From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: The AUP, Common Sens
Message-ID: <1992Apr12.213403.16899@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:34:03 GMT
In article <199203250407.AA24580@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
> From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons)
> Subject: Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
> Message-ID: <9203250249.AA23992@lokkur>
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 02:49:14 GMT
>
> A few thoughts on acceptable use and this whole topic...
>
> Maybe we should all get in the habit of distinguishing between NSFNet
> and the Internet? NSFNet is now a subset of the Internet, and saying
> things like "Internet AUP" are just plain silly.
>
> In case nobody noticed, the post office and the telcos do have
> acceptable use policies. One critical difference between them and the
> Internet is that the phone/post office have the same AUP across the
> whole "network". Local corporations with internal phone systems may
> have internal AUPs (like no using company longlines to call your Mom)
> but they don't have any effect on the outside world.
>
> Heretical statement: I have no problem with the NSFNet AUP. What I
> have problems with is apparent use of the AUP as a marketing tool by
> ANS ("Them commercial folks can't hook you to nsfnet, but we can...").
> Faugh. How about treating everybody by the same rules, guys.
>
> IMHO, NSFNet ought to disconnect *ALL* commercial clients, including
> ANS. If they don't want to be the national backbone, that's fine and
> understandable. NSFNet sites who want to deal with commercial groups
> should (read: can easily and affordably) buy a commercial link from a
> commercial networking company.
>
> The commercial networks should build their own backbone(s), doing all
> of (a) co-operative unmetered arrangements like the CIX, (b) private
> interconnects between two mutually agreeable parties, (c) buying from a
> 3rd-party backbone supplier at some mutually-agreed upon rate for
> packets and/or bandwidth and/or whatever. Let the market decide what
> kind of arrangement is best. It's working for phones -- almost all
> the complaints I hear about the telephone system today have to do with
> the still-regulated parts.
>
> The only reason NSFNet/ANS matters is because they own the backbone.
> If, as has been said here, a backbone could be built cheaper and better
> with existing off-the-shelf equipment, then let's put our money and
> work where our mouths are and DO IT. Universities etc are *extremely*
> price-sensitive, and will switch to commercial carriers if they can
> save bucks. The AUP will become not merely irrelevant, but an active
> hindrance to those who use NSFNet.
One way to handle some organization's dislike of carrying some
information (commercial advertisements, for instance), is to simply try to
make sure that such messages are in identifiable newsgroups. The
organization can simply not carry those newsgroups.
Of course, email is another matter entirely.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID: <1992Apr12.213955.16900@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:39:55 GMT
In article <9203261504.aa11755@s.s.ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>If the university merely applied the same criteria to
>>Usenet that it applies to its libraries, it is likely that there'd be
>>little or nothing to complain about.
>
> A university creates/maintains a library for a specific purpose. While
> many universities share their resources (through interlibrary loans, for
> example), there are certainly some that do not.
>
> Usenet, on the other hand, is not "created" by a particular site. It is
> an amorphous conglomerate that, by default, spans every sector of society.
> Usenet includes commercial sites, educational institutions, government agen-
> cies, and private systems (the 486 PC in a friend's house is the perfect
> example). It spans the jurisdiction of almost every US state, as well as
> those of dozens of nations. It travels over phone lines controlled/paid
> for by government networks, regional networks, and individual sites.
>
> I don't believe that we can create a "Usenet policy" that can be equally
> applied to these widely variant networks/sites/contributors.
>
>>If the University of Nebraska carries
>>books by Norman Mailer, D.H. Lawrence, Erica Jong, or Bret Easton Ellis in
>>its libraries, it is inconsistent for it to object to the textual content
>>of the alt.sex hierarchy.
>
> If we are discussing obscenity, it is important to address the "community
> standards" portion of the relevant definition. Standards of obscenity
> vary widely with jurisdictions; for example, the state of Indiana recently
> banned nude dancing, even though many other states do not restrict it. I
> can easily envison a Usenet posting (or a book, or a movie) which would be
> tolerated in one jurisdiction and treated as obscenity in another; in fact,
> I think we've all seen such postings/books/movies.
>
> The transient nature of Usenet makes comparisons to printed materials
> difficult, if not impossible. I can examine a novel by Mailer and make
> a qualified judgement of its "obscenity", according to my understanding
> of the local jurisdiction's interpretation of the term. I can read several
> issues of a magazine and make a qualified judgement of its "style"; I can
> estimate the likelihood of that magazine's tresspass into the local version
> of "obscenity". I cannot make a similar judgement of a Usenet newsgroup; I
> cannot "preview" its contents, nor can I estimate future "style" or content
> by examination of "past issues".
>
> Library selection policies are based, in part, on the notion that the
> materials in question are somewhat fixed in nature. I don't think that
> anyone will come into my library and render my copy of Faulkner "obscene".
> I don't think that _National Review_ will suddenly become a magazine for
> pedophiles. Usenet, on the other hand, is an embodiment of fluctuation.
> How can I apply "library selection policies" to something which is constantly
> changing?
>
There is the question, of course, of if the community standards
policy is a violation of free press/speech. I tend to think it is. What
the community thinks doesn't matter; people don't have a right for others
not to read/view/publish/whatever "obscene" material. Until a university
recieves a court order to stop carrying alt.sex or whatever, they are
engaging in willing (and, IMNHO (In My Non-Humble Opinion),
unconstitutional if receiving governmental money) violation of free
speech/press if they drop a newsgroup due to "offensive" content.
Dropping it due to lack of room, if this policy is carried out for
all non-academic groups, is another matter entirely.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:52:27 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.045227.25003@anomaly.sbs.com>
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>It was stated that the cause of problem was a subject-line that stated
>something along the lines of "Fuck Censorship."
Why wasn't the Message-ID of the "offending" message posted? Why wasn't the
offending message copied into the post crying "censorship!" ? Why? I for one
think that there is more behind this than what is being described as a simple
message with the title "Fuck Censorship".
>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.
Absolutely not, from the relevant case law I studied five years ago, unless
things have been dramatically changed since then. It is still "illegal" to
incite physical harm against a group of people or one person. For one thing,
consult the legal definition of "assault".
>Furthermore, neither of the "examples" that you give are relevant to the case
>at hand, as it was described by the original poster.
The point was, in case you missed it, is that "free speech" does not give you
a blanket right to say whatever you feel like whenever you feel like it.
Society places limitations on what you can say for the good of the public or
protection of other people (in the two examples I cited.)
>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.
Carl constantly refers to the same, questionablely-related examples.
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan /
-- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.92643.3006@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:26:43 GMT
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>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.
>
>} ... 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]
Hmmmm....I'll change "disciplinary action" to "PERMANENT disciplinary action".
>}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?
We usually handle this through the instructor; they give me a class roll, and
I crank up the guest accounts. I'll formalize a procedure and put it in the
next draft.
>}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.
That is mentioned explicitly in the "rationale" section preceding these two
points. Are these two rules *that* unclear? How should I rephrase them?
>Some assurance that these policies and/or instructions will also be in
>accordance with, and not superior to, University policy?
>
>An assurance that files/data `accidentally' seen will be not be divulged?
You got it; suitable assurances will be in the next draft.
>}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?
Yup; I'll put a formal procedure in the next draft.
>}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?
Hmmmm......I guess I'll put a "Complaint/Appeal Policy" in the next draft.
>}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.
How about something like this?
"Use of ECC facilities and/or services for explicitly commercial
purposes is prohibited. ECC facilities and/or services may be
used for personal business, such as the sale of personal property;
such use must be within the other provisions of this policy. ECC
facilities may not be used on behalf of outside agencies."
That would allow Joe Shmo to advertise his old Macintosh for sale, but not
(in my mind) announce the current sales at his company, Bluegrass Computing.
>}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? ...
True; I think the reference to "recreational" will be removed. The
provision prohibiting "network-based applications" will eliminate
MUD/IRC/Netrek/etc. programs, so this provision can be safely rewritten.
>}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.
My rationale behind this provision comes from several experiences:
1) I have had problems with users creating *massive* mailing
lists (over 200 members) with the 'alias' function of mailx.
One of these lists started shipping uuencoded images around.
Chaos ensued.
2) Users have also created mailing lists of people they don't
even know, in the hopes of meeting them.
3) Several students have left this organization without informing
their list members; as a result, I've been getting dozens of
messages from users/postmasters complaining about "user unknown"
email bounces.
4) Two users tried to import the entire UK "email phone book" into
a mailing list. There are over 6000 addresses in the "phone book";
with the transcription errors that were made, it took me over two
weeks to fix the errors, track it down and kill it.
>}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?
I know that this particular example has been bounced around for years, but
what about a "child porn image list"? What about a list that passes out
credit card numbers?
>}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???
UK uses an Ungerman-Bass network, in which each host has a finite number
of ports. When a "popular" system A's ports are all in use, users will
grab a port to another machine B, log in, and telnet to the system they
*really* want to use (system A). This action, in turn, limits the num-
ber of ports to system B that are available for real work.
Very few systems on this campus use hard-wired terminals; the vast majority
(over 90%, in my estimation) of the connections are made through UBNet. The
folks who don't want to wait for access to system A are tying up all the ports
on system B. Right now (and for the past year or so), my systems are acting
as system B; my legitimate users are tired of it, and so am I.
>How do you know if they have even received your instructions (e-mail?).
Well, a quick check of the sendmail logs will indicate success/failure of
delivery. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that they didn't check their
email doesn't absolve them of responsibility. In the "real world", the
Circuit Court doesn't care if you "didn't receive" their summons; they'll
haul you in anyway. What's the difference?
>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.
Your access wouldn't be revoked unless the action(s) continued. I thought
I made that clear. I thought that "Disregarding instructions" implied that
the violations were continuing; I'll reword it in the next draft.
Here's the scenario I envisioned (and the one that has occured several times):
1) User actions cause problems.
2) ECC sends email message to user.
3) Action continues.
4) Temporary revocation.
>}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.
What's the alternative? I had a user who consistently crashed the system
with a shell script that hosed out the ethernet card. I sent THREE email
messages; he kept running the script. I tried to telephone him, but his num-
ber wasn't listed. What the heck am I supposed to do?
>}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?!?
Yup, it sure is. If I have evidence that a user is using one of the
systems for cracking attempts on other systems, you'd better believe that
I'm going to throw him into a "no network access" restricted shell until
we know more. (I should point out that NONE of the classes in Engineering
require network access; therefore, this action will not restrict his class-
work)
If I have evidence that a user is using other user directories as storage
(in violation of resource quotas), you'd better believe that he's going to
find himself in a restricted shell when next he logs in.
--
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 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Validity of references (was Re: censored at UB.....)
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.141702.17248@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:17:02 GMT
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
[...]
>Carl constantly refers to the same, questionablely-related examples.
[...]
Hey I resent that; I'm constantly adding *new* questionablely-related
examples to my repetoire :-)
But seriously, if you think that some of the references are
questionable, they you should write articles questioning them. The
beauty of backing up ones arguments with evidence is that it allows
deeper discussions than "is so", "is not", "is so", ...
I'm enclosing one that seems (to me) applicable to the UB situtation.
- Carl
================ Excerpt from the doe-v-u-of-michigan decision ===========
In Papish v. University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667, 93 S.Ct. 1197, 35
L.Ed.2d 618 (1973), the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of a
university student expelled for distributing an underground newspaper
sporting the headline "Motherfucker acquitted" on the grounds that
"the mere dissemination of ideas--no matter how offensive to good
taste--on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name
alone of conventions of decency." Id. at 670, 93 S.Ct. at 1199.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
--
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 13 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: <1992Apr13.142732.19822@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:27:32 GMT
When last we left our intrepid explorers...
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
}john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}>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.
}>}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.
}That is mentioned explicitly in the "rationale" section preceding these two
}points. Are these two rules *that* unclear? How should I rephrase them?
Well, here at least, we have a number of people who keep asking for another
userid for some purpose -- we don't do this. This is what I was wondering
about.
}How about something like this?
}
} "Use of ECC facilities and/or services for explicitly commercial
} purposes is prohibited. ECC facilities and/or services may be
} used for personal business, such as the sale of personal property;
} such use must be within the other provisions of this policy. ECC
} facilities may not be used on behalf of outside agencies."
}
}That would allow Joe Shmo to advertise his old Macintosh for sale, but not
}(in my mind) announce the current sales at his company, Bluegrass Computing.
Looks good to me.
}>}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.
}My rationale behind this provision comes from several experiences:
}
} 1) I have had problems with users creating *massive* mailing
} lists (over 200 members) with the 'alias' function of mailx.
} One of these lists started shipping uuencoded images around.
} Chaos ensued.
I can certainly understand this one. Maybe its just "10" I
didn't like. We have mail-lists for each course (for example:
math_123@iastate.edu). Now we create these ourselves, but if
we didn't I sure wouldn't want to hear about all of them!
} 3) Several students have left this organization without informing
} their list members; as a result, I've been getting dozens of
} messages from users/postmasters complaining about "user unknown"
} email bounces.
You'll never shake this one.... :-(
}>}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.
}>How could the existence of a mailing list could be illegal?
}I know that this particular example has been bounced around for years, but
}what about a "child porn image list"? What about a list that passes out
}credit card numbers?
Well, it seems it is the use which is illegal, not the list. Surely if
I was to ask you (as my SysAdmin) to setup such a list I wouldn't ask to
call it something like ``WeFondleLittleBoys@ms.uky.edu'', but rather
something ordinary sounding like ``wflb@ms.uky.edu''. But then again,
maybe these people are really stupid...
}UK uses an Ungerman-Bass network, in which each host has a finite number
}of ports. When a "popular" system A's ports are all in use, users will
}grab a port to another machine B, log in, and telnet to the system they
}*really* want to use (system A). This action, in turn, limits the num-
}ber of ports to system B that are available for real work.
}Very few systems on this campus use hard-wired terminals; the vast majority
}(over 90%, in my estimation) of the connections are made through UBNet. The
}folks who don't want to wait for access to system A are tying up all the ports
}on system B. Right now (and for the past year or so), my systems are acting
}as system B; my legitimate users are tired of it, and so am I.
Ah! I can see we are very fortunate not to have such a thing. Our serial
network is an AT&T ISN (and much as I hate to praise them, it is nice). In
any event, serial is fading pretty fast here. Looks like you don't have
much choice but to have that rule.
}>How do you know if they have even received your instructions (e-mail?).
}As far as I'm concerned, the fact that they didn't check their
}email doesn't absolve them of responsibility. ...
}Your access wouldn't be revoked unless the action(s) continued. I thought
}I made that clear. I thought that "Disregarding instructions" implied that
}the violations were continuing; I'll reword it in the next draft.
}Here's the scenario I envisioned (and the one that has occured several times):
} 1) User actions cause problems.
} 2) ECC sends email message to user.
} 3) Action continues.
} 4) Temporary revocation.
I was thinking of things which can continue `passively'. Like you created
an 11-person mailing list, or whatever.
}>}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.
[examples omitted]
I still have a real problem with possibly interferring with a student's
academic success for `minor, or apparently unintentional, violation[s]'.
Certainly if they are a real threat to the system or other users, then
immediate action is called for.
}>}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?!?
Same comment as above.
----
Overall, I think you have made a really fine effort; I just like
to play the devil's advocate. ;-)
Cheers,
John
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.152305.18668@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:23:05 GMT
There is lots of good stuff in the policy. I especially like the
references to general university policy and the tie in regular
university disciplinary channels.
The whole temporary/permanent access restriction/reduction is very,
very complex and confusing. Here is a summary:
A.
Being suspected of violating a rule and
Not getting the ECC's email or
Not getting the ECC's email or
Not following the instructions of the ECC's email
-> temporary revocation
B.
Being suspected of violating a rule and
In the opinion of the ECC staff immediate revocation is necessary
-> temporary revocation
C.
Being suspected of a significatant violation of a rule and
The Dean of Students decides judicial proceedings are necessary
-> restricted access for the duration of the proceedings
The amount of restriction depends on the nature of the charges.
It is open for abuse by the ECC staff. (I don't think that Wes Morgan
would abuse "his own" policy, but others could). I think the procedure
could be improved by mentioning in parts B and C that supensions and
restrictions before a finding will only be imposed "for reasons
relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for
reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or
university property." [student.freedoms] This could be reenforced
having the head of ECC OK such actions. (Similar to the OK required in
the U. of Delaware policy).
Part C is especially unclear about how the restiction "depends" on the
nature of the charges. A staff member could read it and this that he
or she is suppose to punish users before it has been determined that
they have volated policy.
Which gives me a chance to use a quote that I've been saving for
weeks:
"No, no," said the Queen: "The sentence first -- the verdict
afterwards." -- Lewis Carroll, _Alice in Wonderland_.
Finally, here are some notes on the wording of this section.
=========================
In the event that you, knowingly or unknowingly, violate ECC or University
^^^^^^^
policy, you will be contacted by the ECC Staff.
--
This probably also applies if they merely appear to violate policy.
The staff shouldn't assume that a violation has occured until
after at speaking with the user.
================
"In the event that you, knowingly or unknowingly, violate ECC or
University policy, you will be contacted by the ECC Staff."
^[replace with:]The ECC will try to contact you
=======================
"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."
--
Contesting an accusation is not a "complaint".
==============
6.2 Temporary revocations of computing access will be dissolved within
one working day of the resolution of the violation.
^^^^^^^^^^
--
There may not be a violation; it may only appear that way.
- 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 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.154330.19059@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:43:30 GMT
Wes Morgan writes:
>>}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]
[...]
>My rationale behind this provision comes from several experiences:
> 1) I have had problems with users creating *massive* mailing
> lists (over 200 members) with the 'alias' function of mailx.
> One of these lists started shipping uuencoded images around.
> Chaos ensued.
I think it would be better to prohibit this mailing list on the
grounds of "substantial disruption", than not preapproved.
> 2) Users have also created mailing lists of people they don't
> even know, in the hopes of meeting them.
I don't think this is limited to lists of over size 10. Also, I don't
see how preapproval will help, unless you are going to double check
all the entries in the list.
If a person complains about unwanted email, you should tell the sender
to stop sending email to that person.
> 3) Several students have left this organization without informing
> their list members; as a result, I've been getting dozens of
> messages from users/postmasters complaining about "user unknown"
> email bounces.
This must happen with regular email, too. Also, from what I know about
list members, many will ignore notification anyway. How about just
suggesting that departing students send a "change of address" message
to their frequent email correspondents.
> 4) Two users tried to import the entire UK "email phone book" into
> a mailing list. There are over 6000 addresses in the "phone book";
> with the transcription errors that were made, it took me over two
> weeks to fix the errors, track it down and kill it.
Again, get them for "substantial disruption"
>>}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.)
>I know that this particular example has been bounced around for years, but
>what about a "child porn image list"? What about a list that passes out
>credit card numbers?
These lists are already prohibited because they are illegal. Do you
really want to take even partial responsibility for the lists that you
do approve of? What if you give it an official University OK, and
*then* it starts being used for credit cards?
I'm enclosing a reference.
- Carl
The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center
(1985,1988), p. 37:
"Only two court cases have considered the liability question, and in
both cases the courts found that the institution was free from
liability because control was in the hands of the students."{33,34}
...
"Thus, despite arguments by administrators that they need to prevent
libel, it appears that just the opposite is true: Where administrators
have not exercised control over the content of student publications,
the courts have refused to hold their schools responsible for libel
appearing in such publication. If, however, administrators exercise
the power of prior review, then the court will also hold them and
their schools liable for the contents of such publications.
Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation between school
administration and editor functions may also result in the reduction
of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize that substantial
funds are beyond their reach.
{33} _Mazart v. State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981)
{34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d 1300 (La. App. 1983)
- 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 13 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: <9204131554.AA13197@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:54:55 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
From: richardt@Apple.COM (Richard Threadgill)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
Subject: Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Message-ID: <65278@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:49:24 GMT
Of course, all of this discussion of the Acceptable Use Policy may very soon
become moot, as it is now undergoing Congressional review. Thus far, the
reports have been mixed, but the AUP was subjected to fairly severe
criticism in the last round of hearings and the NSF is busily pouring
over their justifications for the AUP.
RichardT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 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: <9204131555.AA13224@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:55:28 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cs.general,aus.aarnet,comp.admin.policy
From: miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:04:58 GMT
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>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.
(a) This is not easy, because it is a university.
(b) It is inadvisable, because the other sysadmin is a colleague and has
the same employer.
>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).
I might do it that way, but would probably also carpet student A for
having a .rhosts file.
I think student A would be best cutting his/her losses and hoping admin XX
doesn't have his/her account pulled on machine XX. You think the
University is going to push charges against itself? The *student* has no
rights in this case, because all resources used belong to the
university.
cheers,
--
Mark Williams The University of Queensland miw@cc.uq.oz.au
+61 7 36 54012 (w) Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477 (fax) Qld 4072 Australia
Si fractus illabatur orbis impavidium ferient ruinae. -- Horace
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <9204131555.AA13245@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:55:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: fwp@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.023630.25050@ra.msstate.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:36:30 GMT
In article miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) says:
>john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>(a) This is not easy, because it is a university.
Even if s/he weren't fired the complaint would be worthwhile in its own
right. Any little annoyance to make XX reconsider any such actions in
the future.
>(b) It is inadvisable, because the other sysadmin is a colleague and has
> the same employer.
Why does this make it inadvisable? If they work in different departments
then they probably don't have superiors in common for at least one level.
This depends upon the employer/supervisor but I'd expect my boss to
support me in this complaint (in fact, he'd probably want to make it
instead of me).
My preferred course of action (after consulting with my own superior)
would be to contact XX and his/her superior and indicate that we
consider the action to be a violation of our usage rules. If XX had a
userid on our system I'd initiate procedures to get this access
revoked. I'd also get in contact with other departmental
administrators on campus and warn them of XX's actions. I'd also
encourage them to get in touch with XX and XX's superior and make their
feelings on this action known. If the offense were repeated I'd lobby
hard to have access from XX's systems to my systems disabled at the
network level.
All of this, of course, depends upon how dependent you may be on XX's
department for cooperation. Being in our Computing Center we are in a
fortunate relative power position (not that I can imagine any of my
fellow administrators here doing something like this).
>>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).
>
>I might do it that way, but would probably also carpet student A for
>having a .rhosts file.
In a university environment a limited .rhosts file is not a grave sin
(though it is ill advised. I'd recommend that the user reconsider
using a .rhosts file (or a stronger password if XX got on by CRACKing
but it seems unfair to suggest that this was the user's fault.
Presumably he/she expected reasonable behavior from XX.
I, like John, would indicate that P does not violate our policies and
(politely) refuse to remove it.
>I think student A would be best cutting his/her losses and hoping admin XX
>doesn't have his/her account pulled on machine XX. You think the
>University is going to push charges against itself? The *student* has no
>rights in this case, because all resources used belong to the
>university.
Pursuing such an action would be important to me as well as my user.
I'd want to make it absolutely clear to XX that it is not his/her
position to decide what my users may and may not do with my systems.
I'd also want to make it clear that his/her use of another user's
account is as much a violation as if another random user had done it.
You are probably right that no real action would be taken at many
institutions (though not all of them by any means). But enough of a
ruckus could probably be raised to significantly discourage XX from
doing the same thing again.
Perhaps I'm overly sensitive but I would consider XX's actions
to be as much a violation of administrator/administrator
courtesy as of administrator/user courtesy.
I'd feel the same about a neighbor coming into my house uninvited
and taking a toy away from one of my children.
--
Frank Peters - UNIX Systems Programmer - Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu - Phone: (601)325-7030 - FAX: (601)325-8921
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cs.general,aus.aarnet,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.160652.26966@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:06:52 GMT
[After some discussion of a hypothetical case ...]
miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
> The *student* has no
>rights in this case, because all resources used belong to the
>university.
[...]
In the U.S., students have contractual rights, Constitutional rights
(at state schools), and (harder to defend) academic-freedom rights.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/constraints.contractual
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
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 constraints.contractual
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
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/constraints.contractual
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberty] music cnesorship victory
Message-ID: <9204131650.AA13872@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 06:50:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: music cnesorship victory
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:06:20 GMT
Happily, the NYCLU helped win a battle for the anti-censorship forces. In
Guilderland, NY (near Albany), town officials passed a law making it a felony
to sell records with EXPLICIT LYRICS stickers to minors. The NYCLU fought it
and got officials to revoke the law. Why? Because an explicit lyrics sticker
, as judged by the music industry, does not mean that it's necesarily obscene.
Only the courts can decide that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL CLARKSON '95 FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most violent element of society is ignorance."
---Emma Goldman (possibly refering to Jesse Helms)
"Political campaigns now are so simplistic and superficial. In the 20 seconds
we have left, could you tell us why, Mr Candidate?"
---Political cartoon
"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
---Johnny Carson
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.165107.6102@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 16:51:07 GMT
>>>}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.)
>
>>I know that this particular example has been bounced around for years, but
>>what about a "child porn image list"? What about a list that passes out
>>credit card numbers?
>
> These lists are already prohibited because they are illegal. Do you
> really want to take even partial responsibility for the lists that you
> do approve of? What if you give it an official University OK, and
> *then* it starts being used for credit cards?
>
> I'm enclosing a reference.
Your reference has no bearing on the situation as posed. If you read your
own reference, it refers to "administrators ... exercis[ing] control over
the content of student publications".
The ECC staff is _NOT_ exercising control over the content of the publication.
The ECC staff is asking to exercise control over the creation of the
publication. This is similar to the position many schools have that
only recognized student organizations can make use of school facilities.
In order for your reference to have any bearing, the ECC staff would need
to exercise "the power of prior review" on the messages posted to the lists
they approve. This is not what the ECC is asking for.
Aydin Edguer
Resident, Planet Earth
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.172930.21518@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:29:30 GMT
Kadie writes:
>> These lists are already prohibited because they are illegal. Do you
>> really want to take even partial responsibility for the lists that you
>> do approve of? What if you give it an official University OK, and
>> *then* it starts being used for credit cards?
edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>Your reference has no bearing on the situation as posed. If you read your
>own reference, it refers to "administrators ... exercis[ing] control over
>the content of student publications".
[...]
You are probably right that preapproval of mailing lists would not
increase legal libability. It might, however, increase extralegal
pressure to suppress (legal) mailing lists. ("How come you approved
*that* mailing list?").
- 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 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.bbs, et al.] Re: Illegal photographs and Prodigy
Message-ID: <9204131730.AA14123@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 07:30:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
From: chris@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Chris Arps)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,alt.bbs.internet
Subject: Re: Illegal photographs and Prodigy
Message-ID: <1992Apr10.163531.21455@ncmicro.lonestar.org>
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:35:31 GMT
Compuserve dropped ALL of its R rated library a while back
due to copyright infringements. They started another library
called Dontelli online that is filled with files from a
modelling angency (full releases, copyright dealt with, etc.)
Any other photos that go to Compuserve MUST be the property of the
poster or public domain.
Needless to say, this has diminished the amount of posting to
the picture groups and is an indicator of things to come for
the rest of the BBS community.
Another news note: Penthouse has started their own BBS/chat system
that is available thru minitel. So all this hoopla about
electronic images/paper images is irrelavant. Penthouse has
jumped on the wagon and is SELLING electronic images to its
users.
--
Chris Arps ***BUY MARTIAN************ *New Music*SONIC YOUTH*SUICIDAL TEND*
NC/Scientific Software, Music, *GARY NEUMAN*K. SCHULZE*PETER HAMILL*
Animation, 4 Dogs,1 Birds,1 cat *Old Music*SPIRIT*MMANN*VDGG*HENDRIX*
NC Microproducts, 2323 N Central Ste 380, Richardson TX 75080 214-234-6655*
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.filipino] bastos sa scf -- score 1
Message-ID: <9204131741.AA14149@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 07:41:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Date: Sunday, 12 Apr 1992 12:45:53 CDT
From:
Message-ID: <92103.124553U25720@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.filipino
Subject: bastos sa scf -- score 1
There have been some offensive posts on scf from my school. I have complained t
o our computer adminstrator about them (the offenders are unfortunately not eve
n filipinos -- two identified so far are chinese and one vietnamese) and one ha
s been warned. These guys better pick on someone else, because we will not give
in without a fight.
Caloy Arcilla
Dept. of Geological Sciences
==================================================
Received: by UICVM (Mailer R2.07) id 9707; Sat, 11 Apr 92 17:20:38 CDT
Date: 11 April 1992 17:02:50 CDT
From: "Richard K. Wolf (312) 996-8291"
To: ,
,
Subject: Forwarded note below
Mr. Chang:
Pleased be advsied that posts, such as the one you made below, are
considered offensive by other users, both at UIC and elsewhere. While
we at the Computer Center do not want to limit your right to free speech
we must also consider the effects derived from thoughtless behaviour,
such as yours.
Your account is a priveledge granted to you by the Computer Center. If
you abuse that priveledge, it will be quickly taken away from you. I
can think of two instances where accounts have been PERMANENTLY suspended
because their owners were continually bothersome to other users, both
at UIC and on the networks.
Please consider yourself warned. You are doubtless a responsible adult --
please act like one. There are several groups on NETNEWS where posts
like yours would be readily accepted and would be considered "the norm."
Please confine posts, like that below, to such groups.
Yours,
Richard K. Wolf
Small Systems Group
Computer Center
=======================================================================
Received: by UICVM (Mailer R2.07) id 6140; Sat, 11 Apr 92 13:54:29 CDT
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:47:33 CDT
Reply-To: UIC General Consultants ,
U11892@UICVM.BITNET
Sender: UIC General Consultants
From: U11892@UICVM.BITNET
Subject: Courtesy in EMail
To: Richard Wolf
Dear Consultants:
I really respect and love the freedom of speech, but there are some
people who are willing to post anything but hiding in anonymity. These
sample posts, posted on soc.culture.filipino I think are at least
tasteless and offensive. I hope the writer will have enough self-respect
to put his real name on them.
Carlo Arcilla
Dept. of Geological Sciences
University of Illinois at Chicago
=========================================================================
Path: uicvm.uic.edu!u14540
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 22:03:57 CDT
From:
Message-ID: <92101.220357U14540@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.filipino
Subject: Re: TEST
References: <92100.011721U27876@uicvm.uic.edu>
In article <92100.011721U27876@uicvm.uic.edu>, says:
>
>JUST A FILIPINO GUY TESTING TO SEE IF HE CAN POST SOMETHING. THANX.
You fucking twit. Don't you ever waste my time by posting some shitty little te
st. Why don't get a life and post something about this girl named Rachel who
I've read is good looking. So get your finger out of your nose and start typing
You're lucky I just don't kill you, loser.
=========================================================================
Path: uicvm.uic.edu!u14540
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 22:03:57 CDT
From:
Message-ID: <92101.220357U14540@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.filipino
Subject: Re: TEST
References: <92100.011721U27876@uicvm.uic.edu>
In article <92100.011721U27876@uicvm.uic.edu>, says:
>
>JUST A FILIPINO GUY TESTING TO SEE IF HE CAN POST SOMETHING. THANX.
You fucking twit. Don't you ever waste my time by posting some shitty little te
st. Why don't get a life and post something about this girl named Rachel who
I've read is good looking. So get your finger out of your nose and start typing
You're lucky I just don't kill you, loser.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.142428.28852@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:24:28 GMT
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>When last we left our intrepid explorers...
Wading through University policy/procedure manuals is more like "Voyage
of the Damned", but I'll take "intrepid explorers"....8)
>Well, here at least, we have a number of people who keep asking for another
>userid for some purpose -- we don't do this. This is what I was wondering
>about.
>
Ah, I see. Nope, we only issue one userid per person. That userid might
represent accounts on several systems, depending on their use; however,
"jbuser01" refers to Joe B User, regardless of the system.
>}>}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]
> We have mail-lists for each course (for example:
> math_123@iastate.edu). Now we create these ourselves, but if
> we didn't I sure wouldn't want to hear about all of them!
We don't create tham automatically, but they're available to every
instructor on request (with submission of a class roll).
Actually, I'd like to know about them. It never hurts to have an additional
"usage point" handy when you start compiling statistics. 8)
>} 3) Several students have left this organization without informing
>} their list members; as a result, I've been getting dozens of
>} messages from users/postmasters complaining about "user unknown"
>} email bounces.
>
> You'll never shake this one.... :-(
Maybe you misunderstood. I'm talking about students who were RUNNING lists,
not mere participants. Think about getting 200 complaints about a mailing
list that you didn't even know existed! Ecch.
>}>How could the existence of a mailing list could be illegal?
>}I know that this particular example has been bounced around for years, but
>}what about a "child porn image list"? What about a list that passes out
>}credit card numbers?
>
>Well, it seems it is the use which is illegal, not the list. Surely if
>I was to ask you (as my SysAdmin) to setup such a list I wouldn't ask to
>call it something like ``WeFondleLittleBoys@ms.uky.edu'', but rather
>something ordinary sounding like ``wflb@ms.uky.edu''. But then again,
>maybe these people are really stupid...
Well, I know that I can't stop any particular person; if they really want
to make it happen, they will. This provision is there to give "Joe Warez"
a dose of reality before he thinks about using our email to distribute his
cracked programs.
(By the way, I adminster machines for the College of Engineering, engr.uky.edu.
The folks at ms.uky.edu were kind enough to issue a userid to me, but I'm not
affiliated with them.)
>I was thinking of things which can continue `passively'. Like you created
>an 11-person mailing list, or whatever.
Well, action is "at the discretion of ECC staff". 8)
I explicitly mention that warnings/directives would be given prior to
account suspension in almost all cases. I may need to clarify that a
bit, but my only "quick draw" revocations have occured when I have found
a user actively attempting to break security (or ignoring my direct in-
structions). Heck, I usually try at least two or three email messages
for the routine stuff.
>I still have a real problem with possibly interferring with a student's
>academic success for `minor, or apparently unintentional, violation[s]'.
>Certainly if they are a real threat to the system or other users, then
>immediate action is called for.
The last thing I want to do is lock a user out. That's why restricted
shells are so nice. If a user is abusing email, I'll give him a restricted
shell that lets him do everything but email. If a user is abusing the
network facilities, I'll give him a restricted shell that lets him do
everything but telnet/ftp.
We also provide C/FORTRAN/BASIC in our PC labs, so the student can always
do his work there.
>}>Access is restricted BEFORE the guilt of the student is determined?!?
>
>Same comment as above.
Again, "restricted access" doesn't necessarily mean "you can't log in".
I have found that the dextrous use of restricted shells can protect my
systems WHILE allowing the student to complete his work.
>Overall, I think you have made a really fine effort; I just like
>to play the devil's advocate. ;-)
Hey, John, that's why I posted the thing! I wanted to give you folks a
chance to eyeball this thing before the users get their hands on it. If
nothing else, you force me to have logical defenses prepared for every
clause; that's more than I can say for some policies (and policy admins)
I've worked with/under in the past.
By the way, some folks have asked (in email) where this is "going from here".
Here's the way I'll be handling it:
1) Peer review #1 (via Usenet/email)
2) Peer review #2 (with several of the other computing shops on campus).
3) User review (I've got about 12 of my heavy student users lined up).
4) Administrative review (Dean's Office)
5) University Counsel (the legal eagles)
Step 6 is actual implementation/distribution. I plan on a yearly review.
--Wes
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
"I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.144306.3022@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:43:06 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>The whole temporary/permanent access restriction/reduction is very,
>very complex and confusing. Here is a summary:
>
>It is open for abuse by the ECC staff. (I don't think that Wes Morgan
>would abuse "his own" policy, but others could). I think the procedure
>could be improved by mentioning in parts B and C that supensions and
>restrictions before a finding will only be imposed "for reasons
>relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for
>reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or
>university property." [student.freedoms] This could be reenforced
>having the head of ECC OK such actions. (Similar to the OK required in
>the U. of Delaware policy).
While I thought that the "University property" angle was rather obvious,
I'll put something in the next draft. I'll also put an express approval
requirement in place.
>Part C is especially unclear about how the restiction "depends" on the
>nature of the charges. A staff member could read it and this that he
>or she is suppose to punish users before it has been determined that
>they have volated policy.
Hmmmm....how about adding this?
"Any restrictions placed on your computing access must be
directly related to the charges filed against you. Any
restrictions must be approved by the Director of Engineering
Computing prior to their initiation."
That would (hopefully) prevent restriction of telnet/ftp access of a user
who was under plagiarism charges. (or the like)
>Which gives me a chance to use a quote that I've been saving for
>weeks:
>
> "No, no," said the Queen: "The sentence first -- the verdict
> afterwards." -- Lewis Carroll, _Alice in Wonderland_.
Glad to give you the opportunity, Carl; it's isn't quite as weighty
as your quote from William Douglas, but I like it. 8)
>This probably also applies if they merely appear to violate policy.
>The staff shouldn't assume that a violation has occured until
>after at speaking with the user.
OK, how about:
"In the event that you, knowingly or unknowingly, appear to have
violated ECC or University policy, the ECC will attempt to con-
tact you."
>"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."
>--
>Contesting an accusation is not a "complaint".
Agreed; I'll change it to "appeal".
>6.2 Temporary revocations of computing access will be dissolved within
> one working day of the resolution of the violation.
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>--
>There may not be a violation; it may only appear that way.
You're right. How about changing "violation" to "problem" or "situation"?
--Wes
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
"I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.150507.8230@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:05:07 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Wes Morgan writes:
>
>>>}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]
>
>These lists are already prohibited because they are illegal. Do you
>really want to take even partial responsibility for the lists that you
>do approve of? What if you give it an official University OK, and
>*then* it starts being used for credit cards?
Hmmmm......you may have a point.
>
>I'm enclosing a reference.
>
>If, however, administrators exercise
>the power of prior review, then the court will also hold them and
>their schools liable for the contents of such publications.
Well, I wouldn't be exercising "prior review". Here's how it would
work (I've already tested this method -- it works):
1) User asks for mailing list.
2) I set up a pointer to an address file, WHICH IS OWNED AND
MAINTAINED by the user. The user is also designated as the
owner of the list, using the standard "maillist-owner" and
"maillist-request" aliases. If user "jbuser01" comes to me
and asks me to set up a mailing list named "snarf", here's
all I have to do (sendmail admins take note):
In the master alias file (mine is /usr/lib/aliases):
snarf: :include:/usr4/students/jbuser01/snarflist
snarf-request: jbuser01
snarf-owner: jbuser01
Whenever a piece of mail comes in for "snarf@engr.uky.edu",
the mail system consults the file "snarflist" in jbuser01's
directory; he owns the file, and I'm out of the loop.
3) The user runs the list, adding and deleting members and
handling the distribution.
The sum total of my participation is the addition of the necessary lines
in the master alias file. I wouldn't have any input at all to the contents
of the list.
To me, this is similar to starting a college newspaper. I give them office
space and a means of delivery; the rest of it is theirs. Would this consti-
tute "prior review"? What if I eliminate the involvement of the University
Counsel and just create any mailing list upon request, using this system?
Would that eliminate any potential liability?
--
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 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.195228.24575@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:52:28 GMT
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Part C is especially unclear about how the restiction "depends" on the
>>nature of the charges. A staff member could read it and this that he
>>or she is suppose to punish users before it has been determined that
>>they have volated policy.
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>Hmmmm....how about adding this?
> "Any restrictions placed on your computing access must be
> directly related to the charges filed against you. Any
> restrictions must be approved by the Director of Engineering
> Computing prior to their initiation."
[...]
Let me make up a scenario. A user apperently sends a million lines of
"Wow! I sure can waste paper" to the laser printer." This wastes about
2000 pages of paper and $25 dollars worth of toner.
You bring him/her up on charges. (At the very least he or she should
have to pay for the waste and get a formal warning from the school.)
The question is, should you also prohibit the user from using the
printer while the case is pending? The policy as written seems to say
yes. But to me this seems that punishment before establishing guilt
(unless you really think the user is stupid enough to do it again
while awaiting a University hearing.)
- 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 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr13.200405.24990@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:04:05 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>These lists are already prohibited because they are illegal. Do you
>really want to take even partial responsibility for the lists that you
>do approve of? What if you give it an official University OK, and
>*then* it starts being used for credit cards?
[...]
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>Hmmmm......you may have a point.
One that I've mostly retracted.
My central concern is that some users will be less likely to create
mailing lists because of the hassle or embarrassment.
Instead of *requiring* that mailing lists be set up by you, how about
just *offering* such a set up mailing lists as a service to users?
You can also tell them about "batch" priority mail. From my
experience, as a user, the service that you offer would be welcome by
many users. With such voluntary cooperation, your problems with user
mailing list would be reduced.
- 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 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <9204132008.AA15461@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:08:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
From: rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID:
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:58:18 GMT
In article <9209917.8951@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> mikec@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Michael CIAVARELLA) writes:
> 1) What are the legal implications (if any)
> of the XX admin's actions?
Not sure -- I'm not a lawyer, just a poor ol' student. I would say, though,
that it seems like the XX Admin (hereinafter known as the ASS) seemed to
have trespassed, and broken into YY's machine.
> 2) If A logs in to YY from XX and uses his
> program, does this give the XX admin the
> right to act as he did?
IMHO, there is *nothing* that would give the ASS the right to act as he
did. He has no authority to act on YY's machine. Period.
> 3) What would you do in the XX admin's place?
I would mail YYAdmin and ask him to deal with it.
> 4) What would you do in A's place?
Raise a serious, serious stink. See if XX can be fired, or censured, or
something. Make his life hell (legally, of course). It also depends on
what kind of program it is. . . If it's *illegal*, then I may be quiet, but
I think few programs are illegal to own, just to run. . .
BTW, on our system, it is illegal to *run* password crackers, but not
illegal to own them. . .
> 5) What would you do in the YY admin's place?
I would do as I would have done if I thought anyone else from XX was
cracking on my machine. I wouldn't mail XX's sysadmin, because he's the
culprit, so I would go to whomever is above him. . .
XX's actions are, IMHO, no different than the actions of any cracker I've
ever dealt with. He had no right to access YY, and broke an account
somewhere else to get access to YY (and su'ing as root to A to get access to
YY as A is a crack, regardless of whom it's done by).
The ASShole should be burned at the stake, IMHO. . .
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy S. Rapoport Open Computing Facility
rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu Site Manager (sm@ocf)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:27:39 GMT
Carl> == Carl M. Kadie
Wes> "Any restrictions placed on your computing access must be
Wes> directly related to the charges filed against you. Any
Wes> restrictions must be approved by the Director of Engineering
Wes> Computing prior to their initiation."
Carl> Let me make up a scenario. A user apperently sends a million lines of
Carl> "Wow! I sure can waste paper" to the laser printer." This wastes about
Carl> 2000 pages of paper and $25 dollars worth of toner.
Carl> You bring him/her up on charges. (At the very least he or she should
Carl> have to pay for the waste and get a formal warning from the school.)
Carl> The question is, should you also prohibit the user from using the
Carl> printer while the case is pending? The policy as written seems to say
Carl> yes. But to me this seems that punishment before establishing guilt
Carl> (unless you really think the user is stupid enough to do it again
Carl> while awaiting a University hearing.)
I would say that a restriction like "can only print 100 pages a week"
would be a reasonable reaction to that sort of abuse, without
completely prohibiting the user from using the printer(s). Restrictions
are not necessarily all-or-nothing affairs.
I, personally, find the policy Wes is creating to be fair to both the
users and the system administration/staff: a tough compromise under the
circumstances of a university community. (I have the enviable situation
of having a small, private user base rather than a large and continually
changing set of users; this allows informal problem-solving to go much
farther than it might in a larger community. Of course, the fact that
it's hard to get face-to-face meetings with users who are in different
time zones can also hinder the process... ;-)
(And, of course, I've never had problems with Carl printing too much on
our printers; I don't think he's ever printed *anything* on our
printers, and he's certainly never been by to pick it up... ;-)
--
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 13 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: cs.general,aus.aarnet,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:04:12 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[After some discussion of a hypothetical case ...]
>miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>> The *student* has no
>>rights in this case, because all resources used belong to the
>>university.
>[...]
>In the U.S., students have contractual rights, Constitutional rights
>(at state schools), and (harder to defend) academic-freedom rights.
This hypothetical case didn't happen in the US. It is also very unlikely
to fall under any academic-freedom or contractual rights, because the
object of dispute was a *game*. Now if the student can prove that he has
some right, constitutional, contractual, or academic, to use University
resources to play *games*, then good luck to him. In many places this is
explicitly *forbidden*.
Be real.
cheers,
--
Mark Williams The University of Queensland miw@cc.uq.oz.au
+61 7 36 54012 (w) Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477 (fax) Qld 4072 Australia
Si fractus illabatur orbis impavidium ferient ruinae. -- Horace
From caf-talk Caf Apr 13 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID:
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:26:55 GMT
miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>This hypothetical case didn't happen in the US. It is also very unlikely
>to fall under any academic-freedom or contractual rights, because the
>object of dispute was a *game*. Now if the student can prove that he has
>some right, constitutional, contractual, or academic, to use University
>resources to play *games*, then good luck to him. In many places this is
>explicitly *forbidden*.
The question isn't about the student's right to play games, but rather
about the administrator's right to break into the student's account on
another computer. The non-computer analogy would be rules that limit
the right of the police to search your belongings. You are protected
by these rules even if you have committed a crime! Certainly you are
protected when the police think you have committed a crime -- if not,
it would be silly to have such rules at all.
The argument I'm making doesn't settle the question of what rules do
limit the authority of system administrators. All I'm arguing is that
it doesn't matter that the student may *also* have been doing something
wrong.
This follows from the well-known legal principle, "two wrongs don't
make a right"! :-)
From caf-talk Caf Apr 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.151655.19264@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:16:55 GMT
Carl> == Carl M. Kadie
Carl> Let me make up a scenario. A user apperently sends a million lines of
Carl> "Wow! I sure can waste paper" to the laser printer." This wastes about
Carl> 2000 pages of paper and $25 dollars worth of toner.
Carl> You bring him/her up on charges. (At the very least he or she should
Carl> have to pay for the waste and get a formal warning from the school.)
Carl> The question is, should you also prohibit the user from using the
Carl> printer while the case is pending? The policy as written seems to say
Carl> yes. But to me this seems that punishment before establishing guilt
Carl> (unless you really think the user is stupid enough to do it again
Carl> while awaiting a University hearing.)
ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>I would say that a restriction like "can only print 100 pages a week"
>would be a reasonable reaction to that sort of abuse, without
>completely prohibiting the user from using the printer(s). Restrictions
>are not necessarily all-or-nothing affairs.
[...]
On eff.org this might be wise. For one thing, your ability to
discipline users is much weaker than a university's.
But in a university context and assuming you are not going to put this
restriction on everyone and assuming that this was not part of a
punishment imposed by the university authorities, this restriction
seems more like a punishment than a necessary action to protect the
system.
A necessary action to protect the system is more like:
A user complains that a giant print job is tying up the printer
The operator confirms this
kills the print job
sees that the user who submitted it is no longer signed in
gets authorization to disable that user's ability to print
disables the user's ability to print
sends email to the user telling what happened
Disabling printing is necessary because the sys admins think the print
job is likely to be resubmitted.
However, once the matter is discussed with the user, the print job is
not likely to be resubmitted. A restriction placed only on the user
now, seems more like a punishment.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
this doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it.
There is nothing in the law or in the principles of academic freedom
that says that minor punishments can only be imposed by the university
Judical Committee (there may or may not be something in the University
code). Such punishments are OK (in my opinion), if
1) they really are minor (Restricting use of the printer, or telnet,
or a game, for week or two, such that classwork is not effected, is,
IMHO, minor. Even short suspension from the computer or longer
restictions to services, is not, IMHO, minor).
2) they are imposed after the user gets a chance to speak
3) appeals are possible, the user is told how to appeal, punishment is
delayed if the user decides to appeal.
4) (opinional?) A report is given to users and the university every so
often (once a semester?) summarizing the punishments that were imposed
that period.
- 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 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.programmer, et al.] Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Message-ID: <9204141525.AA18748@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:25:46 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 14 00:00:00 1992
From: chip@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Charles H. Buchholtz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Message-ID: <73966@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:13:21 GMT
Followups sent to comp.admin.policy; this is no longer a Unix
programming issue. I hope I left in enough context for new people.
spm2d@topaz.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes:
>l1ngo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Swift) writes:
>>Let me clarify this. I only intended to log which hosts a user connects to.
>>Usually, this is all that's needed to find a hacker (at the very least, it
>>narrows down the list of "suspects").
>
>I don't believe that is any of your business. Where someone telnets to,
>who they send mail to, etc., should not be logged. Your plan sounds
>an awful lot like "Big Brother" to me.
We log sendmail, rlogin, and telnet connections, but I don't know who
my users send mail to, etc. I don't look in those logs for the same
reason that I don't look through people's home directories or read
their mail. Yes, I have the root password, yes I *could* invade
people's privacy, but I'm a professional and I don't. If you don't
trust the people with root to respect your privacy (or at least to
respect the policies of your site concerning privacy), then fire your
SysAdmin and get one that you can trust.
We do use those logs. For instance, when I get a message from a
SysAdmin from another site who says, "someone cracked an account on
our machine last night, they logged in to foobar.cc.bigschool.edu as
fnord at 1:26AM", I can grep through the logs and determine which
account on my machine was used.
By using grep and awk on these log files, I can get the information I
need to "protect and serve" my customers, with minimal invasion of
their privacy. My job is to provide the services that my customers
want, and most of them want their accounts to be secure.
Charles H. Buchholtz Systems Programmer chip@seas.upenn.edu
School of Engineering and Applied Science
University of Pennsylvania
From caf-talk Caf Apr 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.112802.7109@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:28:01 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>> "Any restrictions placed on your computing access must be
>> directly related to the charges filed against you. Any
>> restrictions must be approved by the Director of Engineering
>> Computing prior to their initiation."
>
>Let me make up a scenario. A user apperently sends a million lines of
>"Wow! I sure can waste paper" to the laser printer." This wastes about
>2000 pages of paper and $25 dollars worth of toner.
>
>You bring him/her up on charges. (At the very least he or she should
>have to pay for the waste and get a formal warning from the school.)
Actually, I'm laid back enough that I wouldn't even press charges on
something like this. Of course, none of my users have ever done any-
thing this stupid. 8)
>The question is, should you also prohibit the user from using the
>printer while the case is pending? The policy as written seems to say
>yes. But to me this seems that punishment before establishing guilt.
Well, there are aspects of the disciplinary process that cannot be
adequately codified. The determination of "adequate" restriction is possibly
the most subjective part of the entire process. In this particular
scenario, I'd slap a page limit on the user (say, 30 pages/day). As
an alternative, his use of dot-matrix and/or line printers could be
unrestricted, while the laser printers are made unavailable.
I would hope that the approval requirement for restrictions would
prevent this sort of problem.
>(unless you really think the user is stupid enough to do it again
>while awaiting a University hearing.)
Well, you never know..........8)
--
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 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.120017.15683@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:00:17 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>(opinional?) A report is given to users and the university every so
>often (once a semester?) summarizing the punishments that were imposed
>that period.
Actually, I've been thinking about this aspect of the policy. I think
that a "policy history" would be extremely valuable in handling future
violations. I'd like to be able to reference past incidents, for ques-
tions such as "Has this happened before?" and "How was it handled in
the past?". I'm considering a "sanitized" notebook, with names removed.
A typical entry might be:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 4/14/92
Incident: User attempting to crack passwords
Situation: On 4/14/92, examination of /usr/adm/sulog revealed that the
user was making extensive use of the su(1) command. The en-
tries in /usr/adm/sulog indicated that the user was attempting
to access several different userids, none of which were his own.
The conclusion was reached that the user was attempting to
determine the passwords for other userids.
Violation: Sections X.X, Y.Y, and Z.Z of the ECC Access and Use Policy.
Sections A.A, A.B, and A.C of the Code of Student Conduct.
Actions: The user's access was immediately revoked. The relevant in-
formation was forwarded to the Dean of Students for possible
disciplinary action. The user was contacted through his
Department Chairman.
When the user contacted ECC, he was informed that the Dean
of Students was considering disciplinary action. The user
was directed to the Dean of Students' office for further
information about the disciplinary process. Pending the
Dean of Students' decision, the user's access was restored;
however, he was placed in a restricted shell (rsh(1)), which
prevented him from accessing either the su(1) command or the
directories of other users.
Resolution:The Dean of Students chose to issue a written reprimand. After
the conclusion of the proceedings, the user's access was restored
to its original state.
Reference: Judicial Board Proceeding #92-04-01
--------------------------------
I would think that such a notebook would be invaluable in the implementation
of consistent restrictions/revocations. It seems that many shops decide on
restrictions/revocations in a rather cavalier, "off the cuff" manner; a refer-
ence such as this might help prevent that.
While this "sanitized" version should be available for public review, the
specifics of each case should be protected by the "student records privacy"
laws/regulations/procedures.
--
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 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.215153.7178@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:51:53 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Well, there are aspects of the disciplinary process that cannot be
>adequately codified. The determination of "adequate" restriction is possibly
>the most subjective part of the entire process. In this particular
>scenario, I'd slap a page limit on the user (say, 30 pages/day). As
>an alternative, his use of dot-matrix and/or line printers could be
>unrestricted, while the laser printers are made unavailable.
[...]
I'm not saying that such a restriction is wrong, only that you should
recognize them for what it are, punishments. Computer Center imposed
punishments should be minor (major punishments should require more
formality), imposed only after giving the user his or her say, subject
to appeal, etc.
I think your draft policy could be improved by separating the two
kinds of restrictions (restictions as minor punishment vs.
restrictions to prevent likely harm to the system or to people).
Without this separation, it is possible to punish users without due
process (in my opinion, this is exactly what happened at Ohio State
U.)
- 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 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Message-ID: <9204142346.AA21284@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:46:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 14 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.152530.44@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:25:30 CDT
In article , vijay@cdsun.fnal.gov (Vijay Gurbani) writes:
> I beg to differ. Getting an account on a system is not a *right*, it is a
> *priviledge*, much like getting a driving licence. As with any priviledge,
It depends. Maybe on your system it is a privilege, but on other systems
the account may be provided as part of a contract.
I don't expect my bank to examine my safety deposit box I lease from them (to
continue the use of poor analogies).
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
From caf-talk Caf Apr 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] net.views, response to question on sysadmins and privacy
Message-ID: <9204142348.AA21294@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:48:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.cyberspace,alt.cyberpunk,alt.cyberpunk.movement,alt.bbs,comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.dec,comp.sys.hp
From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner)
Subject: net.views, response to question on sysadmins and privacy
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 17:26:32 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Apr12.172632.19998@utoday.com>
EDITOR'S NOTE: This file consists of responses to the a net.views question
posted about two weeks ago, collected from E-mail and information services
nationwide. Phone numbers have been deleted. Administrative requests and
complaints are at the end of the file. We will not be making use of any
further response to this question.
Enjoy, and thanks for participating!
QUESTION #26:
When is it justified for a systems administrator to look through a
user's private files and E-mail?
---------------------------------------------------------------
This question is being posted to gather responses for a regular
opinion column in OPEN SYSTEMS TODAY called net.views, in which we
publish replies to questions of interest to the open-systems
community---like this one!
--
Mitch Wagner, senior editor (516) 562-5758
Open Systems Today (formerly UNIX Today!)
600 Community Drive wagner@utoday.com
Manhasset, NY 11030 GEnie: MITCH.WAGNER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** *** ***
>From: uvm.edu!Steve.Cavrak@uunet.UUCP
Two cases -
- only when the conditions are widely known, e.g. are part of the
account allocation procedure when the user signs, for example, a
privacy and security agreement. Privacy should be respected - but
the user should understand that it cannot be guaranteed.
- then the only case I see is when there is a systems administrative
or security need - e.g. when mail is getting misdelivered (a badly
constructed .forward), etc.
- in these cases, the files must be treated with utmost
confidentiality.
- the exception would be in case of disciplinary matters in which case
the company / university lawyer should be involved.
*** *** ***
>From: James Tilton
I'd have to say I'm pretty vehemently against a system admin *ever*
looking through a user's private files and e-mail, but there are some
considerations to keep in mind here.
First, I'll start by saying that *ideally* no-one has the right to pry
into anyone else's things... "a person's right to swing his fist ends at
the bridge of the next person's nose." You should be able to do
whatever you want, as long you respect other's rights to do the same.
The system admin, hopefully, would ideally only look through private
files after obtaining the user's permission.
However, we must keep in mind that the user is, after all, only a user.
While the ideal situation above *should* be the norm (and hopefully is),
the user really doesn't have *any* rights. The person whose decision it
is is the machine's owner (of whom, presumably, the sys-admin is the
representative of). The owner is the final arbiter of any dispute, and
if the user doesn't like it, they better just pack off and leave,
because you can't mandate privacy.
Another question is "what situations merit sys-admin snooping?" Once
again, I'd like to say no, but there are considerations. Perhaps a
question that could help define what kind of situations would justify
such actions would be "what is the sys-admin responsible for on the
system?" For instance, is the sys-admin *responsible* for the actions
of users on his system? Is the owner responsible? If they aren't, then
why are they snooping?
One possible situation does rise to mind... a sys-admin on a system
which is getting filled up (w/ respect to storage space) might feel
compelled to check what files are worthwhile to keep and which are
not... but immediately a rebuttal rises to mind: set the user's quota
low! :)
In the end, then, a sys-admin's snooping must be considered as a
function of the sys-admin's responsibility for the user's actions...
and, of course, voyouerism is right out! :)
Pardon my ramblings,
-James Tilton
jtilton@willamette.edu
*** *** ***
>From: The Procrastinator P1000
I would at present consider only three conditions:
1. When said user gives his explicit consent, while not under duress or
pressure to do so.
2. When said user has signed an agreement allowing this as part of a contract
allowing hir to use the system which the sysadmin has charge of, at or before
the time said user begins use of that system.
3. When there is good probable cause to believe that not doing so could
endanger the lives, rights, or property of others.
--
Andrew Trapp atrapp@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
dreamer@uiuc.edu act31797@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
*** *** ***
>From: Geoffron
Gut reaction: NEVER. Considering the proliferation of Usenet newsgroups
and the various discussions therein, it's far too easy for a rabid
SysAdmin to find something incriminating.
Considered answer: After a significant number of complaints about that user.
The number should vary, depending on how long the user has been there (some-
one who has been there for three years and just now got half a dozen complaints
against him may have had his account hacked, while someone who just got an
account may have done so for the express purpose of spewing across the net).
But only things related to the complaints should be brought to light if needed.
If the complaint was for rude language on soc.motss, bringing up the fact
that he had files from alt.pictures.bestiality is completely meaningless
to the problem at hand.
*** *** ***
>From: "A.Galliford" (910765)
Never, except in the case of suspected criminal conduct. A system similar
to a search warrant should be applied in these circumstances. A user's mail
is (or at least should be) private, especially any *received* mail...you
never know where it may have come from!
Anyway, I would not want MY mail read, especially without my knowledge *and*
permission.
Tony Galliford
*** *** ***
>From: Michael R Linksvayer
The user's and sysadmin's rights and responsibilities should be
established contractually. Thus many diverse situations can be
accomodated. If no contract exists, the user's private files and
E-mail should remain private unless there is good reason to
believe that the user's activities on the system are illegal,
creating liability for the organization, or damaging the system.
Even then the user should be consulted before files and E-mail
are opened unless there is very good reason to believe that
dangerous results of the user's activity are imminent and must
be corrected immediately.
--
Mike Linksvayer m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu
*** *** ***
>From: "The Squire, Phish"
In my opinion, it is justified only under extraordinary circumstances. On
a public system, as in a University, only when there are verifiable charges
against a user; Justifiable suspicion, if you will. On a company system,
a strict policy should be posted to all employees, and followed. Basically,
it should be treated as a search under the law whenever possible.
--
If you insist upon living in a | cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu | Fubar Systems BBS
dream, you may be taken as mad. | |
I like my dream. | Because all you of | 3/12/24, MNP5, 8N1
Then you *are* mad! | Earth are IDIOTS!! | FSBBS 2/FSUUCP 1.3
*** *** ***
>From: "W. A. Simon"
NEVER.
I can't imagine an instance in which the contents of the
files (e-mail or otherwise) is of any relevance to any
administrator, for any reason.
I can see some organization (school or business) giving
themselves this right (it happens), but I feel this is not
required. If a rule/policy was violated, the contents of
the files is not relevant to it. If there are rules about
the contents themselves, then we are all in trouble. Such
rules are WRONG, whichever way one looks at them.
I recommand the use of encryption. I also advise the use of a
different key for each correspondant.
--
William "Alain" Simon
alain@elevia.UUCP
simonala%sid003.sidoci.com@elevia.UUCP
*** *** ***
>From: Nathaniel Borenstein
When he has been presented with a search warrant by a duly authorized
representative of the government.
Ultimately, either we are going to have to preserve the privacy of
electronic informaton with this kind of vigilance, or we're going to
lose a large portion of the civil liberties that Americans have
treasured for over two hundred years.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-- Nathaniel Borenstein
nsb@thumper.bellcore.com
*** *** ***
>From: "Steven C. Blair \"Unix Network Services\""
In 12 years of Administrative operations, there have only been 2 instances
when mgmt. has requested me do look into files/email. Both were potential
security violations, or after receiving complaints about "so and so at
your site(*not here*) were attempting to break into site XYZ.
Even when assisting users' email problem determiniations, I cover their
message, only to look at the headers. Under the Electronic Communications
Act, and Eletronic Privacy Act, there are little to NO grounds for un-
warranted email/file perusal. Employees have to keep in mind that what THEY
do on a given companies' computers is more than likely will potentially push
their management to request such an "investigation".
There is a lot of discension in whether it is "correct or not" to look
through files, though, in matters of disk space, quotas, it is OK to
look at filenames, but past that IMHO is a violation of a person's rights.
No one died, and left us GOD, so therefore, stay out of what's NOT yours,
is the guideline I live with. I encourage others to do the same!!!!!!!!!
--
Steven C. Blair DELL UNIX NETWORK OPERATIONS sblair@dell.com
==========================================================================
"One form to rule them all, one form to find them, one form to bring them"
"all and in the darkness rewrite the hell out of them."
-- Sendmail ruleset 3 comment from DEC
*** *** ***
>From: csn.org!julietbnc!tom@uunet.UUCP
I think it would be appropriate if the person had left and
did not create a .forward file.
--
tom@evolving.com (Tom Dorgan) Evolving Systems,Inc.
^D esc :quit stop end !!*()_ halt logout logoff ^AltDel L1A b
*** *** ***
>From: brl.mil!chidsey@uunet.UUCP
Just last week our security meeting included our annual warning
that such snooping is part of our employment contract. I think it is
reasonable, on THEIR computer. On MY computer, or a third party computer,
I would expect a subpeona. Also, they told us it could happen before they
gave us the account, and they remind us yearly.
Irv
--
I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication. They do not tell me what their policy
is. They may not have one. Irving L. Chidsey
*** *** ***
>From: miavx1.acs.muohio.edu!MGJONES@uunet.UUCP
(note: he stands for he or she throughout).
In my opinion, the sys admin has full right to look through a user's
private files and e-mail whenever he wishes _providing he did not say
he would not do so_. If he clearly states that your private files
are truly private, than they should be. Otherwise, if the user has
something that is truly private and personal, use U.S. Mail. This,
however, does not mean I agree that a sys admin _should_ look through
mail and files. I ran a BBS for a year. When the users logged in,
they got a message stating that I or any of those associated with
running the board (a co-sysop), may examine e-mail if we feel it
appropriate (there were no private files). Appropriate meant
basically, I would only check e-mail if I heard reports of
harassment, credit card swapping, etc... These are the only times I
feel a sys admin _should_ look at email or private files, when a
problem has been reported. When you get to larger systems, run by
many, and/or (in the case of universities) not owned by the system
administrator, this takes on a different twist. I feel the standards
should be more strict on when the sys admin can look at a user's
files and e-mail. Basically, the sys admin should not be allowed to
view a users files or e-mail unless a valid report of illegal
activity is reported (i.e., pirating or cracking, etc... from a
user's account). Besides, in the case of a university, the student
is paying for that computer system, they have a right to privacy on
it. In a work environment, I feel as long as the equipment belongs to
the company, they have the right to check the files on it. E-mail,
however, should not be viewed in any way, shape, or form. If
problems occur in this environment, I feel the person(s) involved
should be confronted face to face, not by reading his e-mail. E-mail
in a company tends to take on a much more serious nature and more
confidential subjects.
Basically, my opinion is that the answer to the question depends
somewhat on the system. I feel the sys admin should clearly state
what standard he follows.
Mike Jones
mgjones@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
mgjones@apsvax.aps.muohio.edu
*** *** ***
>From: Leigh Clayton
I don't believe that a sysop is ever justified in looking at a user's data in
plaincode without the user's prior request or at least consent. (This is based
on the level of security we've offered our clients over the last 20 years). It
may be that the user's data occasionally finds it's way in binary into a system
dump or diagnostic: such material should be used only for diagnostic purposes
and treated as confidential while in use, and destroyed as soon as possible.
../Leigh
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Clayton loc@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM
-or- loc@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.COM
*** *** ***
>From: Timothy Smith
In response to question #26, my opinion is that a sys admin
should not be able to view another persons files until that person
has been found guilty of an offense. If the person in question is
suspected of foul play, his property would still be safe when it is in
his domain. If he makes his crime public, he's toast, but if it is
just sitting in the corner of some dark directory, that should be fine.
In a case where a person has been found guilty of some offense and
a search of his files finds evidence of another unrelated crime, that
information should be safe until such time as they could legally be
procured. Basically, I would suggest that the power of search warrents
cover computers in much the same way that they cover houses.
-Tim Smith
tismith@plains.nodak.edu
*** *** ***
>From: "Rachim Tarantino, S/W DQ Tech, HNL"
Private files and Email are equivelent to one's personal diary or P-mail.
Hence, they should be treated as such. The law requires a subpoena (sp?) or
warrant for one's diary to be looked through. The same should be true for
one's files and Email. If I found out a sys admin had looked through my
personal files or Email with out the proper legal procedings, I would have him
arrested and/or take him to court.
(Hasn't the law already been updated for this case?)
rachim.
*** *** ***
>From: space.ualberta.ca!sherwood@uunet.UUCP
Would you please use a different title line for each
question. The replies get mixed up in the news reader.
E.g. you posted a new question regarding the propriety of an
administrator snooping in peoples files, while the Net was still
furiously debating the debacle of Windows NT.
If you make it of the form
Netview Question #26 -- Sysadmins in User Files
Then the discussions will be separated.
The first two words being constant, people can still add that
as a regex to their kill file, if they want to shut you off.
As to the question itself:
At most places computing is not a right, but a privledge. I
am quick to disable an account for any abuse of privledges. I am
also lenient about renenabling it after talking to the person
involved.
While I have the power to read anyone's files, the only time
I do is if I suspect that they are up to something that will impare
other peoples data, or use of the system.
I've only done this once: I checked a person's mail folder
to see if he had received a warning that I'd sent him a few weeks
before regarding disk usage.
We have an open shop; all files default to world readable.
There are encryption programs on our systems for anything that people
really want to keep private.
*** *** ***
>From: Marianne Mueller
In answer to question #26:
when the person looking has a warrent from the judge.
(Presumably, the cops have to convince the judge they have
reason to suspect criminal activity, and that they are looking
for evidence.)
The person looking can LOOK - can not destroy, can not take files away
"temporarily", especially can not take hardware away.
*** *** ***
>From: Mark Brown
When it is the stated policy of the system, and the user is _known_ to
be aware of that policy. This includes such statements as
o "The University reserves the right to examine all contents of
the System at any time."
o "The Company owns the System and all contents thereon."
o "None of the contents of this BBS are to be considered
privately owned by the users."
When forced to by a properly validated warrant or subpoena.
At _no_other_time_ is it justified.
cheers,
mark brown
--
Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX.| I believe in the richness and mystery
VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ| of the universe, but I don't
MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com | believe in the supernatural. -Simmons
DISCLAIMER: My views may be, and often are, independent of IBM official policy.
*** *** ***
>From: chose.cam.org!mortel@uunet.UUCP
From my own personal good sense, I would answer:
1. If the user clearly agrees to have his mail monitored
wether it is by written consent of by setting a flag on
public/SYSadmin access files
2. If the SYSadmin can get a legal mandate from a higher
authority(ie: police, judge,...)
* The SYSadmin could deserve the right to make a backup of
the user's file if he's suspiscious of something until he
can get a mandate to look through them.
You can edit my message/correct spelling mistakes or anything
else if you decide to use it since it's very probable I didn't
express myself correctly.
/\/\/\/\ Stephane Lussier, mortel@chose.CAM.org
*** *** ***
>From: Paul Perry
When is is justified for a systems administrator to look through a
user's private files and E mail?
Never as long as the person is still a trusted employee.
*** *** ***
>From: Steve Mitchell
The answer to this question lies in the appropriate use agreement
that the systems administration and the user should have signed.
There are many different types of sites out there, each providing
different levels of privacy and security to their users. A university,
for example, might provide different levels of privacy than would
a commercial, public UNIX site. The appropriate use agreement should
clearly state the level of privacy that the user can expect for his
files and E-Mail. This agreement provides both the administration
*and* the user with protection from any inappropriate activities by
the other party.
Any Internet site that doesn't have an appropriate use agreement
between it's administration and it's users, is only asking for
trouble in the long run.
--
|#| Steve Mitchell / System Administrator KD6BET |#|
|#| California Agricultural Technology Institute |#|
|#| California State University, Fresno steve@csufresno.edu |#|
|#| Fresno, CA 93740-0115 "Now, Steve is happy." |#|
*** *** ***
>From: Manjit Trehan
It is never justified for a systems administrator to look through
a user's private files and email. It is certainly justified for
a systems administrator to look through a mis-user's private files
and email.
................................................................
. Manjit Trehan version 1.0 ITMS400@INDYCMS .
. Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI) .
................................................................
*** *** ***
>From: Paul Fu
It is not justified unless there is clear evidence of illegal activity by
said user.
And by the way, I like the OST name, but you might want to change the
description of 'net.views' at the bottom of page 77, in 30 March 1992 OST
where it says "...and UT! readers."
Paul Fu, Jr.
*** *** ***
>From: "Per Reedtz Thomsen, UNIX Products Division"
Never. If it is company policy that the administrators are allowed to look at
peoples files and mail, this fact should be widely published around the systems
people use.
Generally, though, it is a bad idea to have people snooping in your e-mail and
private files. The inherent fear of doing something which can be considered
wrong will create a 'Big Brother is Watching You' syndrome, where people spend
a lot of time making sure the 'watchers' can't see what you are doing. This
will, of course, make people less efficient, but they are not going to give up
their private mail and files just because they are being watched.
Regards,
Per Reedtz Thomsen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oracle Corporate Headquarters
Snail: 500 Oracle Parkway
MD 659406
Redwood Shores, CA 94065 E-mail: pthomsen@us.oracle.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *** *** ***
>From: Judy
The only time I would even CONSIDER wasting time looking through a
users' mail would be under THEIR authorization to find some work-related
issue. Likewise with their files.
As a system manager, I believe respect for people's privacy is in order.
I also work closely in a group that shares data. So we put the shared
data in a separate directory. Occasionally, files remain in the users'
directories that we need. Generally accessing those is ok - but again,
I never go "snooping around" -- it is much faster to ask the user where
the file in question is.
A system manager who snoops around obviously doesn't have enough to do!
- Judy Gaukel (judy@beldar.ucsd.edu)
*** *** ***
>From: Dave Pipes x4552
I have always treated this (in a business environment) as equivalent to
asking when you can go through a co-worker's desk or filing cabinets. This
usually occurs when there are problems with the user's account or the mail
system; when the user is out and files or info known to be on the system are
needed, and a manager is aware of the search; after a person has terminated
employment and vacated the office; anytime, with the user's permission.
In a business environment, one must remember that all of the resources used
to store private messages and files are owned by the company or it's clients.
Thus, if you wouldn't keep something in your desk - which can be searched by
order of the company - don't keep it on your system. Or encrypt - at least
the decryption takes some effort.
The SysAdmin has the responsibility of not prying in situations which place
him in the user's filesystem. This is equivalent to not rifling your co-
worker's desks while they are out for coffee. It is just common decency.
David Pipes
Unix SysAdmin
*** *** ***
>From: Pat Farrell
Short answer: Only when they have a court authorized search
warrent. See US Bill of Rights, Admendment 1 concerning free
speach and Admendment 4 concerning freedom from unreasonable
search and seizure.
The long answer, which is unfortunately too long for your
column, is much more complex. This complexity does not mean
that we should ignore underlying issues and their
ramifications. Rather it suggests that the question be
examined in-depth. I recently spent three days at the ACM's
Computers Freefom and Privacy conference which was held in
Washington DC from March 18 thru 20. It discussed this issue,
and related ones, in detail in sessions running from 8:00 AM
until midnight. Even this was not sufficient time to
completely explore the topic.
It is well established that the US Postal Service most protect
the privacy of letters that we ask it deliver for us. I have never
heard of a case where private mail was compromised. Similarly,
we expect the phone companies to respect our privacy. We allow
law enforcement agencies to obtain court orders for wiretaps,
but they are not granted unless there is substantial prior justification.
We have extended the expectation of privacy from the formerly
Government owned Postal Service to publicly regulated phone
companies, even though the phone companies are owned by
investors. We have also extended the expectation of privacy to
private common carriers, such as Federal Express and United
Parcel Service. It is taken for granted, and rightly so, that
the employees of the US Postal Service, and the commercial
common carriers, respect the individual customer's privacy.
It is not acceptable for a law enforcement agency, or anyone
else, to listen in to conversations of a large class of users,
looking for one that might have questionable appearences. With
that precident, systems administrators can not be allowed to
search through personal files of groups of users. Obviously,
this logic allows for, and even encourages, the use of court
authorized searches to eliminate illegal activity.
The insertion of the courts ensures that illegal activity is
properly proscribed, while allowing politically unpopular
(or polically incorrect) discourse.
The arguments supporting "looking through" private files
typicaly center arround two concepts:
1) The computer belongs to an entity (corporation,
university, etc.) that has a right to protect its investment; and
2) Honest people have nothing to hide.
Concerning 1), I am not about to argue that protecting these considerable
investments is unnecessary or unwise, rather it is a critical
part of a system administrator's responsibilities. But while a
closed system, such as the accounting department of a bank,
has a clearly defined concept of ownership, Email services and
Usenet feeds change the nature of the service. That portion of
the system that supports Email and Usenet has many of the
characteristics of a common carrier. Common carriers are bound
by a difference set of law and precidents than internal closed
systems. I believe that many commercial, government, and
educational members of the Internet community are unaware of
the implications associated with these differences.
Concerning 2), while this has been expressed by as a sincere
belief by law enforcement officials and systems
administrators, it simplisticaly ignores the facts of human
history. Selective enforcement is a reality. One person's
political dissention is another's subversion. Secret files of
public and secret police are too often a reality. While the
crumbling secret police files of the former Soviet block
nations are held to ridicule, our own FBI's files on civil
rights leaders show that we too are capable of attempted
repression.
While I hope these political and philosophical points
illustrate the undesirability of electronic surveilance, there
are practical, technical concerns as well. Cryptographic
science provides simple, fast, and painless ways to ensure
privacy. Transportable source code for both the DES standard
and RSA's public key encryption method are readily available
on the Internet. While I will sidestep the questions of how
secure DES and RSA are, each will provide a serious challenge
to system administrators who can presently 'grep' through all of
the files in a system. This can easily lead to an "encryption
arms race" in which the system administrator is unlikely to
win.
The simplistic solution to outlaw encryption leads to the not
too original bumper sticker: "when you outlaw encryption, only
outlaws will have encryption." I see no advantage to stooping
that low.
Which brings us back to the simple answer. When is "looking
through" acceptable? When you have court authorized approval.
Any other times, it is immoral and unconstitutional, which is
sufficient reason not to do it. Additionally, it is self
defeating and impractical in the long term.
Pat Farrell, Grad Student pfarrell@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
Department of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
#include standard.disclaimer
PS: I also have a day job. I'm a Senior Principal at American
Management Systems, in Arlington Virginia. I've worked in
timesharing and distributed systems since 1974. Resume
available upon request.
*** *** ***
I'm willing for you to publish this, but only if you omit my name and
institutional affiliation. The issues are sensitive enough that I
believe only the Vice President of Computing would be authorized to
speak for attribution.
I manage computing facilities for the computer science department in a
large public university. We take privacy of user files very
seriously. We try to avoid looking at user files except when there's
good reason to think that it's necessary to investigate a problem that
poses an immediate threat to the security or integrity of the system.
However it's surprising what odd things come up. E.g. a report is due
and some critical document is in the directory of a staff member who
left the University 6 months ago. Or a student is in the hospital and
someone working on project with them needs access to a file they were
working on in common. In these cases a staff member will sometimes
look at a document to verify that it's reasonble to give to someone
else (e.g. the draft of a paper lists the other person as a
co-author). In cheating cases, we sometimes will look at files to
determine which ones are likely to be relevant. Note however that we
won't show a student's file to a faculty member except in the context
of an official proceeding that provides formal protections of the
student's rights -- what we do is make sure we preserve copies of
files that might be needed for such proceedings. Normally we can
simply save a copy of the whole directory, avoiding the need to look
at individual files.
One limiting factor is that we don't have an official University
policy on privacy. It is possible for my policies to be overriden.
So far the only case where this has happened was when a student was
murdered. The police wanted to look at their email. We resisted. We
wanted a subpoena, and were supported by the vice president of
computing. However we were ordered by the (former) president of the
University to comply. It's my guess that under our current
administration this would no longer happen. Because of the ECPA, a
number of staff claim that they would now refuse orders to divulge
email without a subpoena, even if ordered to do so by the president.
But we're hoping this won't be put to the test.
*** *** ***
>From: Hamish More
A :
NEVER !!!
Unless that person has left the company, and other users wish to
try to pick-up his work. If the person concerned was sensible, he
would have deleted his e-mail, but left his work files.
Comparison:
When is it ok for the administrator to open your personal paper-mail
which is addressed to you, and marked "private & confidential" ?
Keep up the good work.
How about this for another net.views question.
In a very security aware environment, how do you convince managers that
public-domain software, and or share-ware is ok to use, given the paranoia
about viruses/trojan-horses etc ??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish More Software Development Division Glasgow
BT Development & Procurement
hamish.more@gssec.bt.co.uk 229 George St, Glasgow, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** *** ***
>From: James Jones
it should take a court order for to allow sys. admin. to look at private files
and Email.
proven violation should result in job termination and legal liability, same
as opening someone elses US mail.
*** *** ***
>From: paj
1: Only after publishing their policy. Users should know where they
stand ahead of time.
2: In an emergency, sysadmins need to fix things. They should be
allowed to look at private files if this becomes necessary in order
to keep the system operating.
3: In order to investigate suspected illegal or antisocial activities
(e.g. cracking or virus writing). In this case the examination
should require the agreement of two sysadmins (or the sysadmin's
manager if there is only one). The reasons for the examination,
its scope, and the results, should be formally logged.
In general sysadmins should be bound by a privacy code which states
that if they become aware of the contents of a user's files then they
will not release this information to a third party. The only
exception to this would be if the information is to be used as
evidence in some kind of formal action against the user.
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk). |
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
*** *** ***
>From: Ron McRaney x441
When is it justified for a systems administrator to look
through a user's private files and E-mail ?
Never. I cannot find ONE single reason why. As the name
private implies and E-mail ( the postal service has laws against
this crime ). There are ways to find ANY type of information
other than to resort to 'bit-tapping' of information.
Ron McRaney
*** *** ***
>From: "Smith Gregory L."
In my experience, it is best to deal with computer ethics by
reconstructing the same case in a non-computer environment,
where the rules are well-known. This is valid since most
computer environments simulate real-world (E-mail in particular
models the postal service). Therefore, files and E-mail should
be considered like private property. So, "When is it justified
for an administrator (officer?) to look through a citizen's
private property and mail?" Now, go ask a lawyer the question,
and model the response in the computer environment. I'm not a
lawyer, but, I think a judge may issue a search warrent only in
cases where you can demonstrate wrong-doing, or in event of
death.
Gregory L. Smith (smith_g@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com)
Software Engineer
General Electric
Management and Data Systems Organization
Software Development & Engineering
Valley Forge, PA
*** *** ***
>From: David Jones
It is justified for an SYSAdmin to look through a user's private files just before changing careers.
Dave Jones
dbj3@eerc01.mr.mdss.pge.com
*** *** ***
FROM THE GEnie UNIX ROUNDTABLE:
DELPHI [brian@UnixRt]:
In my opinion, a Systems Administrator is allowed to look at any file
on the system whenever he/she deems it important to do so. My reasoning for
this position is that the system is owned by the company, therefore any
information on the system is owned by the company. It is the responsibility of
the SA to insure the security and physical integrity of the system, even if
that requires searching every file on the system. A Systems Administrator
searching a user's "private" files would be analogous to an employer searching
an employee's desk, he has the right to do it but it should only be done when
the employee/user is suspected of wrong doing. Otherwise, the moral of the
company will soon be destroyed. A general rule of thumb for user's/employee's
is, "Don't put it on there if you want it kept private.".
Brian T. Riley
Senior Technician
Summit solutions
Philadelphia Branch
*** *** ***
PSYCLOPS:
In my opinion, a system administrator is only justified in looking at a
user's private files *if* there is a serious question from higher authories
about possible abuse of company resources or criminal activities. Otherwise,
I am of the firm opinion that each is entitled to his/her privacy, be it
electronic (computer files) or physical (desk).
I consider it just plain decency to respect other's privacy, and the computer
is just another extension of the workplace that deserves to be "off-limits"
unless interference is absoutely necessary.
Peter L. Wargo
Documentation/
Interleaf System Admin
Enable Software
313 Ushers Road
Ballston Lake, NY 12019
*** *** ***
M.NOLAN [Mike]:
I guess 20 years of experience as a system administrator have tempered my
otherwise absolutist views on e-mail privacy. Yes, the 'private' files of an
individual should be private. Yes, the system administrator must have
complete access to the system when it is important to the administration of
the system that he/she have complete access. Yes, if complaints are
registered that there are problems with e-mail, ranging from potential system
or programming malfunctions to violations of corporate policies or laws, the
administrator MUST have access to whatever it takes to investigate the
complaint.
The parallel to labor laws on privacy is interesting. Employers MAY tap
phones and listen in without notifying individuals at the time if there has
been advance warning that this could happen. (Read the instructions in your
IRS form 1040, the IRS sometimes listens in to monitor the calls you make to
their toll-free assistance line.) However, employers MAY NOT set up security
cameras in the ladies restroom, although they would be within their right to
place guards (female, presumably) in the restroom. (Note, I am NOT an
attorney and this should not be construed as valid legal advice. just as my
possibly faulty understanding of the legality of these actions.)
Read through the 'orange book' about class B1 security (or higher), and you'll
see that the NSA has built in safeguards such that there is ultimately a
higher authority who has permission to override security restrictions.
(Although this will likely be logged.)
Michael Nolan, President Tailored Software Services, Inc.
nolan@tssi.com (M.NOLAN on GEnie)
*** *** ***
J.HART26 [Yoda]:
To: MITCH.WAGNER [OpenSysToday
>When is it justified for a systems administrator to look through a
>user's private files and E-mail?
It would depend on the policies for use set by the organization providing the
system. In general, I am in favor of the honor system and of _never_ reading
private messages. If, on the other hand, the organization has policies
prohibiting certain kinds of use, and a complaint is filed that someone has
violated the policies, an investigation would be justified which _might_
include reading private mail.
Jim Hart, Supervisor of Computer Services
Auburn School Department
Auburn, ME 04212-0800
USA
*** *** ***
FROM THE COMPUSERVE UNIX FORUM:
Fm: Rene Madsen 100021,2302:
Nice question! Her's my tuppence worth ...
A user's private files and E-mail should be treated as files and mail in or on
the desk. If you leave it lying around, you will expect people to see it, but
if you lock it down - for example a directory marked private, and maybe set
700 to the owner - everyone including the sysadm should respect it and stay
out.
The reason for this being a problem at all, is the fact that standard unix
does not allow a higher security clearance than root, i.e. root can do
'anything'.
More advanced systems such as AMDAHL UTS with MLS (a 'native' unix with B2
security extensions for IBM compatible mainframes) or some of the 'big' IBM
OS, allow more security levels, so that not even root is always able to read
user files.
Having said that, I should also say that in case the employer (whatever the
jura slang is - seriouly ?) suspects that the employee
is committing a crime or such, the usual steps would be acceptable - i.e.
similarly to 'breaking into the cupboard' - looking into the files.
Rene Madsen
Unix Consultant
Brackton Ltd.
*** *** ***
Fm: R A Lichtensteiger [NucM 72120,2151
Case 1. Corporate System - If the conditions are clearly spelled out in the
company's Personnel Policies Manual _and_ explained to the user when the
account is granted, then it may be permissible to read his/her files & mail in
the following circumstances; if the employee terminates (ie, is dismissed or
resigns) in order to safeguard company information, if the employee is
suspected of abusing his/her access - and then only when requested by that
employee's supervisor and with the employee's knowledge.
Case 2. Public Access System (CI$...) - If the user is paying for the access,
then there are no occasions when it is appropriate for the administrator to
access the user's files. If an abuse is suspected then the administrator may
terminate the access rights after notifying the user.
Case 3. University System - Somewhere between the first two cases. If rules
for accessing student accounts are delineated in University policy manuals
then it is permissible to check into files if the system access has been
abused (sharing accounts etc.), but only if the student is notified and the
Student Services Dean grants permission.
Reto A. Lichtensteiger VAX Systems Manager Nuclear Metals Inc. 2229 Main
Street Concord MA 01742
*** *** ***
Fm: Rene Madsen 100021,2302
With the phrase "the usual steps", i mean for example "breaking into the
cupbord". With the phrase "breaking into the cupboard" I mean opening a
employees (locked or unlocked) drawer/cupboard or otherwise normally accepted
area of personality.
I guess that in the US the rules are a bit different than here in Europa. As
far as I know you have very strong privacy rules over there, whereas normally
an employer here has any right to open an employees drawer/cupbord etc.
Normally this would not happend, as the unions, who are *very* strong here,
would make some major objections which the employer would normally avoid
unless he (seriously) expect that the employee is committing a crime as for
example stealing from the company, selling drugs, or what-not.
Brackton Ltd is computer consultancy company located in Ireland, but trades in
Europa, mainly in the Benelux area. My opinion as written here, and before,
may not necessary be those officially had by Brackton Ltd.
-Rene
*** *** ***
Fm: David S. Brookshire 72570,2666
A System administrator is just that...the administrator of the system. They
are God (on their net, at least). The root account of any system is given,
usually, only to someone considered trust worthy. If they were not...why
would they be given the access. One of the duties of the position is to
maintain a file system. If this means accessing a user's files...so be it.
The user should be aware that root can read their files. If there is
something private...then download and erase it, or encrypt it.
David S. Brookshire
UNIX/VMS Consultant
Academic Computing Services
University of Maryland Baltimore County
Baltimore, Maryland 21228
COMPLAINTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUESTS:
>From: topaz.cs.virginia.edu!spm2d@uunet.UUCP
Hmmmm.... "a summary posted within two weeks?" I never saw one
for the NT debate or anything before that.
Please, get your COMMERCIAL garbage off the net, as I don't
appreciate paying for your surveys.
Steve
[ EDITOR'S NOTE: Posts are summarized when we say we will do it; friend Steve
is not paying attention.
I don't consider this an inappropriate use of the net. These
aren't ads or press releases; these are requests for discussion, and based on
the volume of responses we get, I have to assume that a lot of people *DO*
like it. However, we'll do what we can to make it easier for the people who
don't want to read this stuff to skip it over; please forward any suggestions
about that to wagner@utoday.com.
I sent E-mail to Steve, telling him that a lot of people *DO* seem to
like our posting net.views to the net, and asking whether he made money from
computer work, or if he planned to---because if so, his requests for computer
tips were just as much "commercial" speech as our net.view posts. Got the
following response:]
>From: topaz.cs.virginia.edu!spm2d@uunet.UUCP
Actually, in reading the responses, a lot of people have found
your questions objectional.
Do I get paid for doing computer work? None of your business.
Do I use USENET to increase my knowledge? Yes, I do.
Your net.views contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to my knowledge
of computers. USENET is a public resource to be used for
the free exchange of information, not for the research purposes
of questionable publications. In other words, I shouldn't have
to pay money in order for you to MAKE money by getting
research on the cheap. OK?
[ EDITOR'S NOTE: If we need research done, we do it, and if necessary, we pay
for it. We don't do net.views here out of a desire to pinch pennies---we do it
because there's no other way to get the quality of feedback we receive from
this sort of open dialogue. Enough said on this topic; friend Steve is
clearly more interested in giving orders and having them obeyed than he is in
discussing anything. Perhaps he was scared by a copy of OPEN SYSTEMS TODAY as
a child.]
*** *** ***
>From: rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!Christian.Finger@uunet.UUCP
Dear Mr. Wagner,
please stop posting such questions into comp.sys.hp.
This newsgroup is intended to deal with technical problems people have with
equipment from Hewlett Packard, not to answer questions about personal views.
Yours sincere
C.Finger
--
. Christian Finger | SMTP:
||| Computer Center | finger@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
\||| University of Karlsruhe | X.400:
/ Am Zirkel 2 | S = finger; OU = rz
D-7500 Karlsruhe 1 | P = uni-karlsruhe; A = dpb; C = de
[ EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Finger is right. Apologies to comp.sys.hp readers. I'm
posting this compilation in comp.sys.hp because I said I would, but after this
I'll be more careful about gauging the appropriateness.]
*** *** ***
>From: "Marcus J. Ranum"
Tell you what: Why don't you learn to post with followups
redirected to someplace, so you don't have this kind of drivel all
over the net?
You're cluttering up 14 newsgroups. Probably not a record, but
if you plan on doing it constantly, it's going to get old fast.
mjr.
[ EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Ranum is also correct; my apoligies to the entire net on this one. Now and henceforward, we'll be directing followups to comp.unix.questions.]
From caf-talk Caf Apr 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.bi] Re: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <9204142350.AA21310@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:50:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 14 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Annoytance with Administration
Message-ID: <1992Apr8.032658.7771@plts.uucp>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:26:58 GMT
In <92094.043101SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK writes:
>"Information (including software) accessed by use of the Computer facilities
> may be used only for University purposes (University teaching, research, and
> administration)."
Name any newsgroup, I'll come up with a "University purpose" for it.
For example, when I was in school I made a big push to get news (any
news!) at all. The reason that the most administrators picked up on
was "This school isn't providing my with an education on certain highly
technical topics especially networking and [a couple other things
lacking at that school]".
Might you suggest that your university provides zero support for
bisexuals while maintaining a special women's center, a counceling
center stocked with people untrained to your needs, etc [add or delete
as is appropriate to your school]. Therefore, it is within the
"University purpose" to provide this service via electronic means
instead.
Another helpful hint: I've seen many sites almost lose a newsgroup
like alt.sex but it was saved because some high-ranking sysadmin wanted
it. If this sysadmin's .newsrc file is world-readable, it's ethical to
see what sinful newsgroups he reads and would be willing to protect.
The possibilities are endless.
Tom
--
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.uucp (play) -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work)
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Logging outgoing telnet sessions
Message-ID: <9204151505.AA23488@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:05:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 11:03:43 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher
Message-ID: <92106.110343HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Logging outgoing telnet sessions
>I don't believe that is any of your business. Where someone telnets to,
>who they send mail to, etc., should not be logged. Your plan sounds
>an awful lot like "Big Brother" to me.
The phone company records every phone call you make. No one looks
at it until either you feel the bill is wrong and request a detailed
bill or the police feel there is a need to look at who you have been
calling (assuming you are a drug dealer or blackmailer). You may feel
that the phone company is invading your privacy, but fortunately the
justice system as well as society does not.
The same is true with recording outgoing Telnet sessions. No one could
care less where you are telneting to, and the logs are usally so large
that *no* sysadmin reads them. They are there for cases of hacking.
Hank Nussbacher
Bar-Ilan University
Israel
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.abortion] pennsylvania harassment law
Message-ID: <9204151537.AA23694@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:37:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (james g keegan jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: pennsylvania harassment law
Message-ID: <1992Apr15.040926.15953@crd.ge.com>
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:09:26 GMT
from the PA Crimes Code...
=============================================================
2709. Harassment
A person commits a summary offense when, with intent to
harass, annoy, or alarm another person:
(1) he strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects him
to physical contact, or attempt or threatens to do the same; or
(2) he follows a person in or about a public place or places;
or
(3) he engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits
acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which
serve no legitimate purpose.
==================================================================
this should cause boy welch some concern.
hell, maybe it'll cause darcy some concern.
--
----
charter member ... T.S.A.K.C.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
From: mikec@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Michael CIAVARELLA)
Newsgroups: cs.general,aus.aarnet,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <9210609.518@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:25:50 GMT
miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>[After some discussion of a hypothetical case ...]
>>miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>>> The *student* has no
>>>rights in this case, because all resources used belong to the
>>>university.
>>[...]
>>In the U.S., students have contractual rights, Constitutional rights
>>(at state schools), and (harder to defend) academic-freedom rights.
>This hypothetical case didn't happen in the US. It is also very unlikely
Again, there were no mentions of _where_ the (hypothetical) example
took place. The example was phrased with this specifically in mind
in order to solicit (bad word?) responses from as many viewpoints as
possible.
>to fall under any academic-freedom or contractual rights, because the
>object of dispute was a *game*. Now if the student can prove that he has
aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggh - who said it was a game?
It may have been a productivity tool (eg. a c compiler) or a front-end
to mail(1) or something of the like. WHAT it was doesn't matter.
Mike
The original poster (yet again)
ps. No Mark I'm not flaming you it's just that you're one of the
few who's _posted_ something with assumptions, rather than
e-mailed :-)
>--
>Mark Williams The University of Queensland miw@cc.uq.oz.au
>+61 7 36 54012 (w) Prentice Centre
>+61 7 36 54477 (fax) Qld 4072 Australia
>Si fractus illabatur orbis impavidium ferient ruinae. -- Horace
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.programmer, et al.] Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Message-ID: <9204152218.AA27171@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:18:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
From: francis@ircam.fr (Joseph Francis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Message-ID: <1992Apr15.185018.1918@ircam.fr>
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:50:18 GMT
In article vijay@cdsun.fnal.gov (Vijay Gurbani) writes:
>>>l1ngo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Swift) writes:
>>>>Let me clarify this. I only intended to log which hosts a user connects to.
>>>>Usually, this is all that's needed to find a hacker (at the very least, it
>>>>narrows down the list of "suspects").
>>>
>>>I don't believe that is any of your business. Where someone telnets to,
>>>who they send mail to, etc., should not be logged. Your plan sounds
>>>an awful lot like "Big Brother" to me.
>
>I beg to differ. Getting an account on a system is not a *right*, it is a
>*priviledge*, much like getting a driving licence. As with any priviledge,
(btw privilege)
>there is a certain amount of responsibility that goes into maintaining your
>end of the contract. For the account holder, that means no surreptitious
...
>question is how can the system maintainer know that the account holder is
>keeping his end of the bargain up? By keeping log files, of course.
This presumes that someone will be guilty. It is also tantamount to 1)
mandatory blood testing for drugs 2) wiretapping 3) making lists of
delivered letter return addresses (called "Mail Cover") 4)
credit-rating checks 5) traffic violations reported on backs of
licenses (soon to appear in California). 6) Universal identification
codes.
>Stretching my license analogy, just having a license to drive does not give
>the licensee (account holder) the right to speed, and/or disregard traffic
>protocols. If they do, they are held accountable to the police (system
>maintainer). How does the police make sure that the licensee holds up his/her
>end? By snooping (radar guns, hiding in an alley, etc) of course! Now would
>you say that the police was violating your rights by shooting his radar gun
>in your direction!?!
Yes. What this is is a presumption of guilt, that there are "guilty
people", and that you must "find them". The contrary is to believe
that people are innocent unless there is proof that a crime has
occurred, then attempt to deduce who performed the crime. The point of
controlling behavior isn't to its own end, but to protect all from the
injustices and dangers created by a few. On a computer, the
perpetrator of an invasion, or of a hacking on another system, or any
number of violations of a code of ethics should be investigated when
found. If there is just cause to set up a "trap" (there has been
account tampering; someone from a remote site has complained that your
computer has been mail bombing, forging netnews; etc.) logfiles are
perfectly acceptable. Otherwise, they are, if used for "monitoring", quite
an invasion.
Because in the United States you have the "right" to have a telephone,
it doesn't give anyone (including the US government) the "right" to
listen to what you say or monitor where you call in case you are doing
things which might be illegal. One believes people regulate their own
conduct, and that subsequent to proof of crime investigations commence.
I have had the feeling since the mid-80's that people (in the US) have
forgotten that the point of Police and policing efforts isn't to "find
criminals", but rather when crime a crime occurs to find the
perpetrators and punish them according to law. The former is a "Police
State" and the latter is a free state.
--
| Le Jojo: Fresh 'n' Clean, speaking out to the way you want to live
| today; American - All American; doing, a bit so, and even more so.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Academic programs in "computers, freedom and privacy"?
Message-ID: <9204152220.AA27185@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:20:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: riddle@is.rice.edu (Prentiss Riddle)
Subject: Academic programs in "computers, freedom and privacy"?
Message-ID: <1992Apr15.193748.15173@rice.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:37:48 GMT
I just read Steve Cisler's fascinating account of the Computers,
Freedom and Privacy Conference II in the Effector Online.
It made me wonder: are there any academic degree programs concentrating
on the political, social, ethical and economic issues surrounding the
emerging technologies we're concerned with here? I don't know what
acdemic department such a program would fall under -- perhaps political
science, communications, philosophy, law or even (what a thought!)
computer science?
Please reply by mail or to comp.org.eff.talk, as you please. Thanks.
-- Prentiss Riddle ("aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada") riddle@rice.edu
-- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.binaries.pictures.erotica] Help a victim of feminists |||
Message-ID: <9204152226.AA27214@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:26:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
From: UZR50C@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de (Shana Fliginger)
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
Subject: Help a victim of feminists |||
Message-ID: <92106.62253.UZR50C@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:17:33 GMT
I'm sending a request for help to everybody|
I consider myself a victim of feminists. It's not that I
dislike feminists in general, but this time they have done
something I don't really want to accept.
Following a complaint of some feminist groups, here at the
universiy they have shut down all access to news groups which
contain the word "sex" in their name| With this action they
are trying to stop the spread of pictures that don't fit their
views. I am now unable to access news groups such as
alt.sex.pictures; this group is the only one that has been
left untouched (probably because of its name), but who knows
for how long it will remain within my reach.
It is my opinion that what pictures I want to look at is my
very own business and I don't want to be censored in such a
way.
So here is my plead: I would be most grateful to everybody
who could supply me with some information on how I can get
hold of those "adults only" pictures by other means than the
news groups mentioned| I would greatly appreciate names of
ftp sites, mail addresses of people, mailing lists etc. (both
Internet and Bitnet) and of course some actual pictures|
I must admit that my amount of pictures is still quite tiny
at the moment, but I am certainly willing to share EVERY
picture that I get with EVERYBODY who wants them. Promised|
So thanks a lot to all those of you helping me out of this
"misery"|||
You can reach me via the following addresses:
Internet: UZR50C@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de
Bitnet: UZR50C@DBNRHRZ1
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: censored at UB.....NEED HELP...GOING TO LOSE VAX ACCT.
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:11:15 GMT
>Nor can I post an
>article which says "Let's kick the shit outta some fuckin' queers!"
hmm, apparently he can...
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.programmer, et al.] Re: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...)
Message-ID: <9204160000.AA27546@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:00:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.admin.policy
From: spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale)
Subject: Re: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...)
Message-ID: <1992Apr15.205702.29713@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:57:02 GMT
shandon@cats.ucsc.edu (Timothy Daniel Kolar) says:
> This leads to the reasonable idea that you only start tracking telnets
> when someone at another site reports an attack from your site. However,
> if you trust your system administrator (and you had better) then having
> logs that aren't looked at until a problem arises is about the same thing.
No, they are very different things.
Investigating a crime after it has taken place is standard policy;
however, surveilance without motive is not.
If the police want to watch me, or the FBI wishes to tap my phone, it
is my understanding that they have to suspect me of a crime BEFORE
they start logging.
You seem to feel that it is fine whether or not you are being accused;
I do not. The ability to monitor everyone does not mean that you
should; in this respect, I do not think telnet logging - including
ones not originating at your site, as the original poster also
wanted to do - should occur until a break-in is suspected.
> |> Also, the safety of user's data is most easily secured with backups...
>
> Safety also entails protecting the information from
> unauthorized access (ironically, backups make that harder instead of
> easier).
How so?
A reasonably secure system can be had by making sure people don't pick
poor passwords, and making sure people don't give them out. I doubt there
have been a lot of systems broken into that had adequate security measures.
Followups directed to comp.admin.policy.
--
Steven Miale - spm2d@virginia.edu | Backwards compatibility is backward.
Undergraduate Researcher |
Department of Computer Science |
University of Virginia |
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.programmer, et al.] Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Message-ID: <9204152359.AA27537@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:59:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 15 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.admin.policy
From: spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale)
Subject: Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.191146.29321@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:11:46 GMT
In article , vijay@cdsun.fnal.gov (Vijay Gurbani) writes:
> >>I don't believe that is any of your business. Where someone telnets to,
> >>who they send mail to, etc., should not be logged. Your plan sounds
> >>an awful lot like "Big Brother" to me.
>
> Stretching my license analogy, just having a license to drive does not give
> the licensee (account holder) the right to speed, and/or disregard traffic
> protocols. If they do, they are held accountable to the police (system
> maintainer). How does the police make sure that the licensee holds up his/her
> end? By snooping (radar guns, hiding in an alley, etc) of course! Now would
> you say that the police was violating your rights by shooting his radar gun
> in your direction!?!
No, but I WOULD say the policeman was violating my rights if the government
required me to put a detector in my car that would indicate when and where
I was going at all times. The analogy you are shooting for is something
along the lines of "intermittent monitoring", but a logs and history files
are constant monitoring, a very different idea, more like Big Brother than
root.
Yes, by constantly monitoring people you'd catch all the speeders, but
you would take away their rights at the same time. Order and freedom
are mutually exclusive for the most part.
At the same time, monitoring all users to make sure they are not trying
to do anything wrong is an invasion of privacy; and plus, there is always
a way to circumvent security.
--
Steven Miale - spm2d@virginia.edu | Backwards compatibility is backward.
Undergraduate Researcher |
Department of Computer Science |
University of Virginia |
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.programmer, et al.] Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Message-ID: <9204161501.AA29969@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:01:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
From: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Message-ID: <3761@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:55:05 GMT
In article <1992Apr15.185018.1918@ircam.fr> francis@ircam.fr (Joseph Francis) writes:
>This presumes that someone will be guilty. It is also tantamount to 1)
>mandatory blood testing for drugs 2) wiretapping 3) making lists of
>delivered letter return addresses (called "Mail Cover") 4)
>credit-rating checks 5) traffic violations reported on backs of
>licenses (soon to appear in California). 6) Universal identification
>codes.
>
I'm sorry but logging where telnet, finger, rlogin, ftp accesses by
means of TCP wrapper style code is NOT presuming that the people using
those services are guilty. There are numerous reasons for wanting to
log information ranging from justifying a particular service on a host
to general system auditing. In some cases, this info is useful in
tracking down illegal usage of a particular site.
The general comments of this thread seem to indicate that there are mad
sysadmins running around trying to "capture" innocent users and not give
them due process. Be real, most sysadmins are professional (by whatever
standards) and like the phone company log a lot of information that is
rarely examined with a fine tooth comb. For the most part, they don't
have time to review this info UNTIL there is a problem or need to do
so.
To the people who feel that this consitutes spying or violating user's
rights, I would hope that your individual site's acceptable use policies
cover BOTH the responsibilities of the users and the sysadmin. If not,
then you aren't doing your part to help define YOUR particular computing
environment. Remember that one site's acceptable use could be another
site's usage violation (to rework an old cliche). The important issues are
to have some sort of statement that can be as general or specific as
required by each INDIVIDUAL site, distributing this policy to your user
community and refining/reviewing the policy on a regular basis.
If you don't know where to get help, I suggest reading
RFC 1244 (Guide to writing a Site Security policy) available via
anonymous FTP from CERT and other sites.
I also ask this thread what YOU would do if someone discloses sensitive
info, destroys data or uses accounts illegally on your system(s). How
would you track down the "offender" presuming, of course, that your
supervisor/management instructs you to track them down. I think a
discussion of this nature would point out the difficulties in trying to
determine who 'raided' a site and would be far more useful to the
readers of this group.
The bottom line is that any discussions of a GENERAL nature (what this
particular thread has degenerated into) is really blowing a lot of
smoke. These types of discussions are useful only in SPECIFIC cases
such as the comments reviewing Wes Morgan's policy statement or the
Brack incident at OSU.
Sorry for the soapbox treatment.
-Randy Marchany
VA Tech Computing Center
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...)
Message-ID: <9204161502.AA29983@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:02:55 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...)
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.035456.6200@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:54:56 GMT
Despite the "rightness" and "wrongness" of logging these things, one
should consider the overall chilling effect of the monitoring. What
effect will it have on the users--and the institution--as a whole?
One might compare and contrast it to other forms of monitoring such as
license plate scans to see where you go, audit trails such as
recording your every command, etc.
It would be a good idea to study how these things affect the minds of
non-criminals, and weigh the overall effect with the security gained.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Policy Sample: EFF House Rules (version 2.0)
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.153247.1248@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:32:47 GMT
Several people have asked me if it would be OK to base their computer
policy on the EFF's in-house policy (enclosed). The authors of the
policy, Helen Trillian Rose (hrose@eff.org) and Chris Davis
(ckd@eff.org) say that it would be fine.
- Carl
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[Here are the rules for *.eff.org, the computers of the Electronic
>Frontier Foundation, a private, not-for-profit organization.]
> 1. No unauthorized attempts to gain root access or access to any account
> not belonging to you on this or any other EFF system.
> 2. No use of this or any other EFF system as a staging ground to crack
> other systems.
> 3. No use of this or any other EFF system through unauthorized
> dial-up access.
> 4. No use of this or any other EFF system for illegal or criminal
> purposes.
> 5. All users are responsible for their own telecom access charges, if any.
> 6. Any user who finds a possible security hole on any EFF system is
> obliged to report it to the system administrators. If you're not
> sure, report it, don't try to use it.
> 7. Users are responsible for all use of their accounts, including
> choosing safe passwords and ensuring file protections are set
> correctly.
> 8. Sharing passwords is not permitted.
> 9. Please keep in mind that many people use the EFF systems for day to
> day work. Obstructing this work by consuming gratuitiously large
> amounts of system resources (disk space, CPU time) or by
> deliberately crashing the machine(s) will not be tolerated. In
> general we will ask you to clean up your disk space and/or stop your
> own processes except in emergencies; please cooperate by running
> large jobs at night and by using the "nice" command to lower the
> priority of CPU-intensive processes.
>10. All users should be on notice that the system administrators do
> periodic security checks of EFF systems, including password checks.
> Any user with a "bad password" will be notified via email. If the
> user does not change passwords within a timely manner, the account
> will be locked until the person in question contacts, *via
> telephone*, one of the system administrators to reinstate the
> account in question.
>11. Electronic mail on this system is as private as we can make it.
> Attempts to read another person's electronic mail or other protected
> files will be treated with the utmost seriousness. The system
> administrators will not read mail or non-world-readable files unless
> absolutely necessary in the course of their duties, and will treat
> the contents of those files as private information at all times.
> Bounced mail is directed to the system administrators in the form of
> *headers only* for purposes of assuring reliable e-mail service.
>--
>Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
> =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
--
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 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.10
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.165500.2676@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:55:00 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News followings the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n10
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending March 1, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 concerns the limits a university may place on free speech.
1. According to a short item in the Chicago Tribune, some at the
University of Wisconsin want to draft new, narrower "hate speech" rule
to replace the rule that was struck down by the district federal
court. The author of the original restrictions says that he isn't sure
the rule is needed anymore.
<1992Feb26.165417.12215@eff.org>
Note 2 suggests that obscenity is in the eye of the beholder.
2. (A user:) If anything is obscene, surely it is discussing new ways
of systemically killing people. Why do people who are not troubled by
that get so upset at groups which discuss new ways of finding pleasure?
<1992Feb26.232807.4485@nntp.hut.fi>
Note 3 discusses arguments presented to justify a Swiss Network's
decision not to carry certain newsgroups.
3. What article of law allows someone to file a lawsuit against the
network if it is carrying material they do not like? If such a law
exists, does it apply equally to email? If the network does censor
newsgroups, does that imply that it fully supports the information in
the remaining newsgroups?
<1992Feb24.173533@lglsun.epfl.ch>
Note 4 discusses a student who created an "alt" newsgroup. The news
administrator on the machine he uses claims the user forged the
message creating the group, and refuses to carry the group.
4. "Since you put your name on the post it wasn't a forgery, but your
news admin is still free to consider it an improper newgroup."
<1992Feb28.100229.27960@ms.uky.edu>
Note 5 discusses the history of altnet, the set of "alt" groups.
5. The alt groups were created outside of the USENET guidelines and
propagated by alternate uucp links. One force for change was an
attempt to carry a political group in a technical forum because that
forum was better distributed. Another was that some system
administrators would not carry certain newsgroups no matter what the
name.
<3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Note 6 suggests that informing anyone who will listen about the true
nature of controversial news groups may forestall future problems.
6. (An administrator:) If a reporter or legislator asks about the
net, I tell them about the huge variety of newsgroups from the
scientific and technical to those discussing controversial issues.
"I've never had a bad reaction to this presentation..."
<11169@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Note 7 reacts to a proposed policy on calculator use during exams.
7. The proposed policy raises due process concerns. I have a simpler
solution: I do not allow the use of such devices. "The reasoning is
simple: Programmers should be proficient, personally, in computation."
Notes 8 and 9 concern a system administrator's policy of acting
quickly in case of rules violations. Often a student's account is
restricted before the student is notified of the violation.
8. (A student:) On a Friday afternoon I discovered all my accounts at
the University Of Aston in Birmingham, England had been disabled. I
was told that something I was running was congesting the network. To
sort things out I needed to meet with the head of the department, by
appointment, on the following Tuesday.
<1992Feb26.192151.6435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
9. This happens at Berkeley every so often. Usually, the student can
get his account back by talking to the system administrator. I
sympathize with the administrator, but it would not occur to the
university to lock a student out of his/her dorm without prior
warning.
Note 10 rebuts the claim that students have little cause for complaint
if an administrator restricts a student's account for non-academic uses.
10. (A student:) I pay extra money for my account. Suppose I rent a
car. I take it for a ride in the country. Does the rental company
have a right to disable the car, and leave a note saying, "Your engine
has been taken out and the locks on the doors have been changed since
you went for a ride in the country that was totally unrelated to the
business in which you rented this car." No good comes from system
administrators being harsh to their users.
Notes 11 and 12 discuss liability for the electronic transmittal of
information. Specifically, abortion information may not be
distributed in Ireland.
11. (A discussion of the incident in which a pregnant 14 year-old girl
was not permitted to leave the country to seek an abortion in
England.) "The computer/censorship issue related to the fact that
only crosspostings to the group _talk.abortion_ appear here." If a
posting to such a group had information on how to procure an abortion,
are we any more liable than a library with an English telephone
directory which has the phone number of an abortion clinic?
<1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
12. In fact, you can get the banned information by calling Northern
Ireland, or Boston, Massachusetts. Are they going to prosecute the
Irish PTT, or British Telecom, or Ma Bell?
<1992Feb26.165136.9723@wetware.com>
- Paul]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, or Carl
M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses
and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Phone Registration at Berkeley
Message-ID: <9204161712.AA00866@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 07:12:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 15:52 PDT
From: EWANDERS@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Phone Registration at Berkeley
The following article appeared in The Daily Californian, an independent
newspaper distributed at UC Berkeley, April 14, 1992:
NO CLASSES FOR UNDECLARED IN TELEBEARS LIMBO
UC Berkeley sophomore Erica Oliver is caught in a registration Catch-22.
Oliver says Tele-BEARS, the new registration-by-phone system heralded by
students and administrators as a faster, more efficient way to get classes,
won't let her enroll at all. The system will not place Oliver in the
lower-division classes she needs to declare her major because she will be a
junior next fall, but won't allow her to enroll in any upper division classes
in her major because she hasn't declared it yet.
"It makes me feel very frustrated," Oliver said. "I just can't figure out
why in the world I'm paying this university if I can't get any classes."
The phone-in system, initiated on campus last fall by a test group of 4,200
graduating seniors, guarantees students up to the maximum number of units their
college allows. But the system doesn't guarantee students will be able to get
into classes they need in order to declare or fulfill major requirements.
"Being a Junior, it's kind of late for not fulfilling the major
requirements," Jorge Garza, acting associate registrar, said of Oliver's
predicament. Garza said he recommends to students in situations similar to
Oliver's to talk to an advisor about getting into the prerequisite classes.
But Margaret Distasi, director of student advising in Campbell Hall, said it
may be difficult for undeclared students to get classes because major
departments may reserve courses for declared students by prohibiting undeclared
students from enrolling. Garza said students will simply have to declare as
soon as possible in order to register for classes. "This is going to force
students to process their paperwork (for declaring) faster," Garza said.
Garza said his office sent out more than 5,000 letters to students last fall
offering a Tele-BEARS training session to inform students about how to prepare
themselves for using the system. Only 39 students attended the session.
But on its second day of use by the whole campus, Garza said the registration
process is going fairly smoothly. "Most students are getting classes even if
they're not the ones they want because they haven't fulfilled certain
requirements," Garza said. Tele-BEARS is scheduled to take 85 calls every 15
minutes during its operational hours, which Garza said would register the
entire student population in 10 days.
[End of Quote]
This phone-activated registration system seems to avoid many of the risks that
others have remarked on for similar systems at other universities. Each
student is assigned a PIN unrelated to the student ID number. Each student has
several possible time periods in which to register spread over the 10 day
period. We won't know until it is through how many students will miss their
time slots or otherwise fail to register properly, but the written information
seems pretty clear and complete.
What are the RISKS here?
For one thing, they thought they had done a large-scale test of the system by
having over 4000 students use it last semester. The flaw was that by limiting
the test group to graduating seniors, they didn't test any number of
complications that may only occur for undeclared students, freshmen, transfers,
part-time students, those changing majors, etc. Repeating a simple test many
times is not the same thing as showing that a procedure is flexible enough to
handle the full spectrum of real-world inputs. They might have done a much
better test by having 400 students from a range of departments and classes use
the system rather than 4000 all from one class. (Of course, selecting students
for the test at random might have been even better; by deliberately choosing
some from every major, they might well have forgotten to test undeclared
students.)
The second risk is less obvious. At the same time they replaced mail-in
registration with the phone-in system, they changed the algorithm by which they
assigned classes. Like many universities, Berkeley has difficulty offering
enough sections of certain classes to satisfy demand. In the past, little
checking was done to see whether a student was eligible to take a requested
class. Now, many departments can limit registration in certain courses to
students who have declared a major in that department. Apparently, they also
now limit the ability of 3rd-year students to take lower division classed as
well. Here the new method of ACCESSING the registration system is being blamed
for a problem that could just as easily have arisen in the old one.
A third risk is best exemplified by the final quote from Garza. He appears to
have changed the definition of successful registration from "getting the
classes you want or need," to "getting any classes at all." It is hard to tell
whether this is a case of retroactively changing the goals of a project to
match the accomplishments, or whether this is just the way registrar's office
droids see the problem of registration.
Eric W. Anderson, Chemical Engineering Dept., University of California
Berkeley CA 94720 ewanders@garnet.berkeley.edu ewanders@CMSA.berkeley.edu
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Portal_mail_system@cup.portal.com
Subject: Returned mail
Message-ID: <9204161121.1.19837@cup.portal.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:21:38 GMT
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
From: Portal mail system
Subject: Returned mail
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 11:21:38 PDT
Lines: 818
Your letter to "william l urton" could not be delivered.
Reason for failure: Unknown Portal user
-----
Detailed explanation for failure:
Your mail was addressed to an unknown Portal user.
Undeliverable letter follows
-----
Portal-Rmail-To: william_l_urton@cup.portal.com
Received: from portal.unix.portal.com by hobo.corp.portal.com (4.1/4.0.3 1.14)
id AA20132; Thu, 16 Apr 92 11:21:34 PDT
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
Received: by portal.unix.portal.com (1.217)
id AA16088; Thu, 16 Apr 92 11:21:31 -0700
Received: by nova.unix.portal.com (5.65b/4.1 1.95)
id AA03654; Thu, 16 Apr 92 11:21:21 -0700
Received: by eff.org id AA02741
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cafn-list@eff.org); Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:55:05 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:54:55 -0400
X-Digest-Sender: "Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <199204161654.AA02641@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.10 (Digest)
Apparently-To: cafn-mail@eff.org
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joslin@tso.uc.edu (Paul Joslin)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.10
[Week ending March 1, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 concerns the limits a university may place on free speech.
1. According to a short item in the Chicago Tribune, some at the
University of Wisconsin want to draft new, narrower "hate speech" rule
to replace the rule that was struck down by the district federal
court. The author of the original restrictions says that he isn't sure
the rule is needed anymore.
<1992Feb26.165417.12215@eff.org>
Note 2 suggests that obscenity is in the eye of the beholder.
2. (A user:) If anything is obscene, surely it is discussing new ways
of systemically killing people. Why do people who are not troubled by
that get so upset at groups which discuss new ways of finding pleasure?
<1992Feb26.232807.4485@nntp.hut.fi>
Note 3 discusses arguments presented to justify a Swiss Network's
decision not to carry certain newsgroups.
3. What article of law allows someone to file a lawsuit against the
network if it is carrying material they do not like? If such a law
exists, does it apply equally to email? If the network does censor
newsgroups, does that imply that it fully supports the information in
the remaining newsgroups?
<1992Feb24.173533@lglsun.epfl.ch>
Note 4 discusses a student who created an "alt" newsgroup. The news
administrator on the machine he uses claims the user forged the
message creating the group, and refuses to carry the group.
4. "Since you put your name on the post it wasn't a forgery, but your
news admin is still free to consider it an improper newgroup."
<1992Feb28.100229.27960@ms.uky.edu>
Note 5 discusses the history of altnet, the set of "alt" groups.
5. The alt groups were created outside of the USENET guidelines and
propagated by alternate uucp links. One force for change was an
attempt to carry a political group in a technical forum because that
forum was better distributed. Another was that some system
administrators would not carry certain newsgroups no matter what the
name.
<3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Note 6 suggests that informing anyone who will listen about the true
nature of controversial news groups may forestall future problems.
6. (An administrator:) If a reporter or legislator asks about the
net, I tell them about the huge variety of newsgroups from the
scientific and technical to those discussing controversial issues.
"I've never had a bad reaction to this presentation..."
<11169@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Note 7 reacts to a proposed policy on calculator use during exams.
7. The proposed policy raises due process concerns. I have a simpler
solution: I do not allow the use of such devices. "The reasoning is
simple: Programmers should be proficient, personally, in computation."
Notes 8 and 9 concern a system administrator's policy of acting
quickly in case of rules violations. Often a student's account is
restricted before the student is notified of the violation.
8. (A student:) On a Friday afternoon I discovered all my accounts at
the University Of Aston in Birmingham, England had been disabled. I
was told that something I was running was congesting the network. To
sort things out I needed to meet with the head of the department, by
appointment, on the following Tuesday.
<1992Feb26.192151.6435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
9. This happens at Berkeley every so often. Usually, the student can
get his account back by talking to the system administrator. I
sympathize with the administrator, but it would not occur to the
university to lock a student out of his/her dorm without prior
warning.
Note 10 rebuts the claim that students have little cause for complaint
if an administrator restricts a student's account for non-academic uses.
10. (A student:) I pay extra money for my account. Suppose I rent a
car. I take it for a ride in the country. Does the rental company
have a right to disable the car, and leave a note saying, "Your engine
has been taken out and the locks on the doors have been changed since
you went for a ride in the country that was totally unrelated to the
business in which you rented this car." No good comes from system
administrators being harsh to their users.
Notes 11 and 12 discuss liability for the electronic transmittal of
information. Specifically, abortion information may not be
distributed in Ireland.
11. (A discussion of the incident in which a pregnant 14 year-old girl
was not permitted to leave the country to seek an abortion in
England.) "The computer/censorship issue related to the fact that
only crosspostings to the group _talk.abortion_ appear here." If a
posting to such a group had information on how to procure an abortion,
are we any more liable than a library with an English telephone
directory which has the phone number of an abortion clinic?
<1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
12. In fact, you can get the banned information by calling Northern
Ireland, or Boston, Massachusetts. Are they going to prosecute the
Irish PTT, or British Telecom, or Ma Bell?
<1992Feb26.165136.9723@wetware.com>
- Paul]
In this issue:
Carl M. Kadie 26 "University of Wisconsin rewirtes 'hate speech' rule
Jyrki Kuoppala 23 banning sci.military
Magnus Kempe 69 Control by SWITCH
Kenneth Herron 58 >Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Chris Lewis 87 >History of "alt" groups
Douglas W Jones 2 >Mass media discovering nets
Brinton Cooper 36 >Proposal for policy on ca<> during exams (Bezenek 13.16)
Mark Evans 17 Sys-admins shooting first
Brian Harvey 43 >
Tig Stone 59 >Telnet Censorship.
Paul Moloney 59 REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
drieux 44 >The Irish Abortion Information Question
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Managing Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Administration: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au)
Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu)
Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu)
To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org. The
directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom README
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, or Carl
M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses
and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
The addresses for the list are:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 1--"University of Wisconsin rewirtes 'hate speech' rule
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.165417.12215@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 16:54:17 GMT
[A short item from the Chicago Tribune, Feb 25, 1992, section 1, p. 4]
MADISON - The University of Wisconsin System is resurrecting a "hate
speech" rule that was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal
judge last year. UW-Madison Law Professor Ted Finman said he has
redrafted the rule to sidestep October's court division that it was
unconstitutionally broad. The redraft says students may be punished
for using racial, sexual or age-related epithets -- defined as a word,
phrase or symbol that " would make the educational environment hostile
or threatening" and would "tend to provoke an immediate violent
response when addressed directly to a person of average sensibility."
Before the rule can be adopted, it must gain approval from the various
UW campuses and then win approval of the UW Board of Regents. Law
Prof. Gordon Baldwin, who helped draft the original hate speech rule,
said he isn't sure the rule is needed because students are more
sensitive about racial and sexual remarks. The original rule, drafted
in 1987, followed a "mock slave auction" by a campus fraternity. Its
redraft was requested by the UW-Madison faculty after the court ruling
is U.S. District Court.
--
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 Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Article 2--banning sci.military
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.232807.4485@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 26 Feb 92 23:28:07 GMT
In article , shiva@pro-smof (System Smof) writes:
>I'm kind of shocked that the Univerity of Stuttgart banned sci.military as
>offensive; being an Army Brat, I've always found that newsgroup to be
>pretty interesting. Was it because nasty things about Germany and WWII were
>said there? Nasty but true, that is?
I've never read sci.military so I can't really say what's being
discussed there but if anything at all on Usenet or human life in
general is offensive and obscene to the human spirit it must be
figuring out new ways of systematically killing people, making people
suffer and promoting the investing of valuable human resources to
planning these destructive acts.
I don't accept censorship on sci.military or any other group, but it truly
shows how sick human culture is that many people think that discussing
ways of finding pleasure as in alt.sex or alt.drugs is offensive while
at the same time they find nothing wrong with planning new and better
ways of deliberately destroying human lifes and causing suffering.
//Jyrki
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: magnus@lglsun.epfl.ch (Magnus Kempe)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 3--Control by SWITCH
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.173533@lglsun.epfl.ch>
Date: 24 Feb 92 16:35:33 GMT
In article <1992Feb24.085804.26201@chx400.switch.ch>,
gilli@chx400.switch.ch (Peter Gilli) writes:
:
: SWITCH received legal advice that, if it - just like a book shop - stores
: and freely redistributes information, it can be pursued if somebody (a
: journalist, a women's right organisation, etc. - not SWITCH !) does not
: like the contents and files a lawsuit, claiming that information distri-
: buted by SWITCH is in violation with legal regulations.
1. Please indicate the _exact_ article of Swiss law that allows someone
to sue a bookshop for carrying intellectual material that this someone
"does not like". (Note that bookshops rarely "freely redistribute
information".)
2. If you can answer 1., please indicate how adult discussions of
human hetero- and homosexuality, of gun control, and newspaper news
are open to such legal attacks. How do you judge whether someone
may "not like" some newsgroup? Whose standard of morality have you
chosen as a yardstick? Why?
3. SWITCH does not "freely redistribute information". SWITCH is paid
by the Swiss universities and technical institutes to provide them
with network services. No free lunch here. Anyway maybe "free
distribution" is not an issue in the article of law you are going
to refer us to?
4. If SWITCH is legally responsible (remember, you still have to prove
1.) for the intellectual material it redistributes, please explain
what difference there is between e-mail and news. Do you intend to
filter all e-mail and throw away whatever someone may "not like"?
Again, who is going to read and judge the messages? According to
what standard? Is that part of the charter for SWITCH? Are you
already monitoring e-mail, in anticipation of future action? And
how do you relate your assertions with the activities of the Postal
Services and Telephone Companies? Are they liable for the
intellectual contents of the letters and phone calls they are
"redistributing"?
5. If SWITCH filters away some newsgroups (assuming you have shown
these were somehow illegal), does that imply that SWITCH fully
supports and takes responsibility for the material that appears
in the remaining newsgroups? Do you intend to monitor every single
news article? Is that part of the charter for SWITCH?
: it was not at all a tentative to exerce censorship - what a ridiculous idea!
Unless you show that your proposal is truly motivated by risks of legal
harassment, it is absolutely justified to consider that you have
merely, capriciously attempted to prevent people from reading and/or
writing on topics such as: human sexuality, guns, and newspaper news.
It is true that it is not censorship, as you are not part of the
government, although _all_ of your money comes from the state. It is
quite unfortunate that SWITCH was set up as a foundation, as it allows
you to take actions which are constitutionally forbidden to the state.
This is a loophole; but you don't have to dive into it, do you?
: The classification of news-groups into categories presently being dis-
: cussed is _one_ proposal to handle this problem - there are many other
: possibilities to handle this problem if this proposal is rejected.
What do you _mean_? Are you going to look for other ways to control
what people may read and/or write? E.g., are you going to track and
prevent all NNTP connections?
--
Magnus Kempe "I have sworn ... eternal hostility to every form of
magnus@lglsun.epfl.ch tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.config,news.admin
From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Subject: Article 4--Re: Help! "Forged" newsgroups in alt.*!
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.100229.27960@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 15:02:29 GMT
pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Falstad) writes:
>My local sysadmins are all up in arms
>because I created an alt.* group, specifically "alt.folklore.college".
>As far as I can tell, it was a valid creation according to the principles
>of USENET.
Just to pick a nit, alt isn't part of usenet, but rather a different
hierarchy which uses the same distribution methods. The group was created
according to the principles of "altnet".
>It was discussed in alt.config, there were no objections, there
>were many voices calling for the group. ...I created the group with my
>name & email address on the control message. The group is now quite
>active with seemingly valid discussion. ...Spaf put it on his list. I
>got a total of _one_ complaint about it, from a newsadmin at another site,
>who hadn't read alt.config lately...
>But no, apparently it was a "forgery". My local newsadmin sent me mail
>(I won't quote it as I don't have his permission) claiming that any
>group whose control message was forged is bogus, period. My creation
>message was forged, so the group is bogus. Doesn't matter how many people
>like the group. A forged control message, apparently, is any control message
>that wasn't done with inews. Newsgroup creation, by usenet custom and
>by software design, is the job of the news administrator. Gene may not
>have known that the group was "forged" when he put it on his list.
Forgery is a legal term with a specific meaning. Since you put your name
on the post it wasn't a forgery, but your news admin is still free to
consider it an improper newgroup. It sounds like he's a bit peeved that
one of his users issued a newgroup without consulting him, but it's up to
him how news runs at your site. There's no stigma attached to carrying
or not carrying a particular alt group, and certainly none of us are
in a position to tell him what to do.
Gene Spafford's list of alt groups should not be considered canon; I believe
it even says so.
>Basically, he won't carry "alt.folklore.college" here at Princeton, so I'll
>have to read the group at other sites. "alt.gorets" and "alt.usenet.recovery"
>were added, no questions asked. To me, this seems inconsistent, and
>contradictory to the spirit of Usenet. What's the net thinking on this?
I sympathize with you, but if he doesn't want to carry the group that's
his business. I imagine some of my users might feel the same about the
groups I've refused to carry (not that I would know about it; none of my
users ever complain about anything. I guess I'm doing something right :-).
Perhaps it would help if you apologized for creating the group without
telling him, and promised not to do it again?
--
Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky +1 606 257 2975
Department of Mathematics
"You don't carve 'ARGH,' you just say it!" "Perhaps he was dictating?"
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 27 00:00:00 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.misc
Subject: Article 5--Re: History of "alt" groups
Message-ID: <3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 27 Feb 92 04:32:24 GMT
In article <1992Feb24.004705.10339@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
|In article <1992Feb22.214243.14848@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|>The Iowa State University Netnews policy asserts this bit of history:
|>'The use of Usenet to discuss a wide variety of issues has grown over
|>the years. While the "purely technical" newsgroups still exist,
|>Usenet also includes general discussion on almost anything, including
|>such topics as aspects of sexual lifestyles, illegal drugs, and racist
|>humor. The collective group of Usenet "news administrators" early on
|>decided to address this area by creating an "alt" group division for
|>"alternate" selections. This group can be handled as each site
|>chooses.'
|>Was this really the original motivation of the "alt" groups? If so, is
|>this history relevent to today's use of "alt" groups (alt.censorship,
|>alt.civil-liberty, etc.)?
|Not exactly as I understand it. The alt hierarchy was created by a couple
|of users in response to 'censorship' by the now forgotten 'backbone cabal'.
|I'm new to USENET myself, but there are some histories around... you might
|want to browse through news.answers for them. Apparently there was a time
|where practically all news passed through a few large academic sites, which
|were considered the 'backbone'. The administrators of these backbone sites
|thus had the power to control news flow almost entirely, and legend goes
|that it came to a show-down where they (or some of them) refused to
|propagate certain groups (I forget which) despite the fact that they had
|passed accepted USENET group creation guidelines. At that point some
|people took the matter in their own hands and created the alt hierarchy,
|which then was not only an alternate hierarchy, but was also propagated
|via alternate uucp links, bypassing the backbone sites. Later the wide
|use of NNTP and the increasing influence of UUNET caused the 'backbone'
|to fade into history, and while today UUNET _could_ be considered a kind
|of backbone all by itself, if it suddenly went away they USENET would very
|quickly be able to reconfigure and carry on without it (excepting those
|sites for whom a feed from UUNET is the only option for whatever reason).
The showdown you're referring to I think is really the thing that broke
the "backbone cabal" (more accurately, the "backbone" mailing list
subscribers, where "backbone" were those 30 or so sites with very large
impact on connectivity - not just academic). "comp.women" passed a
vote inspite of the fact that many major SA's believed the name to be
a blatant attempt to carry a non-technical and political group in comp
simply because of increased distribution and flatly refused to carry
it. Apparently the arguments got quite violent even within the mailing
list, and the backbone group broke up.
Though, at about that time increased connectivity was making "backbone"
more and more irrelevant.
Earlier, back in the days of the "Great Renaming", the people trying to come up
with the repartitioning of the "mod." and "net." groups into the
"big seven" hierarchies of today had a problem figuring out how to
place "news.flame" and "net.bizarre" and probably a few others. They
were considered to be just plain garbage, and many hoped that they would
simply disappear. Lots of grumbling and some screaming, with the
group designing the partition refusing to place these groups. Then a few
people started complaining about how onerous the new newsgroup voting
procedures were going to be, and they decided to create their own playpen
to mess up as they please.
A mess it certainly is.
The drugs group is a special case. Too many SA's stood up and said
that they wouldn't carry it under any name, no matter what a vote
said. Though I think it predates the current voting procedure.
Ditto, more or less, alt.sex.
Other major kafuffles, eg: comp.protocols.tcp.pc.eniac (or whatever
it was) or sci.aquaria generated much heat, but had relatively
little long-term effect. (Other than you don't see their proponents
around that much anymore.)
It was a long time ago. I've blissfully forgotten most of the details.
The prevalence of such groups as "censorship", "civil-liberty",
"acad-freedom" and the like in alt is because the people who tend to
want to create such groups think that having to vote for a news
group is fascist.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 6--Re: Mass media discovering nets
Message-ID: <11169@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 92 17:44:18 GMT
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 28 00:00:00 1992
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 9:12:19 EST
From: Brinton Cooper
Subject: Article 7--Re: Proposal for policy on calculator use during exams (Bezenek 13.16)
Message-ID:
Todd M. Bezenek KO0N communicates his proposed
policy regarding the use of calculators on closed note university exams. In
brief, he would take possession of a device which he (the proctor) believes to
have been used to violate the intent of closed-note examinations. He would
have a faculty member judge whether the calculating machine and its memory
content provided an illegal aid to the test-taking student.
I guess he never heard of "due process." If you try that in universities
supported by public funds, you run the risk of being sued by the student. His
procedure sets up a couple of faculty as a "kangaroo court" (what does that
mean, anyhow?) to judge whether a student cheated.
High-tech times may call for low-tech solutions. I simply do not permit the
use of calculating devices on Computer Science examinations and quizzes. The
reasoning is simple:
Programmers should be proficient, personally, in computation.
a. Having to work out a few numerical examples by hand can help budding
programmers hone their ability to see more than one way to do a
computation.
b. Using this ability can provide "sanity checks" on their software.
c. Programmers should be able to get the answer even when their batteries
have run down.
I fear that at least some of the human-induced software faults discussed so
often in this forum can be traced to the lack of computational skill on the
part of the programmer involved.
_Brinton Cooper abc@brl.mil cooper@udel.edu ab.cooper@compmail.com
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mpevans@isis.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans)
Subject: Article 8--Sys-admins shooting first
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.192151.6435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 19:21:51 GMT
On Friday (21 Feb 92) afternoon I discovered that all my accounts on the
computer system of University Of Aston in Birmingham, England (aston.ac.uk
domain in internet).
Had been disabled, on inquiring to mu departmental computer officer I was told
that someting I had been running was congesting the network.
In order to even begin sorting things out I need to see the head of dept (
appointment next tuesday, 3 March 1992)
Prior to this I received no complaints in any form, e-mail, memo, phone call,
personal complaint, fax or whatever. Despite the fact that anyone (on the
Internet in fact) could find out these details by running finger.
Looks like a case of paranoid people in charge! (who can't or won't talk to
their users, maybe it's quicker to login and run passwd as root than to
pick up the phone and dial a 4 digit number)
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 9--Re: Sys-admins shooting first
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Feb 92 00:35:52 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>mpevans@isis.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans) writes:
>>I discovered that all my accounts ... had been disabled, on inquiring ...
>>I was told that someting I had been running was congesting
>>the network.
>
>An important question, which you neglected to answer:
>
> What were you running?
>
>If I saw something that was slagging my network, I might very well take
>immediate action........
I, too, am curious about what he was running. Still, it's one thing to
take the "immediate action" of killing the offending process; a different
thing to turn off [apparently] more than one computer account. Surely
the latter wasn't urgent.
This sort of thing happens all the time here at Berkeley, where I teach.
Every so often a system administrator turns off some student's account
in response to a complaint, prior to any due process determination. The
student can generally get the account turned back on by talking with the
administrator in question.
I can see the administrators' point of view. They all have lots to do
besides trying to track down students; turning off the account (with a
login message saying where the student should go to get reinstated)
makes the student find the administrator, which is easier since the
administrator has an office and is usually in it.
And yet it would never occur to the university to, for example, lock a
student out of his/her dorm room without warning. I suppose the difference
is that the university sees housing as a right, but computer accounts as
a privilege -- even though the student needs the account to do the work
in some course.
I suppose I should be trying to get the university to establish a formal
policy about this. (Actually I think there *is* a formal policy that
takes effect at the next step, when the administrators have decided someone
is a Bad Guy and should lose the account permanently. But I'm not sure.)
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: s8759859@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Tig Stone)
Subject: Article 10--Re: Telnet Censorship.
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 20:16:49 GMT
In article <1992Feb29.025848.20812@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>bd671@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher P. Harr) writes:
>> Recently here at the Universtiy of Cincinnati, my home University
>>we have had system administrators kill accounts of people who connected to
>>port numbers whether it be IRC, MUD's MUSHES, MUSES etc. There are also people
>>who lost their accounts for telnetting to certain foriegn hosts, even though
>>they had permission to telnet there.
>Good for them! Its about time students realize that the computer system is
>for Academics and not for their personal leisure time. Buy an Atari 2600 if
>you want leisure material.
>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 /
I pay extra money for my account here at the University of
Massachusetts. I can make an analogy between Mr. Deignan's praise for
system administrators with the attitude "it's my system, I'll do
whatever the hell I want with users" and a car.
Say you have a car. A rental car. Now, the stipulation is
that you have this car for 6 months, and you pay some flat rate for
renting this car. Now, since you have this car for 6 whole months,
you might put your tapes in it to listen to while you drive. You
might even leave your briefcase in it while you're out of the car
briefly. You take pride in "your" car, keeping the windows clean, you
bring it to the car-wash, etc.
You decide to take the car for a ride in the country to relax
yourself. You make sure you take this ride isn't at any time that you
would inconvenience "real" car owners. You make sure you drive on an
out-of-the-way road. You drive home. The next morning, you wake up
and you find a note on your windshield: "Your engine has been taken
out and the locks on the doors have been changed since you went for a
ride in the country that was totally unrelated to the business in
which you rented this car." Or worse yet, the car is just plain gone,
with no clue what happened. You have to schlep down to the car rental
agency and have them tell you that they disapproved of your driving
the car in the country, so they confiscated it.
Couldn't you liken this to some system administrator cracking
down on persons doing activities that s/he disapproves of by
vaporizing the account without any kind of warning?
It just seems to me that nothing good ever comes out of system
administrators being so harsh to their users. Take the difference
between the aforementioned site and MIT for instance.
--
T. Stone
(s8759859@titan.ucc.umass.edu)
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Feb 24 00:00:00 1992
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.culture.celtic,talk.abortion,soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 11--REPOST: The Irish Abortion Controversy
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 24 Feb 92 22:28:48 GMT
[Apologies if you've seen this already. It was cancelled at my site over the
weekend, before most people would have had a chance to read it.]
Hmm. Interesting times are here in Ireland at the moment, and an issue has
come up which may well pose a question for those interested in the issues
of censorship, and especially where in concerns the Net.
As you may know, abortion is illegal in Ireland. The Eighth Amendment to
the constitution in 1983 made it even more so, and also led the way to
making the distribution of abortion information illegal. The Student Union
of this college, Trinity, was brought to court by the Society for the
Protection of the Unborn Child and was prevented from distributing such
information from its welfare section to women.
Recently, a 14 year old girl has become pregnant as the result of an alleged
rape. Unwittingly her parents told the police that they intended to bring her
to England for an abortion. Said police felt they had no option but to follow
up on this information, and as a result the Attorney General got an injunction
preventing the girl from leaving country.
The case hasn't left the headlines in the past week, and has become a rallying
call for pro-choice campaigners and those concerned at the fact that this
strident interpretation of the Eighth Amendment sees Ireland on the path to
a totalitarian state. (A pointed cartoon in the _Irish Times_ depicted an
Ireland surrounded by barbed wire, in the middle of which a little girl sits.
The caption - "February 1992. Internment - for women".)
Of course, people who called for and supported the amendment in '83 are now
saying the whole thing is a set-up by liberals, that they didn't forsee this
happening (despite repeated warnings at the time) and that "sure the mother
should have known she shouldn't have told the police". In effect, most of
them are now suggesting that people should break the law that they passed,
which seems to me the worst kind of hypocrisy.
That's the abortion issue. I'd love to hear comments on any aspect.
The computer/censorship issue related to the fact that only crosspostings
to the group _talk.abortion_ (which I hope this posting is getting through
to) appear here. The relevant people are concerned that we could be breaking
the law by allowing such postings to be read here, as they may have information
in them on how to procure an abortion, e.g. a telephone number for an abortion
clinic in England.
My question is - are they leaving themselves open to prosecution? It seems to
me that they cannot be seen to be "distributing" such information _per_ _se_;
any more than libraries are by having English telephone directories, containing
the numbers of clinics.
Anyway, I'll leave the floor open.
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 Feb 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,talk.abortion,soc.culture.celtic
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Article 12--Re: The Irish Abortion Information Question
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.165136.9723@wetware.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 16:51:36 GMT
pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
]
] My question is - are they leaving themselves open to prosecution? It seems to
] me that they cannot be seen to be "distributing" such information _per_ _se_;
] any more than libraries are by having English telephone directories, containing
] the numbers of clinics.
well lets see what they do with international directory assistance calls...
You do know that by dialing northern ireland you can ask for the
much BANNED INFORMATION....
Which would be a most interesting question, would they haul in
the IRISH alternative to the PTT or would they be able to go
for the DEEP POCKETs of say British Telecom, or Ma Bell... for
the one's silly enought to call boston and ask the question...
And to risk all things dark and EVIL, If you get to Fishguard,
across the water, and can not get information about decent
facilities that provide abortons, let me say that you can
find competent medical facilities in Haverfordwest, Dyfed Wales
at withybush hospital... Where I know Members of the USN have
been for such services... the USN presence in wales not being
large enough to afford to bring along all their own medical services.
Its a lovely town, and a pleasant place to spend a few days...
and given as, in the main, the Irish were kind enough to warn
our lads before bombing any pub we were in... I figure its the
least we can do in return...
Its a Shame to See Irish Law doing to fine irish lasses what you'd
have only expected the english to do....
ciao
drieux
--
EOT
No More Written InPut
Why are you Looking Here?
--
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=
------------------------------
End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest)
************************************
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:15:15 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.201515.19527@clarinet.com>
The main point is whether they removed alt to get at alt.sex or not. The
quoting of the laws is a good piece of evidence.
You can't complain about the removal of all of alt for non-moral reasons,
though.
The whole *idea* of alt was to make an "alternate" USENET-style hierarchy
without the usual "rules" and that since it was in its own hierarchy,
people could take it or leave it as a whole. That was the POINT. When
somebody decides not to get all of alt, then they are doing what alt was
intended for.
Of course, in many cases they are doing it to stop alt.sex. This is foolish.
If they want to do this there are ways they can do it that can't be
complained about. But it seems that U administrators prefer the heavy
handed ways.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,talk.religion.misc,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Christian MUDS, are there any?
Message-ID:
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:57:13 GMT
mktjadx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jeff A. Dilcher) writes:
>It is interesting that many university systems are condoning (albeit
>indirectly) nearly every other religion under the sun, from roman
>mytholgy to satanism, and not one person crys foul. However, bring
>in this "evil Christian religion" into the university computers and
>you have obviously violated "anti-discrimination" policies and have
>crossed the bounds of separation of church and state.
>This is not surprising to Christians, however, as we are used to this
>form of behaviour from this world.
[quotation from the Christian holy book deleted]
Heh. You seem to have some sort of persecution complex.
First of all, you seem to believe that allowing the free practice of
religions other than your own is the same as condoning these
religions. This is, of course, nonsense. The presence of constraint
would imply encouragement for those religions unconstrained. The
absence of constraint implies equal encouragement for all religions,
so therefore no religion is specially treated in any way, and
therefore no religion can be considered to be "condoned" over any
other. You are arguing for the sole condonement of Christianity and
the condemnation of all other religions; this would indeed violate the
separation of church and state, as well as principles of academic
freedom (in the context of the university environment).
Note that it is not discriminatory to permit Christian conduct. It
is, however, discriminatory to permit ONLY Christian conduct (that is,
to prohibit non-Christian conduct) - it is discriminatory against
non-Christians. Likewise, it would be discriminatory to prohibit
Christian conduct, but I am not aware of any such cases. Note,
however, that your right to conduct yourself as a Christian ends when
it interferes with another person's right to his own religion.
Many universities have restrictions on harassment based on religious
belief. A Christian who attempts to convert a person against his will
can be considered to be harassing if he does not desist on request.
This problem is most peculiar to Christianity, as it is one of the few
major religions that expects its adherents to coerce others into
joining in their beliefs. Other religions do not run afoul of these
regulations because they do not, by and large, engage in such
practices.
Non-Christians are constantly and continually discriminated against in
our society. Christians often fail to see this, as they strongly
outnumber non-Christians.
Finally, I see no reason why our universities should not be an open
environment where people can sample alternative lifestyles, beliefs,
and creeds. For one strong in his beliefs, the contact with those of
differing beliefs will but aid him in gaining a further understanding
of his own. The strong need not fear challenges.
I take your statements to mean that you believe that these other
religions should not have the right to practice freely. If so, then
you are expressing great intolerance for the rights and beliefs of
others. Such an attitude offends me greatly.
--
You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics. But not
much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority
ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient
book written by ignorant nomads as a guide. -- Doug Graham (dgraham@bnr.ca)
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Message-ID: <1992Apr17.021441.13351@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:14:41 GMT
brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>The main point is whether they removed alt to get at alt.sex or not. The
>quoting of the laws is a good piece of evidence.
[...]
A secondary point is *how* they decided to remove alt. Selection
policy and selection decisions (at university computer centers) should
be made in the open. In other words, not only should selection be made
on proper criteria, selection should be seen to be made on proper
criteria.
- 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 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.motss] Re: News from Auburn, Alabama
Message-ID: <9204170335.AA03315@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:35:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
From: jglover@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: News from Auburn, Alabama
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.131630.2386@ducvax.auburn.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:16:30 GMT
In article <9204122135.AA19975@client.its.rpi.edu>, buckmr@RPI.EDU writes:
> From: Dale Prince
> Subject: More on Alabama
>
>
> *** This was posted to the Queer Nation mailing list qn@queernet.org ***
>
> The following is a reprint (without permission) of an editorial from The
> Crimson White, the University of Alabama's campus newspaper. Material marked
> with brackets is my own.
Note this report is from the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa;
previous reports have been about Auburn University in Auburn;
These are two different (rival) institutions; the SGA at UA (tuscaloose)
stole the idea to discrimate from the orignial actions at Auburn.
UA's group has been active and funded for several years already.
- jayg
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men] How do *you* say 'harassment'?
Message-ID: <9204170337.AA03324@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:37:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald)
Subject: How do *you* say 'harassment'?
Message-ID: <1MFL?$C@ais.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 23:34:45 GMT
I would like to say that, for the most part, my personal encounter with
'sexual harassment' appears to be over. (see thread "A neat Story...") My
supervisors have told the woman (I still do not know anything about this
woman, not even a name) that I have been 'spoken to about his [my]
behavior.' This particular horror story has, if not a happy, at least an
acceptable ending.
However, the whole thing still rankles. Iam now sitting in our lab, working.
A friend has just handded me a book called "Female Orgasm", I would like to
talk about it, but of course certain words might creep out of my mouth which
some person might find offensive. So, I'll just sit here and say nothing.
It really pisses me off that I would have to be afraid of discussing
something in an *academic* setting. What kind of policy is it for an
institution of 'learning' that causes a portion of its students to feel
afraid of talking about certain things? I don't really need to point out
what position most of this population assumes durring urination.
At any rate, thanks for the comments/sympathy. It helped.
--
Shawn FitzGerald | chungkuo@ais.org
(Rational Romantic | University of Michigan
Mystic Cynical Idealist) | Computing Club
"I love you so I keep dreaming . . ." -Bananas, _The House of Blue Leaves_
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men] A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <9204170337.AA03333@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:37:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald)
Subject: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:21:58 GMT
I work in a computer lab at a community college in Michigan. Whiloe working,
a group of users and another consultant were engaged in conversation with
me. Topics included masturbation, sex, feminism, and religion. A user
overheard some thing I said, most of which she found offensive. It should be
noted that I did not start this conversation, in addition I also tried to
quite it down when it seemed to be getting too loud. I am now in Deep Doo
Doo, or at least there is a very real potential for me to be in said Doo
Doo.
Addmitedly, as far as proffesional conduct is concerned, I probably should
not have openly discussed masturbation while working (why not though?).
However, I have been informed that making comments that "are sexual, or
could be construed as sexist" are grounds for a sexual harrassment charge. I
do not know who my accuser is, nor have I ever spoken to her. Yet, according
to some people around here (faculty of the college, and my supervisors), the
simple fact that this woman was in the room is reason enough to "get me."
(Oh, it should also be noted that this particular computer lab isn't a
typical one in which everyone sits at their cold terminal and utters not a
word. And where 'consualtants' do little more than fix printer mis-feeds. In
this lab, people actualy talk. There's a certain sense of camraderrie [sic?]
among both the users and the consultants. There is often discussion going on
about a great many things.)
Hopefully this will not get me expelled. My supervisors have basically told
me to 'be carefull.' However, I can't help but be totaly pissed off. Not at
this woman (whomever she may be), but that SHE'S TECHNICALLY RIGHT.
I'd like to know if there is some place FTPable that archives sexual
harrassment policies. I can't believe saying something that "offends"
somebody in a room, when you've NEVER spoken to them or even know who they
are can be termed 'sexual harrassment.'\
"Oh, and if I offended you I'm sorry, but maybe you needed to be offended.
Well, here's my apology and one more thing. FUCK YOU!!"
--Suicidal Tendancies
--
Shawn FitzGerald | chungkuo@ais.org
(Rational Romantic | University of Michigan
Mystic Cynical Idealist) | Computing Club
"I love you so I keep dreaming . . ." -Bananas, _The House of Blue Leaves_
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men] Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <9204170339.AA03348@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:39:30 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.023221.21113@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:32:21 GMT
In article chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:
>Hopefully this will not get me expelled. My supervisors have basically told
>me to 'be carefull.' However, I can't help but be totaly pissed off. Not at
>this woman (whomever she may be), but that SHE'S TECHNICALLY RIGHT.
Going only by what you've said, I'd say you have every right to be
angry at *both* the complainer and the administration. You don't tell
us what was being said about masturbation, but a serious discussion of
masturbation (say from moral, political, or religious points of view)
is no more out of place than a discussion of baseball or tax shelters.
This looks like yet another case of loosely defined sexual harassment
policies being used to stomp on freedom of speech.
>I'd like to know if there is some place FTPable that archives sexual
>harrassment policies. I can't believe saying something that "offends"
>somebody in a room, when you've NEVER spoken to them or even know who they
>are can be termed 'sexual harrassment.'\
Personally, I'd be interested in knowing if there is an archive of
sexual harassment accusation horror stories somewhere. Ie. Stories of
men being accused of "harassing" women they have never seen or
communicated with, never been in the presence of, never been aware of
the existence of, or of men being accused of "harassment" where there
is no "harassee". I have heard of examples of all of these, but didn't
have the foresight to collect them.
--
David Canzi
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men] Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <9204170339.AA03357@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:39:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
From: mikep@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Mike Powell)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:55:19 GMT
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <32660026@hpmwmat.HP.COM>
Newsgroups: soc.men
I'm sorry to hear about this situation.... If I have a clear
picture of the events by your message, then you are yet another
victim of the _fantastic_ expansion of the term 'sexual harassment'.
Ten years ago, it usually meant that a person had to perform some
sexual act (or tolerate one) in order to maintain good standing
at work, or even to retain one's job.
These days, all you need to do is say something or own/display
something having even the _slightest_ connection to sexuality, near
any sexually-hyper-sensitive woman. (as we all know, it is genetically
impossible for a man to be sexually harassed).
You are probably a far greater victim of harassment.... although
hardly anyone will notice becuse the harassment is not sexual, and
secondly, you are a man.
On a related topic:
Many people seem to have a difficult time understanding the
difference betueen something that is sexist, and something of a
sexual nature that is uncomfortable or offensive. They are two
TOTALLY different subjects, and yet many folks get confused.
I'm sorry that I cannot provide you with answers to your specific
questions though.... Good luck.
Apologies for the generalizations.... insert exceptions where
appropriate.
-Mike-
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men] Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <9204170339.AA03366@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:39:59 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <12394@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:00:35 GMT
In article chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald)
writes:
[...]
$ A user
$ overheard some thing I said, most of which she found offensive.
[...]
$I am now in Deep Doo
[...]
$ I have been informed that making comments that "are sexual, or
$ could be construed as sexist" are grounds for a sexual harrassment
charge. I
$ do not know who my accuser is, nor have I ever spoken to her.
[...]
$ I can't believe saying something that "offends"
$ somebody in a room, when you've NEVER spoken to them or even know
who they
$ are can be termed 'sexual harrassment.'
In many places, you can be charged with sexual harrassment if you put
a calender on the wall of your personal office that has a picture of
a female in a bikini leaning against a '57 Chevy.
If you're mad about this kind of politically-correct bullying, start
writing your elected (and wanna-be's) representatives demanding that
they stop knuckling under to the feminazis who patrol the halls of
government looking for people to strong-arm.
Fight misandry effectively. Fight it in the halls of government. Only
when men have their own lobbying groups will this start to turn
around.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men] Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <9204170340.AA03375@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:40:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
From: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <1545@tymix.Tymnet.COM>
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:58:34 GMT
In article <12394@tamsun.tamu.edu>, (Charles Herrick) writes:
|> In many places, you can be charged with sexual harrassment if you put
|> a calender on the wall of your personal office that has a picture of
|> a female in a bikini leaning against a '57 Chevy.
This may be so. While I was in the manufacturing floor of a computer company
I got around the exclusions by displaying a portrait of an orchid in full
bloom. Naked Genitalia.
Let them find a way to make me take it down. Even after I make clear just
what it is and means.
|> Fight misandry effectively. Fight it in the halls of government. Only
|> when men have their own lobbying groups will this start to turn
|> around.
"There is no po li ti cal so lu tion." - Police
I see no great difference between, 'My fast talker can out-proselytize your
fast talker!' and 'My lawyer can beat up your lawyer." The adversarial trip
is not the way toward a better quality of life.
--
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
baba@Tymnet.Com
Warning: Expicit Thoughts
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men] Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <9204170340.AA03384@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:40:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mrharri@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Marissa Harrison)
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.204950.28927@cs.wayne.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:49:50 GMT
In article chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:
>I work in a computer lab at a community college in Michigan. Whiloe working,
>a group of users and another consultant were engaged in conversation with
>me. Topics included masturbation, sex, feminism, and religion. A user
>overheard some thing I said, most of which she found offensive. It should be
>noted that I did not start this conversation, in addition I also tried to
>quite it down when it seemed to be getting too loud. I am now in Deep Doo
>Doo, or at least there is a very real potential for me to be in said Doo
>Doo.
>
[Stuff deleted]
>
>"Oh, and if I offended you I'm sorry, but maybe you needed to be offended.
>Well, here's my apology and one more thing. FUCK YOU!!"
> --Suicidal Tendancies
>
>--
> Shawn FitzGerald | chungkuo@ais.org
> (Rational Romantic | University of Michigan
> Mystic Cynical Idealist) | Computing Club
>"I love you so I keep dreaming . . ." -Bananas, _The House of Blue Leaves_
Wow, I was kind of sympathetic until I got to the last part. With an
attitude like that, I can see why you got in trouble! Whew!!
Marissa
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men] Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <9204170340.AA03393@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:40:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:48:42 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.154842.29800@lmpsbbs.mot.com>
In article chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:
)I'd like to know if there is some place FTPable that archives sexual
)harrassment policies. I can't believe saying something that "offends"
)somebody in a room, when you've NEVER spoken to them or even know who they
)are can be termed 'sexual harrassment.'\
No - but they are all pretty much the same. Typically they come from
the EEOC boilerplate verbatim.
The usual keywords are 'hostile, intimidating, or offensive working
environment'. Which is of course _very_ vague.
The full-boat definition is:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature constitue sexual harassment when (1)
submission to such conduct is mae either explicitly or implicitly a term or
condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of
such conduct by an individual is use as the basis for employment decisions
affecting such an individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect
of unreasonably interferring with an individual's work performance or
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offesnive working environment.
You can find some of the rampant paranoia that is currently going on in the
industry about this topic in a (somewhat) recent article in 'Industry Week'.
This paranoia is most likely fueled by a spate of recent court decisions,
though the details of the decisions are not documented well in the article.
The history of this language is also interesting. The legislation on which
it was allegedly based was the Civil Rights act of 1964. This legislation
says absolutely NOTHING about 'hostile environments'. What it says is more
along the lines of the following:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "an unlawful employment
practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with
respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
42 U.S.C. s 2000e-2(a)(1).
The EEOC argued for the current broad interpretation (based on work by
McKinnon, co-author of the much discussed 'anti-pornography' ordanance)
though Clarance Thomas probably deserves his share of the 'credit', being the
head of the EEOC at the time. The courts bought this interpretation, and it
is now the effective law of the land. I believe the ACLU is challenging it
in its current form as a violation of the first ammendment (freedom of
speech) - arguing (correctly IMO) that federal law (which is what Title VII
is) should not impose content/value judgement restrictions (such as
'offensive') on speech.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men] Stifle, Edith!! (was: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <9204170340.AA03402@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:40:48 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Stifle, Edith!! (was: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <12463@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:25:09 GMT
In article <1992Apr14.204950.28927@cs.wayne.edu>
mrharri@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Marissa Harrison) writes:
$ In article chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald)
writes:
$ >"Oh, and if I offended you I'm sorry, but maybe you needed to be
offended.
$ >Well, here's my apology and one more thing. FUCK YOU!!"
$ Wow, I was kind of sympathetic until I got to the last part. With
an
$ attitude like that, I can see why you got in trouble! Whew!!
What's wrong with his feeling and expressing his anger at being the
target of an effort by some obvious feminist to use the current
"sexual harrasment" hysteria to further their movement by using a
"Politically Correct" club to muzzle others when the others happen to
be discussing a subject with which the particular feminist happens to
be uncomfortable?
From caf-talk Caf Apr 16 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <1992Apr17.035044.18116@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:50:44 GMT
chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:
>I work in a computer lab at a community college in Michigan. Whiloe working,
>a group of users and another consultant were engaged in conversation with
>me. Topics included masturbation, sex, feminism, and religion. A user
>overheard some thing I said, most of which she found offensive.
[...]
Enclosed are some references. An an employee, your on-the-job speech
can pretty heavily restricted even by a government employeer. On
campus speech of students is generally much freer.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/meritor-v-vinson
=================
This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
university speech code decisions.
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law meritor-v-vinson
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/meritor-v-vinson
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: [soc.men] Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <1992Apr17.124416.24983@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 12:44:16 GMT
In article <9204170340.AA03393@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>The full-boat definition is:
>
>Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
>physical conduct of a sexual nature constitue sexual harassment when (1)
>submission to such conduct is mae either explicitly or implicitly a term or
>condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of
>such conduct by an individual is use as the basis for employment decisions
>affecting such an individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect
>of unreasonably interferring with an individual's work performance or
>creating an intimidating, hostile, or offesnive working environment.
>
>The EEOC argued for the current broad interpretation (based on work by
>McKinnon, co-author of the much discussed 'anti-pornography' ordanance)
>though Clarance Thomas probably deserves his share of the 'credit', being the
>head of the EEOC at the time. The courts bought this interpretation, and it
>is now the effective law of the land. I believe the ACLU is challenging it
>in its current form as a violation of the first ammendment (freedom of
>speech) - arguing (correctly IMO) that federal law (which is what Title VII
>is) should not impose content/value judgement restrictions (such as
>'offensive') on speech.
Want to bet on which side Thomas will be on if this comes before him
again? I don't think Thomas is going to be a supporter of such a
broad definition anymore.
The first two are OK, but that last... "purpose or effect" means you
can get nailed if you 'harass' unintentionally. And 'offensive' puts
the definition in the hands of the complaintant-- there is no defense.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Apr 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.11
Message-ID: <1992Apr17.144708.20702@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 14:47:08 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News followings the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n11
--- begin abstract ---
[Best of February 1992
[Help! The backlog for CAF-News is now a month and 1/2. If you might
be willing to help clear the backlog by guest editing one issue,
please send me email (kadie@eff.org) and I'll send you additional
information.
For information on accessing the CAF-archive, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom README
- Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by Paul,
Elizabeth, and Adam.
===============================================================
Notes 1-4 discuss newsgroup removals rationalized by creative
interpretations of law. Sites around the world have found this an
effective way to ban almost any topic, for example, war, drugs, gay
rights, crime, rape, abortion, and sex (including recovery from sexual
abuse and United Press International stories mentioning sex).
1. SWITCH, the federal institution which provides the network
connections between Swiss universities, has decided to refuse to carry
certain Usenet newsgroups on the grounds that they *might* be illegal
under Swiss law. Newsgroups banned include alt.drugs,
alt.politics.homosexuality, clari.news.terrorism.
<1992Feb20.180752@sic.epfl.ch>
2. (A person in Ireland:) "The computer/censorship issue related to
the fact that only crosspostings to the group _talk.abortion_ appear
here." If a posting to such a group had information on how to procure
an abortion, are we any more liable than a library with an English
telephone directory which has the phone number of an abortion clinic?
<1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
3. This is a parody of the Iowa State University policy that bans
discussions of sex (and previously drugs). It shows what the policy
might say if it were honest. It starts "We, a handful of individuals
in the Iowa State University Computation Center, have imposed a policy
on the distribution of Usenet newsgroups. ... The purpose of this
statement is to provide an after-the-fact justification of a decision
that we made without looking at the academic freedom issues."
<1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
4. Carnegie Mellon University promotes self-censorship by its threats
to investigate of Eric Jefferson on charges of sexual harassment
unless he stops writing public articles that some find offensive.
<46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org>
Notes 5-7 are about privacy.
5. A user on this system was apparently running a password cracking
program. An administer searched my files and found I had a copy of
the newest version of Crack. I have legitimate reasons for having
this program. I have received mail from the Chairman of the
Department "inviting" me to discuss my account privileges. "It really
bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably anyway)
just for the mere possession of a program."
<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
6. [From Brewster Kahle, the operator of the directory of servers in
the WAIS system:] The new breed of "digital librarians" must consider
the ethical obligations which follow from their privileged position
with regard to the users whom they serve.
7. Under what circumstances can the university disclose personal
information about a student computer user, say, through 'finger'?
Enclosed excerpts from the Family Education and Privacy Rights of Act
provide a partial answer.
<1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 8 concerns a system administrator's policy of acting quickly in
case of rules violations. Often a student's account is restricted for
days.
8. (A student:) On a Friday afternoon I discovered all my accounts at
the University Of Aston in Birmingham, England had been disabled. I
was told that something I was running was congesting the network. To
sort things out I needed to meet with the head of the department, by
appointment, on the following Tuesday.
<1992Feb26.192151.6435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Note 9 discusses the issue of TERMINUS, a terminal server at MIT
which allows users to connect to any port of any Internet connected
machine and which has been seen as a security threat by the NSFnet.
9. The NSF cannot be expected to cut off MIT or TERMINUS any more than
the phone company could be expected to disconnect MIT's phones just
because someone used their phone lines to break into a system. If
anything will shut down TERMINUS it will be the privatization of the
network which will no longer allow them to put the onus of security
onto other sites.
<1992Feb18.215827.4@sdg.dra.com>
Note 10 discusses the history of altnet, the set of "alt" groups.
10. Contrary to the 'history' given in the Iowa State University
policy, the alt groups were not created by a 'collective group of
Usenet "news administrators"' as a place for dangerous topics. In
fact, the alt groups were created to fight the suppression of the
collective group.
<3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, or Carl
M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses
and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From caf-talk Caf Apr 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Relevant 1st Amendment precedents (was: censored at UB...)
Message-ID: <9204171456.AA04764@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:56:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 17 00:00:00 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Relevant 1st Amendment precedents (was: censored at UB...)
Message-ID: <1992Apr15.094245.6843@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:42:45 GMT
mpd@anomaly,sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>>It was stated that the cause of problem was a subject-line that stated
>>something along the lines of "Fuck Censorship."
>
>Why wasn't the Message-ID of the "offending" message posted? Why wasn't the
>offending message copied into the post crying "censorship!" ? Why? I for one
>think that there is more behind this than what is being described as a simple
>message with the title "Fuck Censorship".
I had the impression from the original post (which I do not have to check)
that the post was placed onto a local (UB) bulletin board, not UseNet.
Furthermore, in a response post, the original poster clearly stated that
the post consisted of a subject-line ("Fuck Censorship") and nothing else.
We have no reason to disbelieve the poster, that I can see. And how would it
benefit him to lie? It's not as though he's getting anything from
alt.censorship except advice. Obviously, if he has misrepresented the
incident, he should expect that the advice might not be relevant.
>>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.
>
>Absolutely not, from the relevant case law I studied five years ago, unless
>things have been dramatically changed since then. It is still "illegal" to
>incite physical harm against a group of people or one person. For one thing,
>consult the legal definition of "assault".
Maybe you didn't study enough. You're example regarding a post advocating
violence against homosexuals was incorrect in suggesting that such speech
is unprotected, by my understanding of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which
still stands as the precedent regarding speech that advocates violence.
In that decision (which was a very short, and unanimous, per curiam decision),
the court clearly stated that advocacy of violence is *not* sufficient to
find speech to be unprotected. Rather, such speech is only unprotected if
it represents "incitement to *imminent* lawless action" (emphasis added).
As posts to UseNet advocating violence against homosexuals (and others)
have appeared on a number of occassions in the past, without incident, I
think it is fairly indisputable at this point that, generally speaking, such
posts do not represent an "incitement to imminent lawless action."
>>Furthermore, neither of the "examples" that you give are relevant to the case
>>at hand, as it was described by the original poster.
>
>The point was, in case you missed it, is that "free speech" does not give you
>a blanket right to say whatever you feel like whenever you feel like it.
>Society places limitations on what you can say for the good of the public or
>protection of other people (in the two examples I cited.)
But you don't seem to understand that the examples that you provided, in
addition to being ill-conceived, were not relevant to the question at hand.
It is of little interest to an individual who posts "Fuck Censorship"
whether some completely unrelated forms of speech are unprotected.
What is of interest is that speech such as "Fuck Censorship" is *clearly*
protected (within the context of his post, at least--but not necessarily
in high school, see Bethel School District, No. 403 v. Fraser.) The
relevant precedent comes from Cohen v. California (1971) in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse.
>>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.
>
>Carl constantly refers to the same, questionablely-related examples.
Well for goodness sake, he shouldn't be so droll. Why doesn't he make up
some new precedents every now and then???
--
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 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Academic programs in "computers, freedom and privacy"?
Message-ID: <9204171500.AA04805@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:00:34 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 17 00:00:00 1992
From: jandrews@public.BTR.COM (Jerry Andrews jandrews@btr.com)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Academic programs in "computers, freedom and privacy"?
Message-ID: <6318@public.BTR.COM>
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:26:02 GMT
>It made me wonder: are there any academic degree programs concentrating
>on the political, social, ethical and economic issues surrounding the
>emerging technologies we're concerned with here? I don't know what
That makes *me* wonder -- what would a person with such a degree do for a
living? I think a more useful approach would be to get a degree in
one of the emerging technologies,
do your electives in philosphy, and then develop your philosophical arguements
while you're working to affect the course of the technology's development.
-Jerry
From caf-talk Caf Apr 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Taping without consent
Message-ID: <199204171619.AA22847@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:19:12 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 17 00:00:00 1992
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 16:59 EDT
From: Rasch@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Subject: Taping without consent
There has been a lot of debate about whether a person can be videotaped (or
audiotaped) without consent. The quick answer is it depends. Of course you
can videotape people or objects if they are in the public view -- they have no
legitimate expectations of privacy. Just look at The Star or other tabloids
that routinely photograph people on the streets. There are limitations,
however. There is a common law tort of interference with or invasion of
privacy, as well as exploitation of a person's likeness for financial gain.
(Suppose the "Coppertone" girl decided to sue). From a Fourth Amendment
standpoint, a videotape in a public place is not an "unreasonable search or
seizure."
Videotapes in PRIVATE places are another matter. Because they enable the
government to see what otherwise cannot be seen, and therefore impart
information to the government, they MAY constitute searches in Fourth Amendment
terms. NOTE that the search (e.g., the videotaping) MUST entail some state
action -- be performed at the behest of law enforcement. No state action -- no
fourth amendment violation. (This does not prevent a private suit for
interference with privacy, however). There is an exception recognized in Katz
v. United States. That is, what Katz called the "invited ear" exception. You
ALWAYS run the risk that the person you visit is videotaping you. (OR, in
Katz, audiotaping you). This has led to the development of the law of
one-party consent. IN GENERAL, one party to a conversation may consent to its
being recorded. Exceptions exist in many jurisdictions for TELEPHONE
conversations where the state law may require two party consent.
If the law always required two-party consent to video/audio recording, imagine
the effect on -- for example -- television news. No more undercover recodings
-- no more 60 Minutes. No more panoramic sweeps (consent from all the
pedestrians??).
Finally, in the electronic environment things are even more screwy. Telephone
calls are covered by privacy laws, FCC regulations, wiretap and surveillance
laws, warrant requirements and the like. Electronic communications may also be
covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection
Act, and (a la Steve Jackson) the First Amendment.
The turgidity continues.
--
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 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal.computing] E-mail privacy.
Message-ID: <9204171638.AA05271@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:38:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 17 00:00:00 1992
From: doctor@cs.mcgill.ca (Howard PICAIZEN)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: E-mail privacy.
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.173540.9767@cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:35:40 GMT
Hi.
I haven't been following this group, so I'm not aware of what has been
said on this topic. However, I am in need of some information
pertaining to this topic.
Has there been any legislation or any legal precedents set concerning
a third party interception of email messages, say, by a system
administrator? If anyone is aware of such an occurence, please email
me with the details. I am interested in whether or not such an act has
ever been ruled illegal, or whether or not evidence obtained through such
interception was permitted to be presented in court.
I am mostly interested in the Canadian legal system, but any
information will do...
Thanks,
HP.
--
Captain Howard Picaizen (doctor@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca), IKN SANG.
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." -Kirk
"A warrior does not let a friend face danger alone." -Worf
"Let's be sure that history never forgets the name... Enterprise." -Picard
From caf-talk Caf Apr 17 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [oh.general, et al.] Re: Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <1992Apr17.125040.17033@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:50:40 GMT
In article <9204101522.AA02466@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> 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.
>
If they disrupt through such means a non-violent demonstration by
the KKK, I hope they get arrested.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Apr 17 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr17.124403.17032@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:44:03 GMT
In article <1992Apr9.160725.7355@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> 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.
Good; computing center staff shouldn't be in charge of
disciplinary action (that's for the college judicial system).
>
>
> 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]
Acceptable, given the purpose of the center.
>
> 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]
Um.. someone can't use another's account? Doesn't this prohibit
looking at an account to check out problems someone's having?
>
> 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]
Acceptable.
>
> 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]
>
Hmm... might want to make sure that such directions only apply to
things that the ECC has the authority to tell someone to do.
>
>
> 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]
What about running someone else's programs without their permission?
>
> 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]
Might want to stick in "change without ECC permission" to this;
otherwise, you're prohibiting someone asking for a larger quota.
>
> 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]
Good. If someone has an automated program, though, it may continue
such interference (i.e., a mistaken placement on a mailing list) even
after the account has received a request to stop. Same is true of the rule
below, so be sure to look at when the PERSON received the request as
opposed to the account.
>
> 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]
What about using a commercial service through ECC for the purpose
of Engineering?
>
> 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]
Understandable.
>
> 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.)
You say above that the ECC isn't responsible for the contents of
private mail. But here you say that you will judge subjects on other
criteria than application to the ECC's purpose (Engineering
teaching/learning). Why not simply say that you will not allow large-scale
mailing lists which aren't on Engineering subjects?
Furthermore, University policy, State law, and Federal law are not
supposed to violate the Constitution- specifically the First Amendment.
Therefore, simple discussion (other than the types forbidden above as
non-wished by the recipient) should not be forbidden on the basis of
subject matter, other than such subject matter's being non-Engineering related.
>
> 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]
In evasion of the physical limitations of the remote
system/network? What in the world are you meaning? And why are you
(apparantly) attempting to forbid access to outside email and Usenet,
given that some groups, etc. are useful for Engineering?
>
> 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]
Understandable.
>
> 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]
>
>
Understandable.
>
>
> 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.
Understandable, given legal liabilities.
>
> 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]
Good. Seems to go under using someone's account w/out their
permission, but still a good thing to have.
>
> 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]
Good.
>
> 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]
>
Might want to make an exception so that people aren't forbidden
from ASKING for a higher level of privilege?
>
>
> 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.
Keep in mind what I said above about neccessary time for the
PERSON's reception of the message as opposed to the account's.
>
> 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.
Why isn't it the ECC's responsibility?
>
> 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.
In some cases, this could simply be done through shutting down the
process/program rather than the entire account, and leaving a message to
the person on the subject. Keep this option in mind.
>
> 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.
Would the time between the Dean's decision and the time of ECC
remandation be a period in which the acces was revoked? If so, then an
innocent (due to an honest mistake by ECC) person may have their access
revoked for a period longer than a day due to the Dean's offices' having
more stuff to work on than just this.
>
> 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 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Recent Changes to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
Message-ID: <1992Apr17.212155.29413@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 21:21:55 GMT
The CAF Archive is an electronic library of information about
computers and academic freedom.
It is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in
directory "pub/academic". It is also available via email. For
information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In
the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index".
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/abstracts
=================
These are abstracts to the Computers and Academic Freedom News
(CAF-news). Referenced issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous
ftp to eff.org in directory "academic/news".
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/academic-porn-conference
=================
Short excerpts from a newspaper story about an academic conference
on pornography.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/apr_05_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/apr_12_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/apr_19_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/mar_01_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/mar_22_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/mar_29_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/emord,_johnathan_w.1
=================
I've almost finished reading the book _Freedom, Technology, and the
First Amendment_ by Jonathan W. Emord (1991). I recommend the book to
anyone interested in freedom and technology issues.
Score: 10 of 10
Excerpt: actually a long review.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/emord,_johnathan_w.2
=================
From _Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment_ by Jonathan W.
Emord, p.88:
Summary of the since overturned Supreme Court decision that said that
as owner the government could forbid speech on any public property.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/emord,_johnathan_w.3
=================
[From _On Liberty_, 1859. This excerpt is quoted on page 121 of
_Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment_ by Johnathan W. Emord.]
So what's wrong with suppressing offensive speech? Here is John Stuart
Mill's answer.
=================
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?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/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?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/childrens-legal-foundation-v-fcc
=================
A newspaper story saying that the Supreme Court refuses to allow a
total ban on indecent TV and radio material.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/davis-v-massachusetts
=================
From _Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment_ by Jonathan W.
Emord, p.88:
Summary of the since overturned Supreme Court decision that said that
as owner the government could forbid speech on any public property.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/dial-information-vs-barr
=================
Newspaper story saying: "The Supreme Court Monday allowed the
government to require adults wanting to take part in ``dial-a-porn''
telephone dialogue to first take a series of steps meant to keep
children from joining in the sexually explicit conversations."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/gates-v-brewer
=================
An excerpt from a newspaper article about email harassment. A judge
agreed that Bill Gates of Mircosoft had been the victim of harassment.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/jocobson-v-usa
=================
Newspaper story saying: "The Supreme Court Monday made it more
difficult for police to pursue undercover sting operations, ruling
that a man who bought child pornography after a 2 1/2 year government
probe was entrapped."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/penthouse-vs-meese
=================
Newspaper story about Edwin Meese's improper harassment of _Playboy_
and _Penthouse_ and his immunity from punishment. The story says
"[w]hile Penthouse and Playboy feature naked women, neither has ever
been found to be legally pornographic or obscene. Such material has
been granted full First Amendment protection by the Supreme Court."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/wisconsin-high-school-press
=================
A newspaper story that says that Wisconsin high school students
"working on official school newspapers would be guaranteed limited
freedom of expression under a bill given preliminary approval by the
Assembly Tuesday."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n10
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n11
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/january_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/nusef.statement
=================
The Statement of Purpose from the Nebraska Students for Electronic
Freedom, adopted at the organizational meeting of NUSEF held March 31,
1992 at UNL.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/cmich.edu.critique
=================
Critique of "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Computing
Services At Central Michigan University (And Were Afraid To Ask)"
Summary: "The policy as written gives Central Michigan authority to
steal user files. [And likely puts the University in violation of
the federal FERPA.] It also denies users their due process rights. The
policy should be replaced by a policy created with participation of
users."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/ethics.iastate.edu
=================
The computer ethics statement for Iowa State University.
critiqued
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/ethics.iastate.edu.critique
=================
"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.)"
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/ms.uky.edu
=================
An unofficial, draft of a "Student Access and Use Policy"
critiqued
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/ms.uky.edu.critique
=================
A critique of an unofficial, draft of a "Student Access and Use
Policy" including a discussion of requiring users to register their
mailing lists and restricting students from the computer.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/ndsu.edu
=================
North Dokota State University policy on misues of computer facilities
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/udel.edu
=================
Drafts of the Policy for Responsible Computing Use at the University
of Delaware and Recommended Guidelines for Responsible Computing at
the University of Delaware. This draft is the result of 58 months
of review!
Critiqued
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/udel.edu.critique
=================
Critique of the draft computer policy of the University of Delaware.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/uicvm.uic.edu
=================
"Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources", a policy of the
University of Illinois at Chicago's Computer Center (Critiqued).
=================
=================
--
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 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Message-ID: <1992Apr17.225336.2807@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 22:53:36 GMT
There are a number of packages that allow this sort of thing.
But *only* administrators and support personnel should have access.
It's useful to be able to see what a user is doing while you go
over a problem with them. But there's *no* justification for
having such monitoring continually enabled.
It sounds like the problem is that the *same* software is
being used to allow remote access as is used to monitor. That's
a bad decision.
BTW, there would have to be *something* loaded on the user's
computer to allow them to be monitored that way. This should
*not* be loaded by default in most cases.
--
Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO: 1:105/56 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)
From caf-talk Caf Apr 18 00:00:00 1992
From: buck@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Jesse Buckley)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.120652.12120@pool.info.sunyit.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:06:52 GMT
In article bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>>This hypothetical case didn't happen in the US. It is also very unlikely
>>to fall under any academic-freedom or contractual rights, because the
>>object of dispute was a *game*. Now if the student can prove that he has
>>some right, constitutional, contractual, or academic, to use University
>>resources to play *games*, then good luck to him. In many places this is
>>explicitly *forbidden*.
>
>The question isn't about the student's right to play games, but rather
>about the administrator's right to break into the student's account on
>another computer. The non-computer analogy would be rules that limit
>the right of the police to search your belongings. You are protected
>by these rules even if you have committed a crime! Certainly you are
>protected when the police think you have committed a crime -- if not,
>it would be silly to have such rules at all.
The police call it jurisdiction. System Admins. (myself included) tend
to call it territory but, it's close enough.
--
-Buck (buck@sunyit.edu)
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power"
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Message-ID: <1443@rwing.UUCP>
Date: 19 Apr 92 04:11:18 GMT
In article <1992Apr17.225336.2807@qiclab.scn.rain.com> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
>There are a number of packages that allow this sort of thing.
>But *only* administrators and support personnel should have access.
>
>It's useful to be able to see what a user is doing while you go
>over a problem with them. But there's *no* justification for
>having such monitoring continually enabled.
Our solution to the problem is simple: Configure Lan Assist to
show who is attaching to the workstation - it shows the username flashing
in the uppler right corner. Not only lets the user see they are being
observed, but WHO is observing. In our site Lan Assist is almost
always used to enable use of more than one machine from one workstation
or to assist a user in accomplishing some task. Only a few people in
the MIS dept have the ability to assist a workstation (both by the
config of Lan Assist, and becausee the programs and associated files
are in a subdir only accessable by users in the LANASSIST group,
by proper setting of dir access rights, limiting access to the
LANASSIST group.
As a result, monitoring for the sake of monitoring (snooping) is not
a problem - none of the dept heads (supervisor types) have access to
Lan Assist for monitoring - only MIS personell have access for the
above described reasons - multiple machine use, and user help.
Seems to work fine for us - none of the users are upset by its presence
because it hasn't been abused, probably because of one or more of the
reasons given: restricted use access, showing who is monitoring, etc.
> [ deleted ]
>BTW, there would have to be *something* loaded on the user's
>computer to allow them to be monitored that way. This should
>*not* be loaded by default in most cases.
See above - a config option. The way we use it, it has to be loaded by
default (during workstation boot), since its also used to reboot a hung
worstation remotely.
--
pat@rwing.uucp (Pat Myrto), Seattle, WA
Decent return path under construction
WISDOM: "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192319.AA18428@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:19:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.201046.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:10:46 PDT
In article <1992Apr15.002623.4245@iitmax.iit.edu>, ee448rsw@iitmax.iit.edu (Robert S Wojtowicz) writes:
>
> P.S. At the moment all my mail is forwarded to her - please wait a day
> or so if you need to contact me.
Sounds like a good reason to ask his postmaster to remove his net
access. If one of the students here did that, I'd nuke the little
shit so fast he wouldn't know what hit him.
| Greg Orman greg@pomona.claremont.edu |
| Live to Ride, Ride to Live |
| A man's best friends: a Harley, a Baretta, and a Gund |
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192320.AA18504@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:20:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: curtisj@cae.wisc.edu (Curtis Jacobsen)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr15.130120.23852@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:01:20 GMT
In article <1992Apr14.201046.1@pomona.claremont.edu> greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.002623.4245@iitmax.iit.edu>, ee448rsw@iitmax.iit.edu (Robert S Wojtowicz) writes:
>>
>> P.S. At the moment all my mail is forwarded to her - please wait a day
>> or so if you need to contact me.
>
>Sounds like a good reason to ask his postmaster to remove his net
>access. If one of the students here did that, I'd nuke the little
>shit so fast he wouldn't know what hit him.
>
>| Greg Orman greg@pomona.claremont.edu |
>| Live to Ride, Ride to Live |
>| A man's best friends: a Harley, a Baretta, and a Gund |
Whoa! Are you a sysadmin?
We have sysadmin's talking like this?
And here I always thought that sysadmin's were omnipotent, god-like
creatures constantly foregoing the pursuit for truth, justice and
the American way.
Anyway, Even though I don't agree with Robert or some of the things he
did. It scares the SHIT out of me when people start throwing around the
words "net access taken away" or "account pulling".
-Curt
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192321.AA18563@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:21:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: ajr@pug.hri.com (MFHorn)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID:
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:16:49 GMT
In article <1992Apr15.130120.23852@doug.cae.wisc.edu> curtisj@cae.wisc.edu (Curtis Jacobsen) writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.201046.1@pomona.claremont.edu> greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
> >In article <1992Apr15.002623.4245@iitmax.iit.edu>, ee448rsw@iitmax.iit.edu (Robert S Wojtowicz) writes:
> >> P.S. At the moment all my mail is forwarded to her - please wait a day
> >> or so if you need to contact me.
>
> >If one of the students here did that, I'd nuke the little
> >shit so fast he wouldn't know what hit him.
> >
> >| Greg Orman greg@pomona.claremont.edu |
>
> Anyway, Even though I don't agree with Robert or some of the things he
> did. It scares the SHIT out of me when people start throwing around the
> words "net access taken away" or "account pulling".
Accounts are a privilege, not a right.
In the real world, you don't get your account or net access taken
away, you get fired. At a lot of universities, sys admins have quite
a bit of power in deciding if a student should lose hir account
(rightfully so).
At the least, Mr. Wojtowicz should have his account suspended.
--
Andy Rosen (ajr@hri.com) | "The most valuable commodity I know of,
Horizon Research, Inc. | is information." -Gordon Gekko, "Wall Street"
1432 Main St. | "I got this guitar and I learned how to
Waltham, MA 02154 | make it talk." -"Thunder Road"
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192321.AA18620@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:21:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: Larry Margolis
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr15.220955.29408@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:09:55 GMT
In <1992Apr15.130120.23852@doug.cae.wisc.edu> curtisj@cae.wisc.edu (Curtis Jacobsen) writes:
>
> Anyway, Even though I don't agree with Robert or some of the things he
> did. It scares the SHIT out of me when people start throwing around the
> words "net access taken away" or "account pulling".
But note that that asshole was talking about getting little 'e's
net access removed, so I think it would be poetic justice.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192322.AA18677@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:22:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Date: 15 Apr 1992 18:58:31 -0500
Message-ID:
In article ajr@hri.com writes:
>Accounts are a privilege, not a right.
>
>In the real world, you don't get your account or net access taken
>away, you get fired. At a lot of universities, sys admins have quite
>a bit of power in deciding if a student should lose hir account
>(rightfully so).
>
>At the least, Mr. Wojtowicz should have his account suspended.
I disagree. No one should have an account taken away for expression
of an opinion, no matter how offensive. When the world evolves
toward a universal communications network, conventions established
on UseNet will probably carry a lot of weight when determining what
rights users have. I for one want the same rights of freedom of
expression which I am afforded in any public forum.
Now if he had been harassing her with email, and she had asked him
to quit mailing her and he had refused, I would treat the situation
like an obscene phone call. But as I understand it, events did not
get to that point.
Ken McKinney
mckinney@cs.utexas.edu
(not that I agree with the idiot. Besides, he got what he deserved.
Total contempt from the net.populace).
.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192328.AA18794@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:28:13 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: amy young
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr15.215628.14317@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:56:23 -0500
In article mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney) writes:
>I disagree. No one should have an account taken away for expression
>of an opinion, no matter how offensive. When the world evolves
>toward a universal communications network, conventions established
>on UseNet will probably carry a lot of weight when determining what
>rights users have. I for one want the same rights of freedom of
>expression which I am afforded in any public forum.
Huh? I don't think anyone is saying he should have it suspended
because he voiced an unpopular opinion...
>Now if he had been harassing her with email, and she had asked him
>to quit mailing her and he had refused, I would treat the situation
>like an obscene phone call. But as I understand it, events did not
>get to that point.
He set his mail to forward to her! And depending on how many mailing
list the dude decided to pick up before pulling this little stunt,
that could actually crash her mail! If this isn't blatant misuse of
an account, what is???
amy
--
******************************************************************************
"Quick to judge, quick to anger.... slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand."
--Neil Peart
-------------Me speak for my employer....? bwaahahahahahahaha!!!--------------
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192330.AA18866@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:30:59 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: Larry Margolis
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.023952.13543@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:39:52 GMT
In mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney) writes:
> In article ajr@hri.com writes:
> >Accounts are a privilege, not a right.
> >
> >In the real world, you don't get your account or net access taken
> >away, you get fired. At a lot of universities, sys admins have quite
> >a bit of power in deciding if a student should lose hir account
> >(rightfully so).
> >
> >At the least, Mr. Wojtowicz should have his account suspended.
>
> I disagree.
I disagree with your disagreement.
> Now if he had been harassing her with email, and she had asked him
> to quit mailing her and he had refused, I would treat the situation
> like an obscene phone call. But as I understand it, events did not
> get to that point.
According to little 'e', he *was* harassing her via email. He was
also telling her to stop posting. I suggested that she tell him to
leave her alone or she'd post his mail. Unfortunately sweet, naive
little 'e' decided that instead of being nasty and posting his address,
she'd ask for support from the net and forward the letters to him.
This gave him an excuse to complain about *her*, which he did, and
now *she's* in trouble. (See the previous posts from Robert S.
Wojtowicz, , saying he wanted to file charges.)
I just got off the phone with little 'e'. She's not going to be able
to post for a while.
> (not that I agree with the idiot. Besides, he got what he deserved.
> Total contempt from the net.populace).
I think the scum-sucking pig deserves a *lot* worse.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr19.234129.19076@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 23:41:29 GMT
In article ajr@hri.com writes:
[...]
>Accounts are a privilege, not a right.
[...]
At universities students have a right to due process even with respect
to "privileges". This right is part tradition (called "academic
freedom"), part Constitutional law (at state schools), and part
contractual law (students are consumers, not beggars.)
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says: "In
developing responsible student conduct, disciplinary proceedings play
a role substantially secondary to example, counseling, guidance, and
admonition."
It also says: "When the misconduct may result in serious penalties and
if the student questions the fairness of disciplinary action taken
against him, he should be granted, on request, the privilege of a
hearing before a regularly constituted hearing committee. The
following suggested hearing committee procedures satisfy the
requirements of procedural due process in situations requiring a high
degree of formality."
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/constraints.contractual
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).
=================
law/README
=================
CAF Law Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send caf-law
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).
=================
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 acad-freedom student.freedoms
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send caf-law constraints.contractual
send caf-law README
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/student.freedoms
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/constraints.contractual
pub/academic/law/README
pub/academic/caf
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192341.AA19113@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:41:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Date: 15 Apr 1992 22:58:45 -0500
Message-ID:
In article <1992Apr15.215628.14317@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> amy young writes:
>He set his mail to forward to her! And depending on how many mailing
>list the dude decided to pick up before pulling this little stunt,
>that could actually crash her mail! If this isn't blatant misuse of
>an account, what is???
>
>amy
OK , I misunderstood. Objection withdrawn. Draw and Quarter the
bastard.
Ken
.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192341.AA19169@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:41:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Date: 15 Apr 1992 23:05:44 -0500
Message-ID:
In article <1992Apr16.023952.13543@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>I just got off the phone with little 'e'. She's not going to be able
>to post for a while.
Well, I think that's ridiculous. Why don't we all mail her system
administrator and complain?
Ken
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192342.AA19227@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:42:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: Larry Margolis
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.062028.11654@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:20:28 GMT
In mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney) writes:
> In article <1992Apr16.023952.13543@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >
> >I just got off the phone with little 'e'. She's not going to be able
> >to post for a while.
>
> Well, I think that's ridiculous.
I do too.
> Why don't we all mail her system
> administrator and complain?
Why don't we find out if that would just cause her more trouble, before
going off half-cocked?
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192342.AA19286@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:42:13 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.125747.19739@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:57:47 GMT
In article mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.023952.13543@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>>I just got off the phone with little 'e'. She's not going to be able
>>to post for a while.
>
>Well, I think that's ridiculous. Why don't we all mail her system
>administrator and complain?
>
>Ken
I agree, I think its ridiculous that little 'e' has had privleges
removed because of an immature dweeb that was harassing here...I
wonder if any of the recent "stalking" laws could be extended to cover
this sort of "electronic" harassment?
John
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192342.AA19343@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:42:28 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: doug@eng.umd.edu (Douglas N. Cohen)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.151437.10354@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 15:14:37 GMT
In article <1992Apr15.130120.23852@doug.cae.wisc.edu> curtisj@cae.wisc.edu (Curtis Jacobsen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.201046.1@pomona.claremont.edu> greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr15.002623.4245@iitmax.iit.edu>, ee448rsw@iitmax.iit.edu (Robert S Wojtowicz) writes:
>>>
>>> P.S. At the moment all my mail is forwarded to her - please wait a day
>>> or so if you need to contact me.
>>
>>Sounds like a good reason to ask his postmaster to remove his net
>>access. If one of the students here did that, I'd nuke the little
>>shit so fast he wouldn't know what hit him.
>>
>>| Greg Orman greg@pomona.claremont.edu |
>>| Live to Ride, Ride to Live |
>>| A man's best friends: a Harley, a Baretta, and a Gund |
>
>Whoa! Are you a sysadmin?
>
>We have sysadmin's talking like this?
>
>And here I always thought that sysadmin's were omnipotent, god-like
>creatures constantly foregoing the pursuit for truth, justice and
>the American way.
>
>Anyway, Even though I don't agree with Robert or some of the things he
>did. It scares the SHIT out of me when people start throwing around the
>words "net access taken away" or "account pulling".
>
>-Curt
anyone who knows *anything* about net operations would instantly
recognize that this person is not a systems operator.... do not fear....
little 'e' is in no jeapordy of losing her account from her posts, and
neither is this guy, yet, unless harrassment is proven and he continues.
as always, i am/at:
doug: :
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-< a ghost in the machine >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192342.AA19402@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:42:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: doug@eng.umd.edu (Douglas N. Cohen)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.152720.10556@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 15:27:20 GMT
In article ajr@hri.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.130120.23852@doug.cae.wisc.edu> curtisj@cae.wisc.edu (Curtis Jacobsen) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr14.201046.1@pomona.claremont.edu> greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>> >In article <1992Apr15.002623.4245@iitmax.iit.edu>, ee448rsw@iitmax.iit.edu (Robert S Wojtowicz) writes:
>> >> P.S. At the moment all my mail is forwarded to her - please wait a day
>> >> or so if you need to contact me.
>>
>> >If one of the students here did that, I'd nuke the little
>> >shit so fast he wouldn't know what hit him.
>> >
>> >| Greg Orman greg@pomona.claremont.edu |
>>
>> Anyway, Even though I don't agree with Robert or some of the things he
>> did. It scares the SHIT out of me when people start throwing around the
>> words "net access taken away" or "account pulling".
>
>Accounts are a privilege, not a right.
>
>In the real world, you don't get your account or net access taken
>away, you get fired. At a lot of universities, sys admins have quite
>a bit of power in deciding if a student should lose hir account
>(rightfully so).
>
>At the least, Mr. Wojtowicz should have his account suspended.
>
>--
>Andy Rosen (ajr@hri.com) | "The most valuable commodity I know of,
>Horizon Research, Inc. | is information." -Gordon Gekko, "Wall Street"
>1432 Main St. | "I got this guitar and I learned how to
>Waltham, MA 02154 | make it talk." -"Thunder Road"
now note the phraseing of this guy's reply. he speaks about the
net the way a systems operator *should*! note the words priveledge,
suspended, the use of mr., etc. this guy is probaby a systems administrator,
and knows a little about operation and ettiquett, as well as 'rules'.
({touch bin/smiles/#9} just in case you don't know who he is...)
another opinion, worth what you paid for it!
as always, i am/at:
doug: :
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-< a ghost in the machine >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192343.AA19459@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:43:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: amy young
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.114020.25320@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 11:40:14 -0500
In article <1992Apr16.023952.13543@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>I disagree with your disagreement.
And I agree with your disagreement. =)
>According to little 'e', he *was* harassing her via email. He was
>also telling her to stop posting. I suggested that she tell him to
>leave her alone or she'd post his mail. Unfortunately sweet, naive
>little 'e' decided that instead of being nasty and posting his address,
>she'd ask for support from the net and forward the letters to him.
>This gave him an excuse to complain about *her*, which he did, and
>now *she's* in trouble. (See the previous posts from Robert S.
>Wojtowicz, , saying he wanted to file charges.)
>
>I just got off the phone with little 'e'. She's not going to be able
>to post for a while.
What is the address of her admin? (I would figure root@her.host would
do, but just to make sure...) I intend to give my opinion in this
matter, if her priviledges has been restricted for this matter.
Of course I don't have ALL the facts, but have no reason to dispute
her, for she's not proven herself untrustworthy at any time in the
past.
>I think the scum-sucking pig deserves a *lot* worse.
People get off that thinking that having a computer account is somehow
a right under free speech or something. This is all good and well
except for the fact that you are using SOMEONE ELSES RESOURCES to
express your rights... which means usage has been granted to you under
certain conditions, and the owners of those resources have every right
to rip your account out from under you. For any reason, really, but
it's considered unethical to not have a good reason, such as abuse of
given priviledges.
amy
--
******************************************************************************
"Quick to judge, quick to anger.... slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand."
--Neil Peart
-------------Me speak for my employer....? bwaahahahahahahaha!!!--------------
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192343.AA19518@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:43:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: abby@ravel.udel.edu (Louis Abbruzzesi)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <18789@ravel.udel.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:12:35 GMT
In article ajr@hri.com writes:
=>
=>Accounts are a privilege, not a right.
What? I wonder what my tuition goes toward. I feel really priveleged that
my university uses my money, and grants me Net access. Without students
and Universities this net would be a little less than it is right now.
=>
=>In the real world, you don't get your account or net access taken
=>away, you get fired. At a lot of universities, sys admins have quite
=>a bit of power in deciding if a student should lose hir account
=>(rightfully so).
In the real world, companies can make you pee in a jar before they hire you,
that doesn't mean its right. In the real world, your employer foots the
bill for all aspects of Net access but here at my University I do-- not a
very good analogy for someone with real-world experience.
=>
=>At the least, Mr. Wojtowicz should have his account suspended.
Is that so-- thanks for your opinion.
Maybe you have an opinion on the 'little e' case-- who needs a jury with
you around- you obviously have a grip on net justice don't you.
=>
=>--
=>Andy Rosen (ajr@hri.com) | "The most valuable commodity I know of,
=>Horizon Research, Inc. | is information." -Gordon Gekko, "Wall Street"
=>1432 Main St. | "I got this guitar and I learned how to
=>Waltham, MA 02154 | make it talk." -"Thunder Road"
Lou
abby@brahms.udel.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192344.AA19576@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:44:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: curtisj@cae.wisc.edu (Curtis Jacobsen)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.115300.21007@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:53:00 GMT
In article <1992Apr16.023952.13543@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>This gave him an excuse to complain about *her*, which he did, and
>now *she's* in trouble. (See the previous posts from Robert S.
>Wojtowicz, , saying he wanted to file charges.)
>
>I just got off the phone with little 'e'. She's not going to be able
>to post for a while.
>
>I think the scum-sucking pig deserves a *lot* worse.
>
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
What?!?!?! Action was taken against Little 'e'?
How?
There is no moderator to this group.......did he somehow get a hold of
her sysadmin? What sysadmin in his right mind would take action
against something that little 'e' did?
This sucks.
-Curt
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192344.AA19633@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:44:34 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: Larry Margolis
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.174345.14691@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:43:45 GMT
In <1992Apr16.115300.21007@doug.cae.wisc.edu> curtisj@cae.wisc.edu (Curtis Jacobsen) writes:
>
> There is no moderator to this group.......did he somehow get a hold of
> her sysadmin? What sysadmin in his right mind would take action
> against something that little 'e' did?
He did, and complained that she was letter-bombing him (because she
forwarded 20 letters of support within an hour that "flooded his mailbox".)
> This sucks.
No shit.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192344.AA19690@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:44:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: Larry Margolis
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.174811.14178@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:48:11 GMT
In <1992Apr16.125747.19739@news.larc.nasa.gov> burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes:
> In article mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y.
> >In article <1992Apr16.023952.13543@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
> >>
> >>I just got off the phone with little 'e'. She's not going to be able
> >>to post for a while.
> >
> >Well, I think that's ridiculous. Why don't we all mail her system
> >administrator and complain?
> >
> >Ken
>
> I agree, I think its ridiculous that little 'e' has had privleges
> removed because of an immature dweeb that was harassing here...
I agree that it's ridiculous too, but little 'e' has requested that you
*not* mail her sysadmin at this time.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192344.AA19749@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:44:55 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: Larry Margolis
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.174949.14298@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:49:49 GMT
In <1992Apr16.114020.25320@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> amy young writes:
> In article <1992Apr16.023952.13543@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>
> >I just got off the phone with little 'e'. She's not going to be able
> >to post for a while.
>
> What is the address of her admin? (I would figure root@her.host would
> do, but just to make sure...) I intend to give my opinion in this
> matter, if her priviledges has been restricted for this matter.
I'm sure she appreciates the thought, but she has requested that people
*not* mail her sysadmin at this time.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192345.AA19867@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:45:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.144216.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:42:16 PDT
> Whoa! Are you a sysadmin?
Yup.
> We have sysadmin's talking like this?
Yup. Then again, I'm a sysadmin who rides a motorcycle and wears
a Mickey Mouse watch. Make of that what you will...
Greg
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192345.AA19808@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:45:15 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: ajr@pug.hri.com (MFHorn)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID:
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:25:17 GMT
In article <18789@ravel.udel.edu> abby@ravel.udel.edu (Louis Abbruzzesi) writes:
> In article ajr@hri.com writes:
> =>
> =>Accounts are a privilege, not a right.
>
> What? I wonder what my tuition goes toward. I feel really priveleged that
> my university uses my money, and grants me Net access.
My tuition also went towards things like fraternities (for a while),
student government, Spring Carnival, on-campus concerts, and the Movie
Division. I took advantage of 2 of those, and I certainly *never*
expected to have any control over them unless I was active in them.
Unless a student can show sie has any clue what a network is, much
less how to manage one, sie should be kept far away from all
decisions.
> Without students
> and Universities this net would be a little less than it is right now.
So. What's your point?
> In the real world, companies can make you pee in a jar before they hire you,
> that doesn't mean its right.
Your opinion. I think EVERYONE should be tested. Whether there
should be or not, there is currently no law to protect your 'right' to
privacy.
> In the real world, your employer foots the
> bill for all aspects of Net access but here at my University I do--
You think your tuition comes even close to what universities get in
grants and, for state universities, government aid? If each dollar
you contribute gave you one vote, DEC would have total control over
ULowell and 50% at MIT (IBM the other 50%).
> Maybe you have an opinion on the 'little e' case-- who needs a jury with
> you around- you obviously have a grip on net justice don't you.
I've been a system/network/news/mail administrator for 5 years. I
also wrote the ACS software (the same software Maxime was using and is
still being used for alt.sex.bondage and alt.personals.bondage) and
ran it for alt.personals at two sites. Yes, I think that does qualify
me as an 'expert' on netiquette. Have you even heard of Emily
Postnews?
--
Andy Rosen (ajr@hri.com) | "The most valuable commodity I know of,
Horizon Research, Inc. | is information." -Gordon Gekko, "Wall Street"
1432 Main St. | "I got this guitar and I learned how to
Waltham, MA 02154 | make it talk." -"Thunder Road"
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192345.AA19924@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:45:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.145023.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:50:23 PDT
In article , mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney) writes:
>
> I disagree. No one should have an account taken away for expression
> of an opinion, no matter how offensive.
You are absolutely right. But that's not all he did.
> Now if he had been harassing her with email, and she had asked him
> to quit mailing her and he had refused, I would treat the situation
> like an obscene phone call. But as I understand it, events did not
> get to that point.
Yes, they did. He forwarded all of his mail to her mailbox. That
is an abuse of the network. And he did this after accusing *her* of
wasting network bandwidth.
And don't try to tell me that he just threatened to do it but didn't
actually go through with it. I sent him mail and got a reply from
her.
> (not that I agree with the idiot. Besides, he got what he deserved.
> Total contempt from the net.populace).
I don't know. I frankly wonder if the little cretin has read any
of this.
Greg
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192346.AA20040@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:46:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.161316.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:13:16 PDT
In article <18789@ravel.udel.edu>, abby@ravel.udel.edu (Louis Abbruzzesi) writes:
> In article ajr@hri.com writes:
> =>
> =>Accounts are a privilege, not a right.
>
> What? I wonder what my tuition goes toward. I feel really priveleged that
> my university uses my money, and grants me Net access.
Your tution goes toward paying the professors. I don't know about
the University of Delaware, but a year here at Pomona costs a fair
bit more than the tuition, and we're not a state school with taxpayer
supported budgets.
I figured it out once, a couple of years ago. Given the portion of
the education paid for by the tuition, the percentage of the College's
budget that comes to this department, the percentage of the department's
budget that goes to pay my salary, the number of hours I work, etc,
I figured that each and every student owns about five minutes of my
time. And I cost a lot less than a big VAX. So if you want to start
bitching about tution, you'd better do it fast. Your claim on my time
is now down to four minutes and ticking.
Greg
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192346.AA19982@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:46:05 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.155104.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:51:04 PDT
In article , mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney) writes:
> In article <1992Apr16.023952.13543@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>>I just got off the phone with little 'e'. She's not going to be able
>>to post for a while.
>
> Well, I think that's ridiculous. Why don't we all mail her system
> administrator and complain?
Because if he's anal enough to have taken away her net access, even
just by implication, anything you say to him is just going to make
the situation worse.
Greg
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192346.AA20100@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:46:48 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Date: 16 Apr 1992 19:45:59 -0500
Message-ID:
Look, I agree that someone who is guilty of *harassment* should
have punitive action taken. Larry M. says 'e' was harassed and
I'm willing to take him at his word for that. But you guys who
say that anyone can have their account taken away for any reason,
and that's the way it's always been, and since we're not sysadmins
we shoudn't complain, are full of shit. I don't need to be a cop
to know I shouldn't be beaten like Rodney King. I don't need to be
a sysadmin to know that there should be clearly delineated rules
governing net use and that system administrators should enforce the
rules, not just kick off anyone whose opinion they disagree with.
You say that net access is a priviledge. Well, that's true if you
go through a corporation or private university. But I get my net
access through a public university (the university of texas) and
my net access cannot be removed due to the _content_ of my speech
without putting the university in violation of state law. And,
in my opinion, that's the way it _should_ be everywhere. Those of
you who prefer some feudalistic model where every System Administrator
has his own little fiefdom and we're all peasants at his utter mercy
should get a less medieval mindset.
Ken McKinney
mckinney@cs.utexas.edu
.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <199204192348.AA20214@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:48:16 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
From: rfisk@vampyro.auspex.com (Rick Fisk)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <12465@auspex-gw.auspex.com>
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:15:14 GMT
Well as a SysAdmin I must say that there are much more important things to do than
scan the net for undesireable posts. I don't care what get's posted by the users
here as long as it doesn't contain company secrets. There are enough people here at
our site who use this service and post to the comp groups, that if something were
posted that was sensitive, I would here about it soon enough to kill the article
before it left the building. If the information was sensitive enough, that person
would probably get their pink slip before you could say password.
In the case of "harrasment", If one of my users came to me and said someone was
harassing them from outside the company, I review the messages(with the users' permission)
If it is a case of physical threats, I would probably contact the person's employer.
On the other hand, I don't like to be dragged in the middle of a petty disagreement
between two people. We are grown ups, (supposed to be anyway) the example above
would be an extreme case. Handle your own squabbles between yourselves. No-one
is going be able to send me e-mail and convince me to jerk someone's access privilage
without some really good evidence of wrong doing.
My main priority is to keep people productive and give them access to the kinds of
programs and data that make their jobs easier. My main concern with net access is to
make sure it exists and runs properly at our site.
Rick
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr19.235247.20326@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 23:52:47 GMT
amy young writes:
[...]
>People get off that thinking that having a computer account is somehow
>a right under free speech or something. This is all good and well
>except for the fact that you are using SOMEONE ELSES RESOURCES to
>express your rights... which means usage has been granted to you under
>certain conditions, and the owners of those resources have every right
>to rip your account out from under you. For any reason, really, but
>it's considered unethical to not have a good reason, such as abuse of
>given priviledges.
[...]
Users aren't the only ones who have to play by the rules. State
schools also have a set of rules they must play by.
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/media.control ===============
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
a: Like any organization, the government must work within its charter
(the Constitution). The Supreme Court has said that this limits the
Government's authority to control the media that owns and controls.
The rational is that it would be dangerous for a Government that is
elected by the people to have too much control on what the people
can say and read.
The Supreme Court calls created forums, like a student newspaper or
campus mail systems, limited public forums. It says that the
government can limited who may access these forums and/or what topics
may be discussed. But otherwise, "it is bound by the same standards as
apply in a traditional public forum"; "content-based prohibition must
be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." For
example, viewpoint-based discrimination is forbidden.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
law/stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send caf-law stanley-v-magrath
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-law constraints.constitutional
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send caf-law rust-v-sullivan
send caf-law keyishian-v-board-of-regents
send caf-law perry-v-perry
send caf-law constitution.us
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
pub/academic/law/constitution.us
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr20.000320.20506@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 00:03:20 GMT
greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
[...]
>Your tution goes toward paying the professors. I don't know about
>the University of Delaware, but a year here at Pomona costs a fair
>bit more than the tuition, and we're not a state school with taxpayer
>supported budgets.
[...]
What percentage students pay is immaterial. What matters is they have
a contract, usually explicit, with the school. At state schools this
contract usually promises due process (like not being punished until
you have a chance to tell your site of the story, a right to a formal
hearing if the penalty is serious, and a right to appeal.)
If you want to learn more about this, read alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
or the CAF mailing list.
- Carl
===================== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf ==================
Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List
Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles
of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,
due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and
networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the
principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be
defended?
Mitch Kapor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has given the
discussion a home on the eff.org machine. As of Sept, 1991, the list
has 375 members in at least five countries. Thousands more read the
list via newsgroups.
There are four versions of the mailing list.
comp-academic-freedom-talk
- you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day.
comp-academic-freedom-batch
- about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes.
comp-academic-freedom-news
- about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
notes of the week. (Helen O'Boyle or I play the editor for
this one).
comp-academic-freeedom-abstracts
- about one a week you'll receive the abstract of the current
comp-academic-freedom-news (CAF-news). You'll also receive
instructions on how to access the current CAF-news.
To join a version of the list, send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line "add ". (Other commands are "delete
" and "help"). If you have problems, send email to
caf-requests@eff.org.
In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the list
by addressing it to caf-talk@eff.org.
Alternatively, if you may be able to read the mailing lists as newsgroups.
Look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
An abstract and archive of comp-academic-freedom-news is available via
anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. See file "pub/academic/abstracts" and
"pub/academic/README". These files are also available via email (Send
email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and
"index".)
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
The long version:
When my grandmother attended the University of Illinois fifty-five
years ago, academic freedom meant the right to speak up in class, to
created student organizations, to listen to controversial speakers, to
read "dangerous" books in the library, and to be protected from random
searches of your dorm room.
Today these rights are guaranteed by most universities. These days,
however, my academic life very different from my grandmother's. Her
academic life was centered on the classroom and the student union.
Mine centers on the computer and the computer network. In the new
academia, my academic freedom is much less secure.
It is time for a discussion of computers and academic freedom. I've
been in contact with Mitch Kapor. He has given the discussion a home on
the eff.org machine.
The suppression of academic freedom on computers is common. At least
once a month, someone posts on plea on Usenet for help. The most
common complaint is that a newsgroup has been banned because of its
content (usually alt.sex). In January, 1991, a sysadmin at the
University of Wisconsin didn't ban any newsgroups directly. Instead,
he reduced the newsgroup expiration time so that reading groups such
as alt.sex is almost impossible. In April, 1991, a sysadmin at Case
Western reported that he had removed a note that a student had posted
to a local newsgroup. The sysadmin said the information in the note
could be misused. In other cases, university employees may be reading
e-mail or looking through user files. This may happen with or without
some prior notice that e-mail and files are fair game.
In many of these cases the legality of the suppression is unclear. It
may depend on user expectation, prior announcements, and whether the
university is public or private.
The legality is, however, irrelevant. The duty of the University is
not to suppress everything it legally can; rather it is to support the
free and open investigation and expression of ideas. This is the ideal
of academic freedom. In this role, the University acts a model of how
the wider world should be. (In the world of computers, universities are
perhaps the most important model of how things should be).
If you are interested in discussing this issues, or if you have
first-hand experience with academic surpression on computers or
networks, please join the mailing list.
- Carl Kadie
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: emr@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU (elizabeth m. reid)
Subject: CAF-News.
Message-ID: <199204200338.AA05852@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 18:38:12 GMT
Carl -
> [Help! The backlog for CAF-News is now a month and 1/2. If you might
> be willing to help clear the backlog by guest editing one issue,
> please send me email (kadie@eff.org) and I'll send you additional
> information.
Oh! Gosh, yes! In the euphoria following the fact, I forgot to
actually tell you that we are back on-line over here... Please slot me
back in the roster.
Elizabeth.
