless, it both informs
and reflects on the complexity of the issues surrounding the
subject of computer-based communications and censorship.]
------------------------ Original message -----------------------------
A couple of other points regarding the restriction of the
sex and drugs forums on Usenet News forums:
The campus is fully wired with an ethernet backbone connecting
almost all machines on campus. The Project Vincent DECstations are all
connected, you can telnet to the VAXclusters as well as the hunk of
IBM big-batch-processing-iron we call Wylbur. The only difference,
really, in accessing a machine is what type of terminal you do it with.
We have VT340's, 240's, 100's, the X-windows of Vincent stations, the
VGA of the Novell LAN's on campus, the color and monochrome Mac's, and
even a few Televideo and Apple III machines. If you don't connect via
ethernet, you can connect via 19.2Kbaid or 9600 baud asynch, hence the
VT terminals.
The censored groups can only be read on Wylbur, this being a
machine that has the most rudimentary newsreader and is coincidentially
the only machine that uses CPU and I/O accounting. The only commands
for the newsreader are "summary," which will list the subjects of the
next 24 messages in the group, and pressing return will give you the
next message. Entering a message number will select that message and
display it. That's it. No thread handling, no kill files, no group
overview. Vincent has rn, nn, trn, and xrn available, while the
VAXclusters have a glorified rn for VMS.
The funny thing is, Wylbur is the machine most used for
research on this campus. It also has the libraries on-line database
and the touch-tone registration system on it (I've been told) too,
so it's obvious system resources were not a factor in this decision.
It had to be the ability to display graphic images in a public lab.
The present policy does nothing to alleviate this since anybody can
telnet to Wylbur from their VGA/Xwindows/Mac/whatever station from
a public lab, and the reason we use Wylbur is because it can restrict
access based on the username (the other machines cannot, apparently).
What we have is a research machine being used to read banned
groups in a most cumbersome way, clearly the lest effective method
of meeting any sort of goal. Furthermore, the announcement was made
during finals week and went into effect during Christmas Break,
with no chance given for student or even faculty input. While I am
highly annoyed at the censorship, I have means of reading them.
What gets me ired is that nobody asked my opinion on the matter and
have not seen fit to provide us with anything close to decent software
on Wylbur. In short, ISU is trying to be my mother, and that annoys
me to no end.
Dan
< "Hotel Echo this is Mike November, can you hear me?" -- M. Mann >
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 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: <9204061746.AA08975@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 07:46:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.society
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Message-Id: <1992Apr5.205935.29334@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 20:59:35 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
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 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: <9204062119.AA10720@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:19:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <1992Apr6.184913.6775@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:49:13 GMT
The central question at Iowa State University is this: do intellectual
freedom protections apply to university Netnews facilities? If the
answer is no, policy for such facilities must be created from scratch.
If the answer is yes, then policy can and should exploit our
collective experience with other information facilities, for example,
academic libraries and even the university as a whole.
I challenge everyone to read the enclosed, short, American Library
Association policy on access restrictions. If you still support the
Iowa State restrictions on the newsgroup facilities, would you also
support similar restrictions on the University library?
============================================================
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO LIBRARY MATERIALS
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
Libraries are a traditional forum for the open exchange of information.
Attempts to restrict access to library materials violate the basic tenets of
the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
Historically, attempts have been made to limit access by relegating materials
into segregated collections. These attempts are in violation of established
policy. Such collections are often referred to by a variety of names,
including "closed shelf," "locked case," "adults only," "restricted shelf," or
"high demand." Access to some materials also may require a monetary fee or
financial deposit. In any situation which restricts access to certain
materials, a barrier is placed between the patron and those materials. That
barrier may be age related, linguistic, economic, or psychological in nature.
Because materials placed in restricted collections often deal with
controversial, unusual, or "sensitive" subjects, having to ask a librarian or
circulation clerk for them may be embarrassing or inhibiting for patrons
desiring the materials. Needing to ask for materials may pose a language
barrier or a staff service barrier. Because restricted collections often are
composed of materials which some library patrons consider "objectionable," the
potential user may be predisposed to think of the materials as "objectionable"
and, therefore, are reluctant to ask for them.
Barriers between the materials and the patron which are psychological, or are
affected by language skills, are nonetheless limitations on access to
information. Even when a title is listed in the catalog with a reference to
its restricted status, a barrier is placed between the patron and the
publication (see also "Statement on Labeling").
There may be, however, countervailing factors to establish policies to protect
library materials--specifically, for reasons of physical preservation
including protection from theft or mutilation. Any such policies must be
carefully formulated and administered with extreme attention to the principles
of intellectual freedom. This caution is also in keeping with ALA policies,
such as "Evaluating Library Collections," "Free Access to Libraries for
Minors," and the "Preservation Policy."
Finally, in keeping with the "Joint Statement on Access" of the American
Library Association and Society of American Archivists, restrictions that
result from donor agreements or contracts for special collections materials
must be similarly circumscribed. Permanent exclusions are not acceptable.
The overriding impetus must be to work for free and unfettered access to all
documentary heritage.
Adopted February 2, 1973; amended July 1, 1981; July 3, 1991, by the ALA
Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
==================================================
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 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: <9204070056.AA11452@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:56:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 00:00:00 1992
From: jka@math.ufl.edu (Jon K. Akers)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Apr 92 16:36:01 GMT
In article <1992Apr1.172238.23329@nic.umass.edu> 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
The CIRCA department here at UF had this problem as well, and the
sysop basically looked at which port was being used the most and shut
it down completely, since most of the users were going to this
specific mud. (I am not going to say which one it was because I know
the implementor is not looking to advertise.)
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
Running a mud myself, I keep an eye out for places that may be abusing
their privileges to play. If I ever have a sysop mail to me
complaining I will have no problems shutting down access from that
sight, since I am not really in this for the players benefit but
instead for the programming experience (The players are just a nice
side bonus. You can't beat being able to hack *and* being able to
associate with other people at the same time.) Fortunately they
haven't cut off telnet access in the CIRCA labs completely, but I do
have to agree with what the sysop did, since I sometimes had trouble
getting onto the system from lack of port connections.
--
###########################################################################
# Jon Akers "...realize you're living in your #
# jka@math.ufl.edu golden years..." #
# SILVERFIRE%oak.decnet@pine.circa.ufl.edu #
###########################################################################
# Try MudDog mud at mud.math.ufl.edu 2000 (128.227.168.2) #
###########################################################################
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 00:00:00 1992
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Apr5.160341.14649@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 5 Apr 92 16:03:41 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Its always fun to watch a clueless, suck-off-the-public-teat .edu
>student attempt to justify news costs.
It's always fun to watch a neck-tied, pseudo-Arian, pocket-protector-
sporting trainee Hitler attempt to justify censorship.
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 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: <9204071609.AA15110@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:09:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 03:47:16 GMT
shane> == shane alan johns
shane> What I would like to know is whether or not MUDs actually are
shane> forbidden by Internet. If they ARE, then whether or not a
shane> sys.admin believes it is educational is irrelevant! What does
shane> Internet have to say on the issue of MUDs? Is it an improper
shane> use of Internet?
Rule #1: The Internet is an extremely diverse network of networks.
Corollary: The only "laws" that can be applied to the entire Internet
are on the order of laws of nature, like "Follow the TCP/IP specs or you
won't be able to talk to anyone."
There could, certainly, be parts of the Internet that MUDs are forbidden
within; I can think of a couple university campus networks that fit the
bill without really trying.
There are, on the other hand, also portions of the Internet where MUDs
are explicitly *not* forbidden, or are even encouraged. Certainly they
are not in contravention of the "acceptable use" policies, such as they
are, of the commercial IP providers.
On the third hand (hey, Zaphod Beeblebrox here), there are parts of the
network that may or may not prohibit MUDs, but haven't explicitly
decided one way or the other (like the NSFNET backbone). The
educational value of a MUD is of importance in this case, since the
NSFNET acceptable use policy states that the network is for use in
support of research & education.
My personal feeling is that if it gets people who would otherwise never
touch a computer to start using them (I know people who wouldn't have
done anything more than word processing who learned how to use Unix just
to compile IRC clients), it's educational. Of course, I don't run the
NSFNET, so I wouldn't count on that interpretation holding.
--
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 7 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: <9204071609.AA15119@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:09:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 00:00:00 1992
From: spp@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Stephen Potter)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <35010@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:38:56 GMT
Just a followup to Jon Aker's post, CIRCA reviewed it policy and changed it
slightly, after a number of the MUDders complained to the administration.
The restriction at CIRCA is now only on it's two big machines. The two
smaller machines (max users: 35 and 10) are allowed to access the MUDs,
because the most use they get is from the social and MUD accounts. Most
classes use the larger machines and only spill over to the small machines
when a project is due and everyone is rushing at the last minute. Also,
class acounts have seniority on all machines, so if they need to get on,
it kicks the social and MUDDERS off.
--
"There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. The sea's asleep, and
the rivers dream. People made of smoke and cities made of sound. Somewhere
there's danger. Somewhere there's injustice. Somewhere else the tea's getting
cold. Come on Ace, we've got work to do." -Dr Who, spp@reef.cis.ufl.edu
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Liabilities of providing access
Message-ID: <9204071647.AA15281@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:47:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Liabilities of providing access
Message-ID: <1992Mar16.163707.27204@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 16:37:07 GMT
In article <1992Mar12.211657.3511@mother.bates.edu> rob@mother.bates.edu (Rob Spellman) writes:
>I am interested in providing a local k-12 school district with IP
>access to our network, and therefore to the Internet. In speaking
>with our network provider, they brought up the issue of liability. In
>particular, they are concerned about what is going to happen when a
>parent sees their child bring home a story from some newsgroup like
>alt.sex, and the adult screams that we are providing their child with
>access to pornography.
I think this is guaranteed to happen if you include the alt groups in your
feed. It may happen even if you don't.
> Would the parent have any legal recourse against
>us, or our network provider?
The state of the law is such that I think the best answer to your question
is "probably not." Very little of the textual material available on Usenet
could qualify as pornography by any stretch of the imagination--what is
more likely is that a parent would object to some posting or postings that
are not legally obscene (e.g., a detailed discussion of AMERICAN PSYCHO
from rec.arts.books). In that case, there would be no legal liability,
although there might be bad publicity.
Much of the uuencoded graphic material available through the alt groups
may qualify as legally obscene. I would hesitate before making such groups
available.
> Even if they didn't have a case, I don't
>think that my college would like the publicity.
This is something you will have to weigh against your interest in
establishing the K-12 feed.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis
mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --Marcel Proust
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs, et al.] Re: Your police at work for you!
Message-ID: <9204071649.AA15293@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:49:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,alt.bbs.internet,comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Your police at work for you!
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.195314.6998@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 19:53:14 GMT
In article cprice@waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:
>> PS. Go [deleted] Uself!
>
> This person likes words you can't broadcast on radio. Instead he
>broadcasts them on the net. Can a reasonably knowledgable person
>address the _legality_ of broadcasting voice-unbroadcastable terms on
>the net? (Preferably with statute numbers and judicial citations.)
Broadcasting regulations do not apply to the net. The judicial basis for
content regulation of broadcasting by the FCC lies in arguments that the
broadcasting spectrum is a scarce resource (Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC,
1969) and that it is a uniquely pervasive medium (FCC v. Pacifica
Foundation, 1978). FCC regulation of broadcasting is thus an exception to
the general rule that the government cannot regulate the content of First
Amendment-protected exercises of freedom of expression.
There is no court case or statute holding that the FCC's content
restrictions on legal obscenity (the use of the word "fuck" is not,
itself, legally obscene in any state) or on "indecency" (e.g., George
Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" monolog) applies to the Internet, or to any
other medium.
> There _are_ limits to "free speech", and I'd like to find the
>legal references. Thanks.
The limits on freedom of speech are perhaps not as extensive as you think
they are. See, for example, Ithiel de Sola Pool's TECHNOLOGIES OF FREEDOM,
Melville Nimmer's NIMMER ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or Lawrence Tribe's
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis
mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --Marcel Proust
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.dcom.telecom] Equal Access Ruling Stayed Pending Appeal
Message-ID: <9204071856.AA16103@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 08:56:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 00:00:00 1992
From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Equal Access Ruling Stayed Pending Appeal
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:27:47 GMT
From the ACUTA (Association of College and University Telecommunications
Adminstrators) News of April 1992 (typos mine):
10-xxx rule stayed pending appeal
Since the regulations are being challenged, the Federal Communications
Commission issued a "stay" March 13 of irs order for call aggregators
to unblock 10-xxx access to interexchange carriers. Under the FCC's
order in CC Docket 91-35, aggregators who could open 10-xxx-0+ access
simply by reprogramming their equipment had faced a March 16 deadline
to do so.
On September 18, 1991, ACUTA filed a petition with the FCC to exempt
universities from the 10-xxx requirement. The Association filed a
second petition on February 18, 1992, seeking a clarification that
would remove colleges and universities from the aggregator
classification, which the FCC determined in CC Docket 90-313. The two
proceedings were based on the Operator Services Act of 1990.
The FCC has indicated that it will move quickly to rule on these
matters, said ACTUA's attorney Anne Jones.
kath mullholand university of new hampshire durham, nh
From caf-talk Caf Apr 7 00:00:00 1992
From: v115qha3@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Donald R Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <1992Apr7.234423.16470@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:43:00 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.
>
>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 /
The post is printed verbatim in alt.censorship.....
all it says is..........
subject: fuck censorship
amendment 1
......thats it...........nothing more.....-Don at UB
From caf-talk Caf Apr 8 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.politics.correct
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: [info.labmgr] Ethics statement
Message-ID: <1992Apr8.194104.20211@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:41:04 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}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.)
This is old wording, see below.
}>----------------------------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.
A revision to the policy was brought before the University Computation
Advisory Committee several months ago (late '91?, early '92?). This
committee is comprised of roughly equal numbers of faculty and students.
It was approved by that group (I am a student member). I do not know
if it is now in effect or what may have happened to it since.
}[...]
}> # 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.
The revised version reads:
# ISU policies regarding the appropriate use of university facilities
and the ethics of personal behavior apply to the use of all forms of
electronic communication. In addition, users of any electronic
communication facilities -- electronic mail, networks, bulletin
boards, and newsgroups, etc., are obligated to comply with the
restrictions and acceptable practices established for those specific
facilities. Certain type[s] of communications are expressly
forbidden, including the random mailing of messages, the sending of
obscene, harrassing, or threatening material, or the use of the
facilities for commercial or political purposes.
I make no comment of whether this is better, worse, or equal to the
previous wording, but we ought to at least be talking about the
right one.
John
From caf-talk Caf Apr 9 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE
Message-ID: <1992Apr8.114613.16815@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:46:13 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.
>
> 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.
>
As I recall, the post in question was cited as:
> Fuck censorship
> 1st Amendment
I doubt that this form of speech can have any legitimate
objections made to it.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Apr 9 00:00:00 1992
From: 00bestrawser@bsu-ucs.uucp (Bryan Strawser)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Privacy on Novell Lans
Message-ID: <1992Apr9.125538.5968@bsu-ucs.uucp>
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:55:38 GMT
Location:
The Indiana Academy for Science Mathematics and Humanities, a
part of Teacher's College at Ball State University, Muncie, IN
United State of America
This is a residential high school for gifted and talented students
from the State of Indiana.
Computer System:
Novell Network 386, 250 user license. There are two public
labs (for students) consisting of almost 60 computers. Each
faculty and administrator (and staff) has a computer with a
network connection, as well as 5 students who have access from
their rooms.
Some faculty have a program on their office and hiome machines
that allows them to access the network over a modem from their
home. This allows them to work from home.
Problem we're having:
At least two faculty members have access to a program for the
network known as LAN ASSIST. This program allows them to do
several functions, such as:
CHAT: brings up a chat window on the screen allowing them
to talk to the other user.
WATCH: Exactly as it says, let's them watch another user,
with/without them knowing it.
ASSIST: Same as watch, but intereactive assistance..
What has happened came about when a faculty member did not come
in to work one day, but left his students email telling them
to come to class, he would be monitoring them from home with
this program. Several students were alarmed, and brought this
to the attention of the student council, who is now investigating
the legality and ethical implications of this monitoring.
I can speak from personal experience that one faculty member
consistently in his free time sits and monitors users over and
over. This alarms me because this user is ONLY a faculty member,
he is NOT the administrator of our network.
I will be contacting the EFF about the legality of this situation
as related to federal and state (and even local?) laws.
What do all of you think about this situation?
From working with Computing Services here at Ball State University,
I know that we have a similar program on our VaxCluster, but when
we are watching someone IT SHOWS up on the screen and the user thus
knows what is going on... the only time it does not is when
one of the system managers does it in order to monitor a KNOWN
security violation...
Ideas? Comments?
Please post, I would like to have a good discussion about it! :)
-Bryan
--
Bryan Strawser | Ball State University
University Computing Services | Muncie, IN 47306
00bestrawser@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu | 00bestrawser@bsuvax1
From caf-talk Caf Apr 9 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: New FAQ: censorship and harassment
Message-ID: <1992Apr9.190343.28295@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:03:43 GMT
========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment =========
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?
No. The federal courts have said that harassing speech is different
from offensive speech. While face-to-face harassment can be
prohibited, mere offensive speech is protected by the principles of
academic freedom and, at state universities, by the Constitution.
The courts have also said that that it is unconstitutional at state
universities to base campus speech restrictions on EEOC rules. Here is
part of a decision:
==============Excerpt uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ==========
(3) PARALLEL TO TITLE VII LAW
The Board of Regents argues that this Court should find the UW Rule
constitutional because its prohibition of discriminatory speech which creates a
hostile environment has parallels in the employment setting. The Board notes
that, under Title VII, an employer has a duty to take appropriate corrective
action when it learns of pervasive illegal harassment. See Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986).
The Board correctly states Title VII law. However, its argument regarding
Title VII law has at least three difficulties. First, Title VII addresses
employment, not educational, settings. Second, even if Title VII governed
educational settings, the Meritor holding would not apply to this case. The
Meritor Court held that courts should look to agency principles when
determining whether an employer is to be held liable for its employee's
actions. See id. Since employees may act as their employer's agents, agency
law may hold an employer liable for its employees actions. In contrast, agency
theory would generally not hold a school liable for its students' actions since
students normally are not agents of the school. Finally, even if the legal
duties set forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW
Rule constitutional. Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot supersede
the requirements of the First Amendment.
============================
Private institutions are legally free to violate the standards set by
the Constitution and academic freedom. They should not, however, try
to justify their violations with appeals to government rules.
- 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.
=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
=================
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-faq netnews.liability
send caf-faq netnews.reading
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/faq/netnews.liability
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
--
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 9 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr9.160725.7355@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:07:25 GMT
I have been working on a "Student Access and Use Policy". I've finally
managed to wrangle it into a manageable form. I'd like to hear any com-
ments you may have.
This is NOT an official policy; it has NOT been submitted for review.
(A brief note: Specific rules are numbered, e.g. 2.1, 2.2, et cetera;
everything else may be considered commentary/rationale)
==============================================================================
University of Kentucky
Engineering Computing Center
280 Anderson Hall
DRAFT
Student Computing Access and Use Policy
This document provides an outline of the Engineering Computing Center's
policies for access and use of ECC systems. These policies are based on the
policies of the University; they are not to be considered superior to those
policies.
Copies of this policy are available at the ECC offices (280 Anderson Hall) and
the Engineering PC Laboratory (260 Anderson Hall). This policy is also
available in electronic form; contact the ECC staff for electronic retrieval
instructions.
The basic University policy for student conduct is the Code of Student
Conduct, as interpreted in Student Rights and Responsibilities. Copies of
this document are available from the Office of the Dean of Students.
Enforcement of those policies is the exclusive province of the Dean of
Students; the Engineering Computing Center will decide if policy violations
should be forwarded to the Dean of Students. No disciplinary action will be
taken against students by the Engineering Computing Center; if such action
is contemplated, the matter will be remanded to the appropriate office.
Section 1.21 of the Code of Student Conduct defines the offenses for which
disciplinary action may be applied. The ECC Access and Use Policy is based
on several of these definitions; for each clause in the ECC Policy, the
relevant Section and Paragraph of the Code will be listed. In the remainder
of this document, we shall refer to the Code of Student Conduct as "CSC".
This document does not attempt to address every possible situation; rather,
it establishes a framework in which each situation may be evaluated.
Questions and/or comments about this policy should be directed to the ECC
staff in 280 Anderson Hall. The ECC welcomes your input; we want to
provide the best possible computing environment to you.
Section 1: General Access Policies
Each student in the College of Engineering is entitled to use the facilities of
the Engineering Computing Center. We believe that computing services are
an essential part of your engineering education; our mission is to provide
those services to you.
Engineering Computing Center facilities are developed and maintained solely
for the use of Engineering students. Some facilities are essentially
unrestricted; for instance, anyone may walk into an ECC PC Laboratory and
use the computer systems there. However, some facilities and/or services
require the use of an individual userid. Access to those facilities and/or
services is restricted to Engineering students, therefore:
1.1 Use of restricted ECC facilities by those students outside the College
of Engineering is prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
Your userid is issued solely for your use; you are not permitted to share your
userid with others, regardless of their status within or without the
University. Therefore:
1.2 Sharing your userid with any other person is prohibited. [Paragraph
1.21u, CSC]
1.3 Using a userid which belongs to another user is prohibited, even if you
have been issued a userid of your own. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
Students in the College of Engineering may receive their own userid from the
ECC Staff. If students outside of the College of Engineering have a
legitimate need for access to ECC systems, they may request their own
userid. Applicants should contact the ECC Staff for further assistance.
The status of Engineering students is validated through the Engineering
Student Records Office; the status of faculty, staff, and guest users is
validated throught the appropriate Dean or Department Chairman. Long-
term access to ECC systems is only granted to Engineering users. Users
outside the College of Engineering will only receive temporary access to ECC
systems. Therefore:
1.4 Applying for an ECC userid under false pretenses is a punishable
disciplinary offense. [Paragraph 1.21r, CSC]
The ECC Staff may, at a later date, establish specific policies to address
short-term problems or situations. You are obligated to follow those short-
term directives and/or policies, just as you are obligated to follow this
policy. You may also receive specific personal instructions from ECC Staff;
those instructions must be followed as well. Therefore:
1.5 Failure to comply with directions of ECC Staff acting in the
performance of their duties is a punishable disciplinary offense.
[Paragraph 1.21h, CSC]
Section 2: General Use Policy
An essential aspect of academic freedom is student privacy. Within the
bounds set within this policy and subsequent announcements, you are free
to use ECC facilities in any manner you wish. A wide range of services and
facilities are available to you, and we encourage you to use all of them.
If you are granted certain rights as a user of ECC systems, it is reasonable to
expect you to respect the rights of other users.
You are allocated a certain amount of disk space on ECC system for storage
of your files and data. Each user has their own disk space; you have no need
to examine the disk space of other users. The ECC Staff does not, and will
not, examine student files or data, except during normal computing
operations (e.g., making system backup tapes). Therefore:
2.1 Deletion, examination, copying, or modification of files and/or data
belonging to other users without their prior consent is prohibited.
[Paragraphs 1.21a, 1.21m, and 1.21q, CSC]
You may be assigned a quota, or limit, on the system resources you may
consume. Exceeding your quota(s) may impede the work of other users.
Therefore:
2.2 Attempts to evade or change resource quotas are prohibited.
[Paragraphs 1.21a, 1.21h, and 1.21u, CSC]
Some ECC systems give you the ability to communicate with other users.
Such communication may not always be welcomed by the other users; in
fact, it may interfere with their work. Therefore:
2.2 Continued interference with other users, after receipt of a request to
cease such activity, is prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21a, CSC]
While we do not place arbitrary limits on your use of ECC systems, it is quite
possible for you to consume a significant portion of the systems' resources.
As a result, you may impede the work of other users. If this should occur,
you will be notified by ECC staff. Therefore:
2.3 Continued impedance of other users through mass consumption of
system resources, after receipt of a request to cease such activity, is
prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21a, CSC]
Your access to ECC systems is based on your academic needs. We cannot,
and will not, support "for-profit" operations. Therefore:
2.4 Use of ECC facilities and/or services for commercial purposes is
prohibited. [Paragraphs 1.21g and 1.21u, CSC]
ECC resources are dedicated to academic work. At this time, we cannot
support game or recreational programs. Therefore:
2.5 The installation/execution of games and/or recreational programs on
ECC systems is prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
Section 3: Electronic Mail Policy
Electronic mail is one of the most beneficial services provided by the ECC.
It enables you to communicate with other users, both here and around the
world. The ECC encourages you to use electronic mail for both academic and
social activities. However, there are several means by which electronic mail
may be abused.
Electronic mail is a personal medium; it represents a conversation between
you and another user. As such, the ECC will not attempt to regulate the
content of your electronic mail. The ECC accepts no responsibility for the
content of electronic mail you receive. If you receive a piece of electronic
mail which you consider offensive, the ECC will not become involved in the
dispute. You are reminded that the University does have policies against
racism, sexism, and sexual harassment; if necessary, you may direct your
problems to the appropriate University office.
Whenever you send electronic mail, your name and userid are included in
each mail message. You are responsible for all electronic mail originating
from your userid. Therefore:
3.1 Forgery (or attempted forgery) of electronic mail messages is
prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
Electronic mail belongs to the recipient. A user's mailbox is treated in the
same manner as any other file belonging to that user. Therefore:
3.2 Attempts to read, delete, copy, or modify the electronic mail of other
users are prohibited. [Paragraphs 1.21a, 1.21m, and 1.21q, CSC]
Each user has a finite amount of disk space reserved for their electronic
mail. We believe that electronic mail is a necessary tool in computing.
Therefore:
3.3 Deliberate interference with the ability of other users to send/receive
electronic mail is prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21a, CSC]
When single messages are dispatched to numerous users, you are using a
mechanism known as a mailing list. The mailing list mechanism can be very
useful in your academic work; however, large mailing lists can place a serious
burden on the electronic mail system. Therefore:
3.4 All mailing lists with more than 10 members must be registered with
the ECC staff. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
It is important to note that the ECC staff will make arrangements for large
mailing lists; however, we will not support mailing lists whose subjects
violate University policy, State law, or Federal law. (In any situation where
this is a possibility, the University Counsel will be asked for a decision.)
Section 4: Network Use Policy
Many ECC systems are connected to local, regional, national, and worldwide
networks. These networks allow you to access facilities and services
provided by computing operations around the world. Naturally, the ECC
encourages you to use these facilities; however, some restrictions must be
place on your use.
With thousands of computer systems joined by networks, it is possible to
attempt to gain unauthorized access to those systems. Therefore:
4.1 Use of ECC systems and/or networks in attempts to gain unauthorized
access to remote systems is prohibited. Any such attempts will be
reported to the administrators of the remote systems. [Paragraph
1.21u, CSC]
There are a limited number of network ports available to certain systems.
It is possible to connect to other systems via ECC systems. This misuse of
ECC systems may result in depriving other users of access to our systems.
We cannot support use of computers outside of the ECC. Therefore:
4.2 Use of ECC systems and/or networks to connect to other systems, in
evasion of the physical limitations of the remote system/network, is
prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21a and 1.21u, CSC]
Some computer systems offer recreational services, which are accessible from
remote sites through the network(s). The ECC does not have sufficient
network resources to support such activities. In addition, use of ECC
services for such purposes may prevent other users from accessing ECC
systems. Therefore:
4.3 Use of ECC systems and/or networks to access recreational services
provided by other sites is prohibited. [Paragraphs 1.21a and 1.21u,
CSC]
There are many sites which provide electronic archive services; some of the
programs available from those archives are network-based applications. It
is essential that the ECC maintain control and management capabilities over
the network. Therefore:
4.4 With the exception of classwork assignments, network-based
applications will not be installed on ECC systems without the
knowledge and consent of the ECC Staff. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
Section 5: System Security Policy
While the ECC encourages you to learn as much as possible about computing
and computing systems, we have certain obligations which we must honor.
The operating systems used on ECC systems are copyrighted works; we do
not have the right to copy system files or install them on other systems. In
fact, copying system files is a violation of copyright law. Therefore:
5.1 The copying of system files is prohibited. [Paragraphs 1.21f and 1.21u,
CSC]
(For the purposes of this policy, any files which do not specifically belong to
a particular Engineering user are system files. Files belonging to specific
users are protected under rule 2.1)
Some programs and/or files on ECC systems are in the public domain; these
files may be copied and distributed freely. Any such files will be clearly
marked as "public domain". If you are unsure about the status of a particular
program or file, contact the ECC staff.
Each user of ECC systems is authenticated through the use of a password.
This "password protection" is an integral part of the system. Therefore:
5.2 Decryption of system or user passwords is prohibited. [Paragraphs
1.21a and 1.21u, CSC]
Many copyrighted programs are used on ECC systems. We have secured
licenses for the use of these programs. Those licenses do not allow us to
make unauthorized copies of the software. Therefore:
5.3 The copying of copyrighted materials, such as third-party software,
without the express written permission of the owner or the proper
license, is prohibited. [Paragraphs 1.21f and 1.21u, CSC]
When presented with improper data, some computing systems and/or
programs may "crash". A system/program crash prevents other users from
accessing the system/program until the problem is remedied. Therefore:
5.4 Intentional attempts to "crash" ECC systems or programs are
punishable disciplinary offenses. [Paragraphs 1.21a, 1.21p, and 1.21u,
CSC]
When you are issued a userid, you are granted a certain set of privileges.
There are higher levels of privilege; these levels are restricted to ECC Staff.
These higher privileges, if misused or abused, may cause damage to both
hardware and software; in fact, they may render the system unusable.
Therefore:
5.5 Any attempts to secure a higher level of privilege on ECC systems are
punishable disciplinary offenses. [Paragraphs 1.21g 1.21p, and 1.21u,
CSC]
Section 6: Incident Handling
In the event that you, knowingly or unknowingly, violate ECC or University
policy, you will be contacted by the ECC Staff. This contact will usually take
the form of an electronic mail message. It is your responsibility to follow
any instructions you may receive from ECC Staff, and to confirm your
receipt of those instructions. If you believe that the instructions given to
you are unreasonable, you should immediately contact the Director of
Engineering Computing or the Assistant Dean of the College of Engineering.
If you do not register your complaint with either the Director of Engineering
Computing or the Assistant Dean, it is expected that you will follow the
instructions given to you. Therefore:
6.1 Disregarding instructions of ECC Staff may result in the temporary
revocation of your computing access.
If your access is temporarily revoked, you should immediately contact the
ECC Staff for an explanation of the situation. In most cases, the revocation
will be lifted within 1 working day. Quite often, temporary revocation is the
result of a minor, or apparently unintentional, violation of ECC or University
policy; such revocations will be lifted as soon as the ECC Staff discusses the
relevant policies with you.
6.2 Temporary revocations of computing access will be dissolved within
one working day of the resolution of the violation.
We feel that, in most situations, a temporary revocation, and the dialogue
which follows, is preferable to an automatic request for disciplinary action.
It is important to note that it is your obligation to contact ECC in the event
that your computing access is revoked.
A situation may occur in which, in the opinion of the ECC staff, immediate
revocation is necessary; in such a situation, you may not receive advance
notice of the problem. These cases will be handled in the same manner as
any other temporary revocation; you should contact the ECC staff as soon
as possible, so that the revocation may be dissolved.
If the ECC believes that you have committed a significant violation of ECC
or University policy, the matter will be remanded to the Dean of Students for
disciplinary procedures under the Code of Student Conduct. If the Dean of
Students decides that judicial proceedings are necessary, the ECC will
provide a restricted form of computer access, so that you may continue your
academic work during the judicial process.
6.3 If the Dean of Students initiates disciplinary action against you, the
ECC will provide sufficient computing access for the completion
and/or continuation of your academic work. This access may be
limited in scope, depending on the nature of the charges against you.
The ECC will abide by the decision of the Dean of Students. If the Dean of
Students chooses not to bring disciplinary action against you, or if the
judicial proceedings are resolved in your favor, your complete access to ECC
facilities will be immediately restored.
Section 7: Avoiding Violations
7.1 Any attempt to violate the provisions of this policy may result in
disciplinary action, regardless of the success or failure of the attempt.
[Paragraph 1.21u and 1.21v, CSC]
The best means of avoiding policy violations is communication with the ECC
Staff. If you believe that your use of ECC systems may violate this policy,
you should discuss the matter with the ECC Staff before initiating any
action. The ECC may be able to assist you in your work by increasing your
resource quotas or making additional computing systems available to you.
If you have any doubts about the propriety of your actions, it is your
responsibility to discuss the matter with the ECC Staff.
--
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 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Risks of academic cheating by computer
Message-ID: <199204101431.AA12742@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:31:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 9:21:08 CDT
From: riddle@hounix.org (Prentiss Riddle)
Message-ID:
Subject: Risks of academic cheating by computer
There is an academic cheating brouhaha this semester at the university where I
work which is brimming over with computer risks. I am not privy to the details
of the case, but here is a summary from the published accounts.
This university has an Honor Code governing student cheating which is a source
of much school pride. Students agree not to give or receive aid on schoolwork
and as a result the university can function without the burden of proctored
exams. Alleged violations of the Honor Code are taken before the Honor
Council, an elected student body which has the authority to dole out
substantial punishments. Honor Council cases are publicized in the form of
anonymous abstracts which mask the identities of all parties.
Enter the computer: Earlier this semester, two students were accused of
colluding on a homework assignment which was done and handed in via one of the
university's academic computer networks. Their TA noticed that portions of the
two students' homework were identical, down to the initials of one of the
students. Network officials were asked to examine backup tapes for the period
of time in question and produced evidence which supported the theory that
"Student B" had sent homework to "Student A" by electronic mail immediately
before Student A turned it in. The students argued that they were innocent and
were the victims of a frame-up by an unknown "User X" who they alleged had
gained access to their accounts. The Honor Council refused to accept the "User
X" theory and convicted both students. Student B's conviction was later
overturned partly on the basis of further evidence supplied by network
officials which suggested that Student A committed the acts of cheating alone
by logging in to Student B's account.
Although officially the case is closed, it is the subject of much heated debate
in the student newspaper and local Usenet newsgroups at the university. Both
students continue to maintain their innocence and their supporters have rallied
around the slogan "Free Student A".
Computer risks seem to surround this case on all sides. A few which
come to mind:
-- The risk of cheating by computer in the first place. While academic
cheating is as old as academia, the computer can make it, like so many other
things, easier than ever before.
-- The risk of frame-ups. While the Honor Council appears to be satisfied that
the computer evidence substantiates real cheating in this case, it is clear
that a person with access to one or more users' accounts could at least cause
them a major nuisance and possibly succeed in framing them of cheating. With
the penalties involved going as high as academic suspension from a school which
costs thousands of dollars per semester, this is no light matter.
-- The complexity of evidence in cases of computer cheating. Honor council
members were quoted in the student paper as complaining about the new and
bewildering kinds of evidence they are asked to consider in computer cheating
cases, and critics of the Honor Council have complained about the dangers of
being judged by people who are not users of the systems involved and don't
thoroughly understand them.
-- The burden on system administrators. The network official who provided the
bulk of the evidence estimated that he spent a full week gathering and
analyzing it. Since the case came up, the local academic network has extended
the period of time it keeps daily backups before recycling them. How much data
is it reasonable to keep, and to pore over, in order to provide evidence in
cases like this? I don't know of a way to determine a firm answer.
-- The danger to trust and to openness. Both the university's Honor Code and
the tradition of open exchange of information within the computing community
are threatened by cases like this. Must students be kept in a "padded shell"
to prevent computerized cheating?
-- Prentiss Riddle ("aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada") priddle@hounix.org
--
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 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [oh.general, et al.] Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <9204101522.AA02456@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:22:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: oh.general,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <1992Apr9.231712.18074@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
From: schectr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (ROBB SCHECTER)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 23:17:12 GMT
**-------------------------------------------------------------------------**
** **
** THE KKK ARE COMING TO CINCINNATI **
** **
** - On May 2 (Permit reads Noon) The KKK is planning a rally in **
** downtown Cincinnati. **
** **
** - On University of Cinncinati campus, we have started organizing a **
** counter-demonstration. The general idea is for it to be **
** confrontational but not violent. **
** **
** - We hope to mass enough people to drown out any speeches, and def- **
** eat any recruiting efforts the Klan will make. **
** **
** - Obviously, everyone going has a different idea about how to express **
** anti-racist convictions. **
** **
** - ACT ON YOUR CONVICTIONS. For more info, contact me; **
** **
** Robb Shecter, Outreach Committee, schectr@ucunix.san.uc.edu **
** P.O. Box 19671 **
** Cincinnati, OH 45219 **
**-------------------------------------------------------------------------**
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [oh.general, et al.] Re: Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <9204101522.AA02466@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:22:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: oh.general,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <1992Apr10.111523.21899@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:15:23 GMT
In article <1992Apr9.231712.18074@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
schectr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (ROBB SCHECTER) said:
> - On University of Cinncinati campus, we have started organizing a
> counter-demonstration. The general idea is for it to be
> confrontational but not violent.
> - We hope to mass enough people to drown out any speeches, and
> defeat any recruiting efforts the Klan will make.
"Hi there... we're a group of citizens who are concerned about the
Klan's negative attitudes towards the civil liberties of others, so
in order to protest against their attitudes we're going to try to
deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech."
Bleah.
-- William December Starr
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 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: <9204101611.AA02746@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:11:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
From: mulford@brahms.udel.edu (George Mulford)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Message-ID: <28767@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:33:13 GMT
In article <1992Apr4.050354.13778@tssi.com> 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
As a point of reference:
The list of books a reader has checked out is considered confidential
information by librarians of free public libraries. When a reader took
a gun and shot up some people at random in a mall near my home, the
police investigators visited the library and asked for her loan records.
The librarian refused to release them, cited the relevant (Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania) statute, and made it stick!
--
George W. Mulford mulford@brahms.udel.edu
Instructional Technology Center University of Delaware
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 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: <9204101611.AA02755@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:11:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
From: mhart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (Michael Hart)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Message-Id:
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:44:32 GMT
In <1992Apr6.201903.18335@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
cs4cb3ii@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Group I) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.205935.29334@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
> (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>If your library is like most, it does not keep a record of the books
>>you check out.
>Sure it does. Every library I have ever been to has eventually come after
>me for my overdue books. Whether or not this information can be
>used, or in what manner it can be used is controlled, but libraries do
>at some time, know what books you have.
I've worked for a library computer system vendor, and a library system.
One of the most sacred tenents of the systems provided was that of
privacy. There were capabilities built into the systems that would
allow the libraries to save, in a log form, all past transactions.
I've been involved with about 30 library systems;
NOT A SINGLE ONE EVEN KEPT RECORDS OF PATRON BORROWING once an item
was returned.
>I would also be willing to bet
>that most computerized library systems keep track of your old
>records, at least until that particular database record is 'overwritten'
>by a new borrower/book record. Perhaps someone with more knowledge
>of computerization in library book checkout could write a comp.risks
>article. (?)
Negative. In the systems I've been in contact with, once an item is
returned, the link between patron and item is broken, and, short of
taking a disk drive out of service and exploring it sector by sector,
there is no way to 'back-track' a patrons' borrowing history.
--
| Michael G. Hart mhart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| You think _I_ speak for the government or the navy? HAH! |
| Aviation, computers, quality improvement, Northern Exposure, money |
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 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: <9204101612.AA02764@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:12:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
From: mhart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (Michael Hart)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Message-Id:
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:51:14 GMT
In <1992Apr7.192956.6898@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.205935.29334@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu > (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>If your library is like most, it does not keep a record of the books
>>you check out.
>I meant to say that if it is like most, it does not keep a record of
>the books you check out *after you return them*. Moreover, no library
>that I know of maintains an explicit list of people-who-read-material-
>that-discusses-sex.
See also my other followup to the thread.
No library that I know of, and I worked for a very large library
system (150 branches) and for a library computer systems vendor,
_ever_ keeps records, logs, or lists of any type of material that
a patron gets.
The other day, I went into my library with my wifes card to see what
she had out, in case any was overdue. They scanned the barcode,
and would tell me that she had 3 items out, and when they were due,
but would not tell me the titles.
Most libraries will vehemently protect the privacy of their patrons.
--
| Michael G. Hart mhart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| You think _I_ speak for the government or the navy? HAH! |
| Aviation, computers, quality improvement, Northern Exposure, money |
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Message-ID: <1992Apr10.181636.16594@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:16:36 GMT
00bestrawser@bsu-ucs.uucp (Bryan Strawser) writes:
>Problem we're having:
>
> At least two faculty members have access to a program for the
> network known as LAN ASSIST. This program allows them to do
> several functions, such as:
[...]
As I general rule, I don't like people *secretly* watching other
people. I have no problem when an instructor walks behind a student
and looks over his or her shoulder. But when an instructor spies on a
student I think the instructor goes to far.
I would suggest, 1) switching to software that tells a person when he
or she is being observed 2) monitoring (even with notice) should be
done for educational (or sys admin) purposes, not just "for fun". 3)
secret monitoring should only be allowed on a case-by-case basis with
the approval of a higher up (like the Principal, or, of course, a
judge).
- 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 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberty] Re: Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <9204101923.AA04161@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:23:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <1992Apr10.154702.26082@newshost.lanl.gov>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:47:02 GMT
In article 21899@athena.mit.edu, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>"Hi there... we're a group of citizens who are concerned about the
>Klan's negative attitudes towards the civil liberties of others, so
>in order to protest against their attitudes we're going to try to
>deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech."
>
>Bleah.
>
We MUST use caution when depriving people of their rights. If it is acceptable for us
to take away one persons freedoms, then it is acceptable for someone to then take
ours. We should not deny anyone the Freedom of Speech, but we SHOULD exercise
OUR freedom to "Find something more constructive to listen to."
Whenever Hate groups speak, we generally find "something better to do." Then, we
listen to what they've said after they are gone and educate people as to the reality
of the situation and try to clear up the misconseptions that the hate-spokesperson
deliberately instilled in the audience.
Trying to deny their freedoms is nearly as bad an idea as throwing rocks at them.
It only gives them power makes them look like the "Good Guys."
---
Keith Freedman
United Coalition Against Prejudice
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [oh.general, et al.] Re: Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <9204101924.AA04170@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:24:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: oh.general,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: paulm@meaddata.com (Paul Marchant)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:09:32 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Apr10.160932.8430@meaddata.com>
In article <1992Apr10.111523.21899@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|>
|> In article <1992Apr9.231712.18074@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
|> schectr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (ROBB SCHECTER) said:
|>
|> > - On University of Cinncinati campus, we have started organizing a
|> > counter-demonstration. The general idea is for it to be
|> > confrontational but not violent.
|>
|> > - We hope to mass enough people to drown out any speeches, and
|> > defeat any recruiting efforts the Klan will make.
|>
|> "Hi there... we're a group of citizens who are concerned about the
|> Klan's negative attitudes towards the civil liberties of others, so
|> in order to protest against their attitudes we're going to try to
|> deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech."
|>
|> Bleah.
|>
|> -- William December Starr
Well, Bill, I think you have things confused here. If the group were
interested in depriving them of their right to freedom of speech, then
they might has said something like: we'll shoot anyone who wears a
white sheet, phyically block the march, violently attack them, etc...
What they are planning on doing, it counter-demonstrate, i.e. exercise
their rights to freedom of speech as well. Perhaps you'll decide to
join the two groups and witness the exercising of rights in person.
___________________________________________________________________________
Paul Marchant | The other FINAL FOUR! | (513) 865 - 1637
Mead Data Central | April 2-4 Albany, NY | Data Technology
P.O. Box 933 | The BEST OF THE BEST in | paulm@meaddata.com
Dayton, OH 45401 | NCAA Hockey | ...!uunet!meaddata!paulm
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [oh.general, et al.] Re: Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <9204101924.AA04185@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:24:16 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: oh.general,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul A Prior)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <1992Apr10.184852.26771@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:48:52 GMT
In article <1992Apr10.160932.8430@meaddata.com> paulm@meaddata.com (Paul Marchant) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.111523.21899@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>|>
>|> In article <1992Apr9.231712.18074@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
>|> schectr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (ROBB SCHECTER) said:
>|>
>|> > - On University of Cinncinati campus, we have started organizing a
>|> > counter-demonstration. The general idea is for it to be
>|> > confrontational but not violent.
>|>
>|> > - We hope to mass enough people to drown out any speeches, and
>|> > defeat any recruiting efforts the Klan will make.
>|>
>|> "Hi there... we're a group of citizens who are concerned about the
>|> Klan's negative attitudes towards the civil liberties of others, so
>|> in order to protest against their attitudes we're going to try to
>|> deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech."
>|>
>|> Bleah.
>|>
>|> -- William December Starr
>
>Well, Bill, I think you have things confused here. If the group were
>interested in depriving them of their right to freedom of speech, then
>they might has said something like: we'll shoot anyone who wears a
>white sheet, phyically block the march, violently attack them, etc...
>
>What they are planning on doing, it counter-demonstrate, i.e. exercise
>their rights to freedom of speech as well. Perhaps you'll decide to
>join the two groups and witness the exercising of rights in person.
>
Shouting down tactics and "confrontational" goals are seemingly ever
popular strategies in today's society when you disagree with another
group's platform. For Queer Nation's shameless lambasting of priests
during Catholic Mass to the shouting down tactics used by other groups
to disallow political candidates to speak their minds, it seems to me,
as noted by William Starr, that it reeks of hypocrisy.
Let me be on record as being disgusted with the ignorant beliefs of the
KKK, and I'm not voicing an attack on QN or any other group as well.
I just hate to see well meaning people attemping (as is the current
vogue) to destroy the 1st ammendment rights of whoever they happen
to disagree with.
After all, what happened to the philosophy of "I may disagree with your
positions and beliefs, but I will fight to the death to preserve your
right to express them"? Today it's more like "You offend me, so I'm going
to prevent you from speaking, whether by legislation, litigation, or
simple mob participation."
--
--------pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu----(614) 297-8474----------------
Paul A. Prior Ban anchors, not reef tanks "With friends like this,
2nd year medical student who needs anemones?"
The Ohio State U. College of Medicine Tobacco Kills- Please don't smoke!
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex] censorship rally
Message-ID: <9204101926.AA04199@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:26:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
From: flip@bongo.cc.utexas.edu (felipe campos)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: censorship rally
Message-ID: <70134@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:49:22 GMT
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: ACADEMIC FREEDOM, NO CENSORSHIP
RALLY & MUSICAL EXTRAVAGANA
MONDAY, 13 APRIL 1992
WEST MALL
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
11:30-1:30
CONTACT PERSON: Pedro Bustos Aguilar
512.478.2849
In early March 1992, Professor Lee Fontanella, Chairman of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, "strongly urged" Pedro Bustos Aguilar, Assistant Instructor in Spanish, to remove an AIDS awareness poster prominently displayed in his faculty office.
The poster depicted two standing nude "black" men kissing while embracing each other. One individual held the other with his right hand as he simultaneously caressed his fully erect member enveloped in a condom with his left hand. The caption read, "Get Carried Away With Condoms." (See enclosed copy.)
Since then, university officials, professors, and students have publicly addressed the university's role and its limitations in defining issues such as academic freedom, homophobia, censorship and "pornography."
In an effort to further this debate, a coalition composed of university and community based organizations will sponsor a rally and musical extravaganza on Monday, 13 April 1992, on the West Mall at the University of Texas at Austin from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM. Musicians, actors, university and community speakers will address the crowd.
The sponsoring groups include: QUEER NATION, ACT UP, MOVIMIENTO ESTUDIANTIL CHICANO/A DE ATZLAN, PALESTINIAN SOLIDARITY COMMITTEE, CITIZENS IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLES OF EL SALVADOR, COUNCIL OF GRADUATE STUDENTS, THE THIRD WORLD INTEREST GROUP, IRISH INTEREST GROUP, INFORME SIDA, AIDS SERVICES OF AUSTIN, AUSTIN LESBIAN GAY POLITICAL CAUCUS, AND NEW AGE DYKES OF AUSTIN.
{{
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: hgpeach@ms.uky.edu (Harold Peach)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Message-ID: <1992Apr10.170023.7720@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:00:23 GMT
00bestrawser@bsu-ucs.uucp (Bryan Strawser) writes:
> Ideas? Comments?
I think the circumstances under which the monitoring is occuring is what
makes the difference. If you have an instructor who watches his students'
responses to his instructions during class for the purpose of determining
whether they are understanding his instruction or for grading their
performance, then I think such a tool has a legitimate purpose. If that
same instructor just happens to log onto the system sometime during the
day and sees one of his students and starts monitoring him just to see
what he is up to, then that is not ok -- Nor do I think it would be ok
for instructors to ever monitor persons who are not a part of their class.
System Administrators, in my view, fall into the same group as telephone
repair personnel or operators. It is sometimes necessary for them to
monitor activities on their system in order to correct problems. They
also have a professional obligation to keep any information they might
read or see in the course of performing such tasks strictly secret. I
am not sure whether even the System Administrator has the right to monitor
your activities beyond the incidental invasions mentioned above. Even
phone company personnel can not target a subscriber and monitor his
telephone conversations without a warrant. It is one thing to see what
software packages each user is running so as to detect a speed degredation
problem on a network. It would be quite another to use your monitoring
program to track the specific text of a specific user for the purpose
of tracking his activities or determining his thoughts on a topic.
--
Harold G. Peach, Jr. ><> N4FLZ _% hgpeach@s.ms.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
From: digital@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Digital)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Message-ID: <1316@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:24:46 GMT
Karl, Is there any relavant literature pertainingf to this? Anything available
for FTP that they could get in order to help their case?
-Glen
Digital@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Message-ID: <1992Apr11.000627.23277@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:06:27 GMT
digital@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Digital) writes:
[...]
> Is there any relavant literature pertainingf to this? Anything available
>for FTP that they could get in order to help their case?
[...]
(Aside: are teachers being spied on, too? If so, see _Gillard v.
Schmidt_, reference enclosed.)
In _New Jersey v. T.L.O._, the Supreme Court said:
Public school officals can search a grade or high school student "when
there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn
up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the
law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in
its scope when the measure adopted are reasonable to objectives of the
search are not excessively intrusive in light of age and sex of the
student and the nature of the infaction.{6}"
Quoted on p. 82 of the ACLU Handbook: _The Rights of Students_, 1988.
Also from the Handbook:
"States can set stricter standards, for example, Louisiana, requires
full probable cause."
"[Question:] Can student be subject to mass searches?
[Answer:] No. The Supreme Court [has not dealt with this.] But a
number of federal and state courts have ruled that there must a
reasonable suspeicion directed speciacally at each student before a
school offical can search students. ..."
"States courts, statutes, and local practices vary widely on the
question of when students' lockers and desks can be searched."
Here is the Privacy section of the unoffical, draft Statement
on Computers and Academic freedom:
"III. Privacy
Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
protections as private communications via telephone."
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/gillard-v-schmidt
=================
Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could
not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant.
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law gillard-v-schmidt
send acad-freedom caf-statement
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/gillard-v-schmidt
pub/academic/caf-statement
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Apr 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jkogan@eff.org (Julia Kogan)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Message-ID: <1992Apr11.072106.28346@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 07:21:06 GMT
In art. <1992Apr11.000627.23277@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>In _New Jersey v. T.L.O._, the Supreme Court said:
>
>Public school officals can search a grade or high school student "when
>there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn
>up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the
>law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in
>its scope when the measure adopted are reasonable to objectives of the
>search are not excessively intrusive in light of age and sex of the
>student and the nature of the infaction.{6}"
>Quoted on p. 82 of the ACLU Handbook: _The Rights of Students_, 1988.
>
>Also from the Handbook:
>
>"States can set stricter standards, for example, Louisiana, requires
>full probable cause."
>
>[...]
>Here is the Privacy section of the unoffical, draft Statement
>on Computers and Academic freedom:
>
>"III. Privacy
>
>Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
>files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
>protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
>office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
>desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
>protections as private communications via telephone."
>
Carl, since the "case" before us involves a high school, rather than a
university, would you quote or summarize any sections of the Statement
dealing with high school students? I would hope that it recommends that
States swing to the left of T.L.O....
Furthermore, the last sentence of the draft Statement ("Private
communications....") seems amorphous -- quite the broad
policy generalization. Is it supposed to apply to high school
students, prisoners, and other classes that the S.Ct. has decided
have reduced/no privacy interests?
--
Julia Kogan | These opinions are not my employer's,
jkogan@eff.org | nor are they legal advice. Ask me _after_
Boston U., Law '92 -- May 27! | I pass the Bar, and I'll tell you the truth.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr11.150009.6432@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:00:09 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
}I have been working on a "Student Access and Use Policy". I've finally
}managed to wrangle it into a manageable form. I'd like to hear any com-
}ments you may have.
Well, here are my comments. Well, actually my complaints. If I
left it out, I didn't have any questions about it.
John
My background (bias?) is:
ISU Comp Ctr Systems Software Engineer
Member of ISU Computor Advisory [to the Provost] Committee
Part-time graduate student
}==============================================================================
}DRAFT
}
} Student Computing Access and Use Policy
} ... No disciplinary action will be
}taken against students by the Engineering Computing Center; if such action
}is contemplated, the matter will be remanded to the appropriate office.
[this appears to not be true, see below]
}1.1 Use of restricted ECC facilities by those students outside the College
} of Engineering is prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
What about students not in the Engineering College but who are taking
an Engineering Course? Where do they fall?
}1.2 Sharing your userid with any other person is prohibited. [Paragraph
} 1.21u, CSC]
}
}1.3 Using a userid which belongs to another user is prohibited, even if you
} have been issued a userid of your own. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
We also have a rule of one userid per person -- it sounds like this is your
situation, maybe that is worth saying explicitly.
}The ECC Staff may, at a later date, establish specific policies to address
}short-term problems or situations. You are obligated to follow those short-
}term directives and/or policies, just as you are obligated to follow this
}policy. You may also receive specific personal instructions from ECC Staff;
}those instructions must be followed as well. Therefore:
Some assurance that these policies and/or instructions will also be in
accordance with, and not superior to, University policy?
}You are allocated a certain amount of disk space on ECC system for storage
}of your files and data. Each user has their own disk space; you have no need
}to examine the disk space of other users. The ECC Staff does not, and will
}not, examine student files or data, except during normal computing
}operations (e.g., making system backup tapes). Therefore:
An assurance that files/data `accidentally' seen will be not be divulged?
}2.2 Attempts to evade or change resource quotas are prohibited.
} [Paragraphs 1.21a, 1.21h, and 1.21u, CSC]
I assume you *are* allowed to change a quota by requesting a change from ECC?
}While we do not place arbitrary limits on your use of ECC systems, it is quite
}possible for you to consume a significant portion of the systems' resources.
}As a result, you may impede the work of other users. If this should occur,
}you will be notified by ECC staff. Therefore:
}
}2.3 Continued impedance of other users through mass consumption of
} system resources, after receipt of a request to cease such activity, is
} prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21a, CSC]
How does someone who feels his consumption of resourses is warranted
(necessary to their academic success) seek appeal?
}Your access to ECC systems is based on your academic needs. We cannot,
}and will not, support "for-profit" operations. Therefore:
}
}2.4 Use of ECC facilities and/or services for commercial purposes is
} prohibited. [Paragraphs 1.21g and 1.21u, CSC]
Definition of `for-profit'? Is, for example, using misc.forsale allowed
or not allowed.
}ECC resources are dedicated to academic work. At this time, we cannot
}support game or recreational programs. Therefore:
}
}2.5 The installation/execution of games and/or recreational programs on
} ECC systems is prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
Definition of recreational? News? Only certain newsgroups? E-mail?
Talk? IRC? Playing MUD? Writing MUD? Writing a program not required
in any class? Fortune? FTP? Archie? ...
}Section 3: Electronic Mail Policy
:
}3.4 All mailing lists with more than 10 members must be registered with
} the ECC staff. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
I'm sorry, this seems absolutely absurd.
}It is important to note that the ECC staff will make arrangements for large
}mailing lists; however, we will not support mailing lists whose subjects
}violate University policy, State law, or Federal law. (In any situation where
}this is a possibility, the University Counsel will be asked for a decision.)
How could the existence of a mailing list could be illegal?
}Section 4: Network Use Policy
:
}There are a limited number of network ports available to certain systems.
}It is possible to connect to other systems via ECC systems. This misuse of
}ECC systems may result in depriving other users of access to our systems.
}We cannot support use of computers outside of the ECC. Therefore:
}
}4.2 Use of ECC systems and/or networks to connect to other systems, in
} evasion of the physical limitations of the remote system/network, is
} prohibited. [Paragraph 1.21a and 1.21u, CSC]
I don't understand this. For example, we have a system with 1 serial
connection. Is telneting to that system an "evasion of the physical
limitations"??? Why is that banned???
}Section 6: Incident Handling
:
}In the event that you, knowingly or unknowingly, violate ECC or University
}policy, you will be contacted by the ECC Staff. This contact will usually take
}the form of an electronic mail message. It is your responsibility to follow
}any instructions you may receive from ECC Staff, and to confirm your
}receipt of those instructions. If you believe that the instructions given to
}you are unreasonable, you should immediately contact the Director of
}Engineering Computing or the Assistant Dean of the College of Engineering.
}If you do not register your complaint with either the Director of Engineering
}Computing or the Assistant Dean, it is expected that you will follow the
}instructions given to you. Therefore:
}
}6.1 Disregarding instructions of ECC Staff may result in the temporary
} revocation of your computing access.
How do you know if they have even received your instructions (e-mail?).
If, for example, I was not on the system for a week or so, tried to use
the system some Saturday to complete a project due Monday morning and
found I my access revoked because I had not followed instructions (that
I never received) and my academic success was jepordized I would be furious.
Also, in my mind this is punishment -- something you stated at the top
would not happen.
}If your access is temporarily revoked, you should immediately contact the
}ECC Staff for an explanation of the situation. In most cases, the revocation
}will be lifted within 1 working day. Quite often, temporary revocation is the
}result of a minor, or apparently unintentional, violation of ECC or University
}policy; such revocations will be lifted as soon as the ECC Staff discusses the
}relevant policies with you.
See above--this is unacceptable.
}The ECC will abide by the decision of the Dean of Students. If the Dean of
}Students chooses not to bring disciplinary action against you, or if the
}judicial proceedings are resolved in your favor, your complete access to ECC
}facilities will be immediately restored.
Access is restricted BEFORE the guilt of the student is determined?!?
From caf-talk Caf Apr 11 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Message-ID: <1992Apr11.154521.768@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:45:21 GMT
I quoted the first draft of the unoffical Statement on Computers and
Academic Freedom (which I wrote):
>Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
>files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
>protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
>office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
>desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
>protections as private communications via telephone."
jkogan@eff.org (Julia Kogan) writes:
>Carl, since the "case" before us involves a high school, rather than a
>university, would you quote or summarize any sections of the Statement
>dealing with high school students?
None of the draft CAF statement deals explictily with high schoolers.
[...]
>Furthermore, the last sentence of the draft Statement ("Private
>communications....") seems amorphous -- quite the broad
>policy generalization. Is it supposed to apply to high school
>students, prisoners, and other classes that the S.Ct. has decided
>have reduced/no privacy interests?
[...]
No, only university students. On the other hand, it is a document
about moral rights, not legal rights, and since it is unofficial, we
can try to apply it elsewhere.
The gist of the last sentence, "Private communications via computer
should have the same >protections as private communications via
telephone", is that computer communications should be treated like
other communications with respect to privacy (or lack there of).
If high school bathrooms can now be bugged or if any teachers can tap
the telephones in the student council office (I hope thay can't, but I
don't know), then I wouldn't expect computer networks to be free of
spying.
If prison bathrooms can now be bugged or if any guards can tap the
telephones, (I understand they can tap most calls), then I wouldn't
expect computer networks to be free of spying.
- 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 11 00:00:00 1992
From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Message-ID: <6682@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:17:28 GMT
Here at UCLA we have a similiar situation (re:privacy on novell
lans) with our computer science mac lab. The lab is a group of 30 or
so mac's apple talked together with a couple of main servers. The
lab is fairly isolated. Though its possible to send and recieve net
mail, no other outside access is allowed. Accounts at the lab are
granted ONLY for class accounts to be used for class activities. The
reason that the monitoring situation is similiar is because the lab
officials have freely admited that they will either A) Run a program
to read all mail or B) Read all mail themselves in order to see if
anyone is sending anyone else code through the mail. (Apparently
there were rampant problems with cheating where by one student would
send another student the answer to an assignment through mail) So
now ALL mail is monitored. However I think you would be hard pressed
to find anyone who would argue with this 'big brother' attitude. The
accounts are ONLY for class uses and once I brought it to the
attention of my teacher that the 'academic honest statement' we had
signed implied that mail was read, he made an announcment in class
explaining that ALL mail was read and that no one should think it
was private.
So if the accounts the professor was monitoring were class accounts,
I have a feeling you will find that he is not in violation of any
laws. Especially if he made the total lack of privacy clear from the
start.
The Jester
--
For some reason unintelligible to me, Lord Acton's dictum that
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
is rarely raised in connection with judges, who...possess power
..that comes [close] to being absolute"-Judge Bork
From caf-talk Caf Apr 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.motss, et al.] frightening law
Message-ID: <9204121528.AA09143@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:28:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi,ne.motss,alt.personals,comp.org.eff.talk
From: entropy@yaya (Lawrence C Foard)
Subject: frightening law
Message-ID: <1992Apr12.055744.3899@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:57:44 GMT
The following was recently sent to me after I requested more info about
something appearing in alt.censorship, if I'm reading it right this would
outlaw all pornography in Massachusetts.
>From a newspaper article on it --
"A bill of divorcement: women are split on anti-pornography law," by
Thomas C. Palmer, Jr., Boston Globe, March 29, 1992, p.69 -- I've
gotten part of it, though:
Sec.2(e): It shall be sex discrimination to produce, sell,
exhibit, or distribute pornography, including through private
clubs. This subsection applies only to pornography made using
live or dead human beings or animals...
City, state, and federally funded public libraries or private
and public university and college libraries in which pornography
is available for study, including on open shelves but excluding
special display presentations, shall not be construed to be
trafficking in pornography.
Any woman may bring a complaint hereunder as a woman acting
against the subordination of women. Any man, child, or
transsexual who alleges injury by pornography in the way women
are injured by it may also complain.
The fun part is that, according to the Globe article:
The provision that would define trafficking in pornography as
sex discrimination, which is already illegal and subject to
triple damages, is the most far-reaching and dangerous one,
according to an opponent, Nan C. Hunter, a cofounder of the
Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force.
It is something of a "stealth" provision, buried in the bill
but one opponents believe would be used the most -- and of the
greatest harm to free expression. "There is no proof of harm
required," Hunter says. "The other sections at least try to
address situations that involve harm and coercion."
As a technical note, the use of the word "illegal" may be misleading
-- sexual discrimination is a civil offense, not a criminal offense,
in Massachusetts. You can't go to prison or be fined for it, but
you sure as hell can be sued for everything you own...
-- William December Starr
-------------------------------
End repost
Obviously if this is for real we have some serious problems. I don't think
USENET will survive in its present form if this passes.
--
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true. ------ 01-p
From caf-talk Caf Apr 12 00:00:00 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID: <1992Apr8.171336.5139@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:13:36 GMT
In article <1992Apr04.003809.29084@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) 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").
It was stated that the cause of problem was a subject-line that stated
something along the lines of "Fuck 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.
Please write back after you have actually sat down and read (or read
reliable summaries of) the actual judicial opinions. I'm sure that you
will find the law to be quite different from what your current understanding
appears to be.
Furthermore, neither of the "examples" that you give are relevant to the case
at hand, as it was described by the original poster.
>>(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.
And if *you* bothered to compile references to back up your comments, you
would have quickly found that your comments were not justified, in the
first place.
I suspect that Carl's annotated references are quite helpful to individuals
who are not familiar with the judicial precedents. For those who already are,
there is always the "n" key.
You might be well-advised to check out a few of Carl's references, yourself.
--
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 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [cs.general, et al.] Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <9204121853.AA09555@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:53:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 12 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cs.general,aus.aarnet,comp.admin.policy
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <1992Apr12.161105.7659@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 16:11:05 GMT
mikec@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Michael CIAVARELLA) writes:
}I have a (hypothetical) situation which I'd appreciate ...
[... a short paraphrase ...
User A has accounts on machines XX & YY operated by separate departments.
Admin of XX forbids use of program P on XX or while using XX.
User A compiles P on YY.
Admin of XX impersonates A on XX and deletes P from A's account on YY.
...]
Were I the Admin of YY I would have the Admin of XX called on the carpet
post haste where I would urge that s/he be fired on the spot.
If, as someone else suggested, the XX admin called me and asked me to
delete P from A's account on YY, I would politely refuse (assuming P
was allowed on YY).
John
From caf-talk Caf Apr 12 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
Subject: Re: Privacy perfect news management (was Re: News
Message-ID: <1992Apr12.013910.16877@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 12 Apr 92 06:39:10 GMT
In article <1992Apr2.010217.5328@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 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.
>
On large systems, adjust the quota allowed by the number of users
with that newsgroup registered. Some groups (i.e. news.answers) will have
a longer disk space quota than the number of registered users would
indicate, of course.
-Allen
