From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
From: mckinney@cs.utexas.edu (Durwood Y. McKinney)
Newsgroups: alt.personals,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Date: 19 Apr 1992 23:38:59 -0500
Message-ID:
Re: recent postings on free-speech laws:
Thanks for the postings! It's good to be educated on our rights.
Ken
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] File 5--First Amendment semi-void in electronic frontier ??
Message-ID: <9204201538.AA12073@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 05:38:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 18:58:22 PDT
From: jwarren@AUTODESK.COM(Jim Warren)
Message-ID:
Subject: File 5--First Amendment semi-void in electronic frontier ??
IS POLITICAL SPEECH, PRESS & ASSEMBLY PERMITTED IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER?
There is no purpose for which the freedoms of speech, press and
assembly are more essential than for unfettered participation in the
political process. Yet, such personal freedoms -- permitted in 18th
Century voice, paper and face-to-face form -- may be severely
suppressed in electronic form.
Although *personal* computer-based speech, press and assembly
by employees, students and others is generally permitted in
companies, schools and organizations, within reasonable limits
of time and place, some folks say they must be monitored, accounted
for, evaluated and reported -- or suppressed and prohibited --
when they contain *personal* political expression or advocate
political support or opposition for candidates or ballot issues.
There are experienced net-users who are political candidates who say this.
THE PROBLEM
Most folks access the nets via company, school or institutional computer accou
nts. Many are permitted to use that access for
personal email, personal messages broadcast to email-alias lists and personal pa
rticipation in public and private teleconferences --
provided they do so without adversely impacting their work or official basis for
having their account.
But:
Federal and state regulations governing political campaign disclosures
require that "contributions-in-kind" for or against candidates and
ballot measures be accounted for and their value reported, just like
cash donations. Contributions-in-kind include such things as postage,
office space, printing, loans of furniture, office machines, etc.
They also include use of telephones, faxes, computers, computer
supplies, computer services, etc.
Furthermore, donations by corporations are often restricted or
prohibited. Most nonprofit organizations, including educational
institutions, are entirely prohibited from making political donations
-- or even lobbying for or against legislation (freedom is forfeited
for tax perks).
OVERT CORPORATE SUPPORT IS CLEARLY REGULATED
If a corporation overtly underwrites political action by
intentionally providing labor, staff, facilities, equipment or
services to support or oppose a political campaign, then the
fair-market value ot those services or facilities must clearly be
reported as an in-kind contribution.
(Such regulations appear to be much less enforced against unions and
schools, and appear to be not-at-all enforced against churches or
synagogues, regardless of how sectarian their political efforts may
be.)
THE 21st CENTURY QUESTION
Is *personal* electronic political speech, press and assembly protected at
work or school -- or is it a corporate or institutional political donation?
PERSONAL POLITICAL SPEECH APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- BY VOICE
Within reasonable limits on time and place, citizens are not
*legally* prohibited from discussing politics with their office
associates, or in the company or school or church hallway, or in the
cafeteria or employee lounge, or in telephone conversations with
callers and professional associates with whom they have a personal
relationship as well as business association. (Note: This concerns
*legal* restrictions; *not* the issue of whether political discussions
are *wise* in a business, school or church setting.)
PERSONAL POLITICAL PRESS APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- BY PAPER
It is also common for employees, students and teachers to use
*authorized* access to printers and copiers, to create and copy
*personal* leaflets about political issues and activities that they
hand to friends and post on company, school, church and synagogue
bulletin boards. When they do so within the institutional limits
placed on their general personal use of equipment and bulletin boards,
the use has almost-certainly never been reported as an institutional
contribution-in-kind.
PERSONAL POLITICAL ASSEMBLY APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- FACE-TO-FACE
It is common for corporations, schools, unions, religious
institutions, etc., to permit their their cafeterias, lounges, union
halls, meeting rooms and parking lots to be used for candidate
presentations, campaign debates and meet-the-candidate(s) receptions
-- as well as for both public and internal meetings to hear
presentations by incumbent elected represenatives and/or by leaders of
various community, legislative and regulatory groups.
Participants are rarely charged for such use (except by sites that
routinely derive revenue from renting meeting space), and the value
of the meeting facility is rarely reported as an in-kind contribution to
the speaker(s). In fact, it is considered to be "good institutional
citizenship" for organizations to provide their facilities for meetings
between citizens and their current and potential elected and appointed
representatives.
CAN CORPORATIONS AND SCHOOLS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT POLITICAL SPEECH?
Now, consider those workplaces and educational institutions that permit
*personal* conversation, usually within reasonable limits on time and place.
And recognize that such personal speech may be one-to-one or within formal
or informal personal groups, e.g. a lunch group in the cafeteria.
When such personal speech and personal assembly *is* permitted:
* Must those companies and institutions then prohibit all *personal*
employee or student conversation that has political content?
* Must they prohibit all *personal* advocacy of political positions?
* Must they prohibit all *personal* advocacy for or against candidates?
* And if they don't prohibit it, must they monitor it and report it?
****************************************************************************
* If corporations and schools can not or should not suppress all on-site *
* personal speech and association having political content -- but must *
* report all in-kind donations -- then how shall they evaluate the desks, *
* offices, hallways, cafeterias, lounges, phones, phone bills, computers, *
* and bulletin boards where personal political speech, personal political *
* "press"/notices and personal political assembly occurs? And, how shall *
* they monitor such speech. press and assembly, so as to identify which *
* campaign is receiving how much value in in-kind contributions? *
****************************************************************************
AND, WHY SHOULD *ELECTRONIC* SPEECH AND *ELECTRONIC* ASSEMBLY BE DIFFERENT?
When *personal* conversation and personal political expression is
permitted by voice or telephone in workplace, union hall or school,
why should personal political speech be prohibited when it by
electronic mail?
When *personal* notices and copying and personal political leaflets
are permitted if they are on paper and/or posted on wall-mounted
bulletin boards, why should such personal political press be
prohibited when it is by electronic origin and distribution?
When *personal* meetings and personal political discussion in groups
is permitted if it is face-to-face in the cafeteria, lounge or parking
lot of school or workplace, why should personal assembly with others
be prohibited when it is by electronic newsgroups or teleconferences?
****************************************************************************
* TO THE EXTENT THAT employees and students, within their institutions, *
* are permitted freedom of personal political expression by voice and in *
* writing, and freedom of personal political association by face-to-face *
* meeting, why should personal political speech, press or assembly be *
* suppressed -- or monitored and reported -- merely when it is electronic? *
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] File 7--SUMMARY AND UPDATE: alt.* Removal at UNL
Message-ID: <9204201540.AA12109@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 05:40:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 16:31:12 CST
From: mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org@ivgate.omahug.org
Message-ID:
Subject: File 7--SUMMARY AND UPDATE: alt.* Removal at UNL
As of April 17, 1992, when I write this summary and update, the noise
on the nets has abated somewhat. But those readers of the CuD who
have access to Usenet news have almost certainly seen and remember the
brouhaha over the deletion of the alt.* hierarchy at the University of
Nebraska. The following is the story, as I understand it, pieced
together from several sources and personal inquiries. It is only as
accurate as the information I was able to obtain, and if anyone has
corrections or additions, please submit them to the CuD.
The furor started on March 2nd, 1992, when the alt.* hierarchy was
eliminated by the UNL Computing Resource Center (CRC). The
termination was so abrupt that some downstream sites did not know in
advance, and had to immediately scramble for alternate feeds. The
decision was supposedly resource-based, and supported by a February
27th recommendation by the UNL Academic Senate Computational Services
and Facilities Committee. Almost immediately, however, it became
obvious that content-control had played a major part. Leo Chouinard,
the "Academic Senate representative on the Computational Committee"
[sic], reportedly said the committee discussed several considerations
before making a decision about the alt groups, including possible
violations of state pornography laws and concerns about computer
resources being used for non-educational purposes.
The memorandum announcing the termination read as follows:
CRC Policy on Providing Information Resources
2/27/92
The Computing Resource Center provides information resources to
the UNL community in support of the University's mission of
research, instruction, and service. These resources commonly take
the form of databases, archives, and bulletin boards. The
Computing Resource Center makes available those information
resources that are requested by faculty at UNL and approved by
the Computing Resource Center in consultation the Academic Senate
Computational Committee as useful in supporting the University's
mission.
If a user desires information resources not provided by the
Computing Resource Center, they are free to acquire that
information elsewhere, subject only to the requirements of the
information provider, relevant federal and state laws, and
applicable University policies.
Adopted UNL Academic Senate, 2/27/92
The UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and Facilities
Committee is chaired by Professor (of English) Les Whipp. He told me
that, in hindsight, he felt his committee did not have all the facts
before them when they concurred in the CRC recommendation that the
following Usenet newsfeeds (and only these newsgroups) be made
available: bionet, bit, biz, ci, comp, general, gnu, misc, news, rec,
sci, soc, talk, unix-pc, unl, and vmsnet. In particular, he was not
aware of the connotations of censorship that could (and did) become
attached to the wholesale removal of the alt.* hierarchy, and as of
the date I talked with him, felt that someone at the CRC had a hidden
agenda to remove certain "objectionable" groups. Professor Whipp did
not claim to be expert on the management of hardware resources, and
sounded disturbed that a decision officially based on "limited
resources" was so open to question on its basis. (The debate about
the percentage, cost, etc., of carrying the alt.* groups went on at
length in comp.org.eff.talk and other newsgroups. It is not my
purpose to reiterate that discussion).
Mr. Kent Landfield (kent@imd.sterling.com), a UNL alumnus, systems
manager at a major software contractor, and moderator of
comp.sources.misc, posted a thoughtful "Open Letter to UNL CRC"
regarding the alt.* group removal. As a result of my own feelings,
and encouraged by Mr. Landfield's letter, I contacted several
individuals at UNL. Acting at approximately the same time, a number
of UNL students formed the "Nebraska Students for Electronic Freedom
(NUSEF)." The thrust of our comments was if resources were at issue,
tell us what was needed and we would lobby to get them. If content
was actually at issue, admit it openly, apply generally accepted
educational/library standards, and bring back at least those alt.*
groups with recognized value.
As a result of the lobbying efforts, including telephone call from
Mike Godwin at the Cambridge office of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, the involvement of librarians both knowledgeable
regarding computer services and resource allocation and selection
criteria, and the general education several of the faculty
participants received during the discussions, the UNL Academic
Senate Executive Committee, meeting on April 6th, voted to request
restoration of the majority of the alt.* groups. Their minutes
reflect:
7.0 ALT Network Disconnect
Wise and McShane indicated they had been contacted
regarding CRC discontinuing the ALT network because of
the potential for transmitting erotic pictures via the
network. Users have indicated these pictures can be
blocked under copyright law restrictions and the general
network be continued.
The committee requested the ALT network be added back
with the designated restrictions.
When I discussed the committee recommendation with one of its members,
I came away with the feeling that the digitized pictures would be
removed due to copyright concerns, and that the rest of the group
would be evaluated using American Library Association criteria (as
often advocated and explained by Carl Kadie, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu).
I also came away with the feeling that similar decisions will, in the
future, be conducted substantially more in the open. To use a trite
saying, "time will tell."
In Nebraska we are still waiting and watching for the return of the
alt.* groups, will work to obtain legislative support if additional
resources are in fact needed, and will continue to support resource
allocation decisions based on academic criteria, as opposed to
censorship.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.abortion] Re: pennsylvania harassment law
Message-ID: <9204201753.AA13065@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 07:53:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: pennsylvania harassment law
Message-ID: <1992Apr15.234707.19464@cfctech.cfc.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:47:07 GMT
In article <1992Apr15.040926.15953@crd.ge.com> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (james g keegan jr.) writes:
>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.
Clause (3) is unconstitutionally vague, IMO. For one thing, if it were
enforced, it could easily deprive Pennsylvania of 99% of Usenet
articles :-)
- Kevin
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.abortion] Re: pennsylvania harassment law
Message-ID: <9204201754.AA13077@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 07:54:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
From: keegan@scoobiedoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: pennsylvania harassment law
Message-ID: <1992Apr19.151756.2215@crd.ge.com>
Date: 19 Apr 92 15:17:56 GMT
kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (james g keegan jr.) writes:
-> >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.
->
-> Clause (3) is unconstitutionally vague, IMO.
please post your legal crendentials which allow you to address
the constitutionality of any state law. naturally, people with
such credentials have attested to the law's constutionality.
"No Mr. Darcy, any opinions I have about you are based on
what YOU write. Trust me when I say that you do not need help
from anyone in looking like a fool, this appears to be one
area that you are very competent at all by yourself."
Linda Birmingham
<91147.144514ADMN8647@Ryerson.CA>
--
----
charter member ... T.S.A.K.C.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [talk.abortion] Re: pennsylvania harassment law
Message-ID: <9204201755.AA13113@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 07:55:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: pennsylvania harassment law
Message-ID: <1992Apr19.170154.23650@rotag.mi.org>
Date: 19 Apr 92 17:01:54 GMT
In article <1992Apr19.151756.2215@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr writes:
>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (james g keegan jr.) writes:
>-> >from the PA Crimes Code...
>-> >=============================================================
>-> >2709. Harassment
>-> >
>-> > A person commits a summary offense when, with intent to
>-> >harass, annoy, or alarm another person:
>-> >
>-> > [...]
>-> >
>-> > (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.
>-> >==================================================================
>-> >
>-> > [...]
>->
>-> Clause (3) is unconstitutionally vague, IMO.
>
>please post your legal crendentials which allow you to address
>the constitutionality of any state law. naturally, people with
>such credentials have attested to the law's constutionality.
Please cite any constitutionality attack on this statute which invoked
the Vagueness Doctrine. Then I might believe you.
- Kevin
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Recent Changes to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
Message-ID: <1992Apr20.180322.4646@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 18:03:22 GMT
(More) Recent Changes to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
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/batch/apr_19_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/apr_26_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/price,_janet_r.3
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ 3rd Edition,
1988 about access to school facilities by students and outsiders. It
says if use by students is not disruptive, use should be allowed.
Also, "if any facility is made available to one group, the school may
not then deny other groups the opportunity to use that facility."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/price,_janet_r.4
=================
Summary of laws protecting high school students from unreasonable
searches.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/clergy-v-chicago-board-of-ed
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ 3rd Edition,
1988 about access to school facilities by students and outsiders. It
says if use by students is not disruptive, use should be allowed.
Also, "if any facility is made available to one group, the school may
not then deny other groups the opportunity to use that facility."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/new-jersey-v-tlo
=================
Summary of laws protecting high school students from unreasonable
searches.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/rico-porn
=================
Short excerpt from a newspaper story about a court decision. The judge
wrote that the payoff in discouraging pornography through sweeping
forfeitures "does not justify the additional curtailment of
constitutionally protected, sexually explicit speech."
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines.2
=================
A few excerpts from the majority decision in _Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District_ (1969). It concerned
non-disruptive political expression in schools. The Supreme Court held
that two students had the right to wear black armbands to school as a
protest against the Vietnam War.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/eff.org
=================
Here are the rules for *.eff.org, the computers of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, a private, not-for-profit organization. The
authors of the policy, Helen Trillian Rose (hrose@eff.org) and Chris
Davis (ckd@eff.org) say that everyone is welcome to use this policy as
a model.
=================
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.
=================
=================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
From: abreur@woods.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Send Soapbox Your Thoughts!
Message-ID: <1992Apr20.123326.1@woods.ulowell.edu>
Date: 20 Apr 92 17:33:26 GMT
We believe that every human being has something worth saying. SOAPBOX
is a natural extension of that belief. It's a journal embracing no particular
philosophy other than free speech. And it's looking for contributors.
Essays, poetry, artwork, and avant garde material of most any nature
will be considered. Don't concern yourself with an article's length. Nothing is
too short, and if a long piece is worthwhile, we'll find the space to print it.
What matters is quality.
We at Soapbox are especially interested in publishing writers that have
never before found an outlet for their ideas. Liberal, consevative, mainstream,
alternative, libertarian, environmental, ANYTHING! We want your uncensored
thoughts.
Any questions? send 'em to abreur@woods.ulowell.edu. Send contributions
to the same place. You can also reach us via snail mail:
Soapbox
124 Walker St.
Lowell, Ma 01854-3125, USA
We can accept submissions on disk (Mac is preferred, but IBM is fine),
or you can even fax us (just call ahead first, at 508-970-2715). With all these
ways of sending us stuff, surely there's no excuse for _not_ submitting!
We hope to hear from you soon.
-Richard AJ Abreu, EIC
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men] Re: How do *you* say 'harassment'?
Message-ID: <9204201841.AA13320@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 08:41:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Richard L. Gerberding)
Subject: Re: How do *you* say 'harassment'?
Message-ID: <1992Apr18.181910.8928@cs.rose-hulman.edu>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1992 18:19:10 GMT
In article <1MFL?$C@ais.org> chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:
> 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.
>
> 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.
> --
> 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_
--
Come'on Shawn - you can talk about anything, as long as you isolate
yourself in a small soundproof room where no one can hear who might be the
least bit offended. Of course, you also must make sure that there are no
degrading pieces of art on the wall (the Mona Lisa might fit under this
category - strange smile on her face you know) Also Red walls are out of
the question as it represents passion and sex and raises us animalistic
males to rush out and rape, pillage and plunder. So make sure the Walls
are painted a nice pastel Mauve or something that the local NOW has
approved as appealing to the all-knowing feminists. Oh, I am *so* glad
political-correctness has removed all thoughts from my head and
enlightened me of all the suppression us males are responsible for.
\===================================================================\|||||
|\ Richard Gerberding If a manhole is now a person-hole, \||||
||\ when will stables be filled \|||
|||\ gerberrl@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu with person-ure ? \||
||||\===================================================================\|
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Recent Changes to the CAF Book list.
Message-ID: <1992Apr20.190439.6758@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 19:04:39 GMT
To get the full list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include
the line:
send caf-books README
=================
aclu.academic-freedom
=================
American Civil Liberties Union.
Academic freedom and civil liberties of students in colleges and
universities / American Civil Liberties Union. New York : American Civil
Liberties Union, 1970.
47 p. ; 23 cm.
1. College students--Conduct of life 2. Universities and
colleges--United States--Administration 3. Student-administrator
relationships 4. Teaching, Freedom of--United States. I. Title.
ocm01-701934
Review: Very old. Written before much case law was established. Most of
the ideas are incorporated into the Statement on Student Rights. Interesting
but out of date.
Score: 8 of 10
=================
ala.defending-books
=================
American Library Association. Young Adult Services Division.
Intellectual Freedom Committee.
Hit list : frequently challenged young adult titles : references to
defend them / prepared by the Intellectual Freedom Committee, Young
Adult Services Division. :1st ed.: Chicago, Il : Young Adult Services
Division, American Library Association, 1989.
85 p. ; 28 cm.
ISBN 0838973299 (pbk.) : $$15.00
1. Libraries--Censorship--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Young
adult literature--Censorship--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. School
libraries--Book lists 4. Freedom of information--Handbooks, manuals,
etc. I. Title.
ocm20-742651
Review:
A catalog of frequently challenged books. Each entry is about 3 pages
long and includes a summary of the book, a list of recent challenges to
it, and a bibliography of reviews.
The idea is to document that the books are important.
This might be model of a way to defend newsgroups.
Score: 7 of 10
=================
american_library_association
=================
American Library Association. _Hit List: Frequently Challenged Young
Adult Titles: References to Defend Them_, 1989
Format: a book
=================
anderson,_arthur_james
=================
Anderson, Arthur James. "Politics & Policy (with discussion),"
_Library Journal 10:37-9 May 15, 1985.
Format: an article
=================
asheim,_lester
=================
Asheim, Lester. "Selection and Censorship: A Reapprasial", _Wilson
Libary Bulletin_ 58(3):180-84 November 1983
Format: an article
=================
berman,_sandford
=================
Berman, Sandford. _Battle of the Books: Literary Censorship
in the Public Schools_, 1989.
Format: a book
=================
berninghausem,_david_k
=================
Berninghausem, David K. "Toward an Intellecutal Freedom Theory
for Users of Libraries," Drexel Library Quarterly 18(1):57-81
Format: an article
=================
burress,_lee
=================
Burress, Lee
Battle of the books : literary censorship in the public schools,
1950-1985 / by Lee Burress. Metuchen, N.J. : Scarecrow Press, c1989.
v, 385 p. ; 23 cm.
Includes index.
Bibliography: p. 353-363.
ISBN 0810821516
1. Children's literature--Censorship--United States. 2. Young
adult literature--Censorship--United States. 3. School libraries--
Censorship--United States. 4. Public schools--Censorship--United
States. 5. Children--United States--Books and reading. 6. High
school students--United States--Books and reading. 7. Censorship--
United States--History--20th century. I. Title.
ocm18-558130
Review: Gives suggestions on fighting library censorship, but a bit
out of date
Score: 7 of 10
=================
christensen,_john_o.fbi.libraries
=================
According to the back cover, this bibliography can be ordered from:
VANCE BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Post Office Box 229
Monticello, Illinois 61856
=========================
Christensen, John O.
The FBI, libraries, and the library awareness program controversey
:sic: : selected references / John O. Christensen. Monticello, Ill. :
Vance Bibliographies, :1990:
7 p. ; 28 cm. (Public administration series--bibliography,
0193-970X ; P-2946)
Cover title.
"September 1990."
ISBN 0792006461 (pbk.)
1. United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation 2.
Information services and state--United States--Bibliography. 3.
Freedom of information--United States--Bibliography. I. Title. II.
Series.
ocm22-339081
PRICE: ?????
=================
christensen,_john_o.int_freeedom
=================
According to the back cover, this bibliography can be ordered from:
VANCE BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Post Office Box 229
Monticello, Illinois 61856
=========================
Christensen, John O.
Intellectual freedom and libraries : a selective bibliography /
John O. Christensen. Monticello, Ill. : Vance Bibliographies, :1991:
15 p. ; 29 cm. (Public administration series--bibliography,
0193-970X ; P-3068)
Cover title.
"April 1991."
ISBN 0792007883 (pbk.)
1. Libraries--Censorship--Bibliography. I. Title. II. Series.
ocm23-295948
PRICE: $3.75
=================
christensen,_john_o.legal_issues.libraries
=================
According to the back cover, this bibliography can be ordered from:
VANCE BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Post Office Box 229
Monticello, Illinois 61856
=========================
Christensen, John O.
Legal issues in public and school libraries : some recent
references / John O. Christensen. Monticello, Ill. : Vance
Bibliographies, :1990:
24 p. ; 28 cm. (Public administration series--bibliography,
0193-970X ; P-2945)
Cover title.
"September 1990."
ISBN 0792006453 (pbk.)
1. Public librarians--Legal status, laws, etc.--United States--
Bibliography. 2. Library legislation--Bibliography. 3. School
libraries--Law and legislation--United States--Bibliography. I. Title.
II. Series.
ocm22-339034
PRICE: ?????
=================
christensen,_john_o.porn-and_libraries
=================
According to the back cover, this bibliography can be ordered from:
VANCE BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Post Office Box 229
Monticello, Illinois 61856
=========================
Christensen, John O.
Obscenity, pornography, and libraries : a selective bibliography /
John O. Christensen. Monticello, Ill. : Vance Bibliographies, :1991:
10 p. ; 29 cm. (Public administration series--bibliography,
0193-970X ; P-3069)
Cover title.
"April 1991."
ISBN 0792007891 (pbk.)
1. Obscenity (Law)--United States--Bibliography. 2. Pornography--
United States--Bibliography. 3. Libraries--Special collections--
Pornography--Bibliography. 4. Libraries--Censorship--Bibliography.
5. Libraries--Special collections--Erotica--Bibliography. I. Title.
II. Series.
ocm23-353422
PRICE: $3.00
=================
coggins,_timothy_l
=================
Coggins, Timothy L. "Book Removals from School Libraries and Student's
First Amendment Rights," School Law Bulletin 17(3):17-21 Summer 1986.
Format: an article
=================
cole,_elsa_kircher
=================
Sexual harassment on campus : a legal compendium / edited by Elsa
Kircher Cole. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C. (1 Dupont Circle, Suite 620,
Washington 20036) : National Association of College and University
Attorneys, 1990.
iv, 265 p. ; 28 cm. (NACUA the publication series)
Includes bibliographical references: (p. 263-265).
1. Sexual harassment of women--Law and legislation--United
States. 2. Women teachers--Legal status, laws, etc.--United States.
3. Grievance procedures--United States. 4. College personnel
management--United States. 5. Sex discrimination against women--Law
and legislation--United States. 6. Women college students--Legal
status, laws, etc.--United States. I. Cole, Elsa Kircher. II. National
Association of College and University Attorneys (U.S.) III. Series.
ocm21-968185
Review: Like the first edition, it does not talk about student-
student harassment or student freedom of expression. Mostly
about teacher student harassment.
Score: 7 of 10
=================
downs,_donald_alexander
=================
Downs, Donald Alexander. _The New Politics of Pornogrpahy. 1989.
Format: a book
=================
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.
=================
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.
=================
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.
=================
ficociello,_tony
=================
Ficociello, Tony. "Censorship, Book Selection, and the Marketplace
of Ideas," Top of the News 41(1):33-38 Fall 1984
Format: an article
=================
hoffman,_frank
=================
Hoffman, Frank. _Intellectual Freedom and Censorship: An Annotated
Bibliography_, 1989.
Format: a book
Hoffmann, Frank W., 1949-
Intellectual freedom and censorship : an annotated bibliography /
by Frank Hoffmann. Metuchen, NJ : Scarecrow Press, 1989.
x, 244 p. ; 23 cm.
Includes indexes.
ISBN 0810821451
1. Freedom of information--United States--Bibliography. 2.
Libraries--United States--Censorship--Bibliography. 3. Censorship--
United States--Bibliography. I. Title.
ocm18-106205
Review: A comprehensive, book-length, annotated bibliography of
intellectual freedom and censorship.
Score: 9 of 10
=================
hopkins,_dianne_mcaff
=================
Hopkins, Dianne McAff. "The School Library Media Specialist: Dealing
with Complaints about Materials," Catholic Library World 56(4):172-74
November 1984.
Format: an article
=================
is_it_legal?
=================
"Is It Legal?" See issues of Newsletter of Intellectual Freedom.
Format: an article
=================
lee,_earl
=================
Lee, Earl. "Library Censorship after Webster," American Libraries
20(11):1044-45, 1047-48 December 1989.
[Does anyone know what "Webster" the title refers to? - Carl]
Format: an article
=================
manley,_will
=================
Manley, Will. "Facing the Public (book slection and intellectual
freedom)," Wilson Library Bulletin 61:32-3 February 1987.
Format: an article
=================
mawdsley,_ralph_d
=================
Mawdsley, Ralph D.
Free expression and censorship : public policy and the law / Ralph
D. Mawdsley, Alice L. Mawdsley. :Topeka, Kan.: : NOLPE, c1988.
58 p. ; 23 cm.
Title from cover.
ISBN $$8.95
1. Student newspapers and periodicals--United States--Censorship.
2. Censorship--United States. 3. Freedom of the press I. Mawdsley,
Alice L. II. National Organization on Legal Problems of Education.
III. Title.
ocm18-287545
Review: Mostly about high school student newspapers. Give history
of _Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood_ but it can't guess at the effects
of that decision.
Starts with good quote:
"No, no," said the Queen: "The sentence first -- the verdict
afterwards." -- Lewis Carroll, _Alice in Wonderland_.
Score: 6 of 10
=================
moss,_lee_a
=================
Moss, Lee A. "A Case Against Censorship of School Libraries," Georgia
Social Schience Journal 20(1):4-6 Winter 1989.
Format: an article
=================
oboler,_eli_m.defend_int_freedom
=================
Oboler, Eli M. _Defending Intellectual Freedom: the Library
and the Censor_, 1983.
Format: a book
=================
oboler,_eli_m.lib_tech_and_freedom
=================
Oboler, Eli M. _To Free the Mind: Libraries, Technology, and
Intellectual Freedom_, 1983.
Format: a book
=================
price,_janet_r.3
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ 3rd Edition,
1988 about access to school facilities by students and outsiders. It
says if use by students is not disruptive, use should be allowed.
Also, "if any facility is made available to one group, the school may
not then deny other groups the opportunity to use that facility."
=================
price,_janet_r.4
=================
Summary of laws protecting high school students from unreasonable
searches.
=================
schmidt,_c
=================
Schmidt, C. James. "Intellectual Freedom and Technlogy: Deja Vu?"
North Carolina Libraries 46:129-30 Fall 1987.
Format: an article
=================
sproull,_lee
=================
Sproull, Lee.
Connections : new ways of working in the networked organization /
Lee Sproull, Sara Kiesler. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c1991.
xiii, 212 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 026219306X
1. Electronic mail systems 2. Decision-making 3.
Communication in organizations I. Kiesler, Sara B., 1940- II. Title.
ocm22-421286
Review: Talks about how people and workgroups use computer media
(including email and newsgroups).
Score: 7 of 10
=================
sumerford,_steve
=================
Sumerford, Steve. "The Public Library: Offensive by Design," Public
Libraries 26(2):60-62 Summer 1987.
Format: an article
=================
swan,_john
=================
Swan, John.
The freedom to lie : a debate about democracy / John Swan and Noel
Peattie ; foreword by Robert Franklin. Jefferson, N.C. : McFarland,
1989.
xxi, 182 p.
"With annotated bibliographies by both participants."
"An enlargement of the 1988 debate, Two views of intellectual
freedom, sponsored by the Social Responsibilities Round Table and the
Intellectual Freedom Round Table of the American Library Association at
their Annual Conference in New Orleans."
ISBN 0899504094 (lib. bdg. : alk. paper) : 15.95
1. Libraries--Censorship 2. Freedom of information I. Peattie,
Noel. II. American Library Association. Social Responsibilities Round
Table. III. American Library Association. Intellectual Freedom Round
Table. IV. Title.
ocm19-630050
Review: The book form of a debate between to librarians, one
supporting the idea that bad ideas like "the Holocaust didn't
happened" should be avoided by libraries, the other supporting
the idea that all ideas should be presented.
Score: 8 of 10
=================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Netnews suppression in Germany
Message-ID: <199204201927.AA07124@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 11:27:07 GMT
Moon Month, a pseudonym for a person in Germany, sent the following
via email. It is posted with the author's permission.
=====================
At the beginning of December a German libber paper "EMMA" wrote a story
about "porno in usenet" to get newsgroups banned. They got the *sex* groups
and others banned at several universities. They furthermore encouraged
people to become informers against their collegues and to spy through
their directories. They were successful with this, too. There was
a discussion in dnet.inet (expired newsgroup now), de.admin.news,
de.talk.sex, and other groups.
===============
In other email, Moon Moth added that among the newsgroups banned
in some places in "alt.sexual.abuse.recovery."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Email as "official" government correspondence
Message-ID: <9204202027.AA14082@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 10:27:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Email as "official" government correspondence
Date: 20 Apr 1992 18:13:10 GMT
Message-ID:
There's an article in the "Science and the Citizen" section of this month's
Scientific American about the National Security Archive trying to prevent
erasing of the backup tapes containing old electronic mail files from White
House computers. This Archive normally collects paper letters and memos,
and they claim that the email records should also be turned over to them as
official records.
How should such data be treated? Personally, I tend to think of my email
correspondence as much less formal, more like phone calls. I happen to
save all my email, because I know that when I depended on selectively
saving what I thought was important I frequently lost useful information.
But I consider that mail archive to be for my personal use, as a memory
assist, not an official record.
But in the case of the government, it's less clear that the person and
organizations should be allowed such leeway. The article mentions that
these files contain Iran Contra information (they're from the Reagan era,
as the Archive discovered that the tapes were going to be erased on the eve
of Bush's inauguration). The Federal Records Act specifically prohibits
wholesale destruction of government records, so that organizations like
this Archive can extract documents for scholarly purposes.
Then again, given the ease of tampering with mail files, it's not clear
what status such records should be given. Imagine a cracker breaking into
a government computer and altering a key document in such a way that future
history books are likely to be affected. Hopefully, historians rely on
multiple sources, so that this would be unlikely, but it's an interesting
concept!
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!dir
Message-ID: <9204202030.AA14122@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 10:30:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
From: greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!dir
Message-ID: <1992Apr20.113909.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Date: 20 Apr 92 18:39:09 GMT
In article <1992Apr20.015515.21485@rice.edu>, kerryg@stat.rice.edu (Kerry Go) writes:
>
> I hope that you don't teach any classes or have any contact with students
> with an attitude like that!
I only take that attitude with students who come in to my office with
the attidude that seemed to be expressed by the poster to whom I was
responding: that because they pay my salary, they deserve my
undivided attention regardless of what else I have to do. The fact
is that they're wrong about that, and if they start it, I'm happy to
finish it.
Fortunately that doesn't happen all that often, even here where we
have more than our share of spoiled rich kids. Most students
recognize that the world doesn't revolve around them, and they are
reasonable. And those students get a much different experience when
they come in to my office.
| Greg Orman greg@pomona.claremont.edu |
| Live to Ride, Ride to Live |
| There might be something there that wasn't there before |
From caf-talk Caf Apr 20 00:00:00 1992
From: kkrueg@ukelele.UUCP (Karl Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
Subject: Re: Privacy perfect news management (was Re: News
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.221546.3600@ukelele.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:15:46 GMT
Okay, I think I have a valid idea here...
Try this on for size:
Users pay for an amount of disk space to hold news in. They allocate it to
whatever groups they want, and for mail. So, the amount of space allocated to
a newsgroup on the system is decided upon by the amount of space users have
allocated to it. Thus, no site will be able to carry alt.sex.xxx.pornography
(which has a 1MB daily feed, let's say) unless enough users allocate space to
hold all those GIFs! So, let's say Joe SCAdian has 20K of space, and he uses
it like so:
rec.org.sca 10K
alt.sex 5K
news.announce 3K
news.groups 2K
And Mary Technowhiz has 40K to allocate, and uses it like so:
comp.super.guru 20K
alt.guru.sources 10K
news.announce 5K
news.groups 5K
(This is of course, a simplified version ["toy problem"])
So, Random Site would have the following newsgroups, and in this amount of
disk space allocated:
rec.org.sca 10K
alt.sex 5K
news.announce 8K
news.groups 7K
comp.super.guru 20K
alt.guru.sources 10K
So, everyone gets what they pay for, and those groups in which a single news
article is 100K long (like alt.sex.xxx.pornography.pictures) just don't get
echoed unless the site has enough drooling adolescents to support them!
Simple? Yes.
Effective? I think so.
- kkrueg@ukulele.UUCP
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.sysadmin] College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <9204211407.AA16373@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 04:07:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
From: copeland@cookman.edu
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <279.29f32f2a@cookman.edu>
Date: 20 Apr 92 20:52:58 EST
We have recently had a couple of students posting hate newsitems
(real polemics). We feel that we can't just cut off the offenders without
getting into First Amendment issues that we would prefer to avoid. Yet
cutting off outgoing News for all our undergraduates seems a bad choice,
too. Surely postmasters at other colleges and universities have had
this problem. Please e-mail me any comments and suggestions on what
sort of policies are in effect at your institution, and I will summarize
to the net. Thanks.
Richard Copeland, Professor and Postmaster
Bethune-Cookman College
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr21.143819.2746@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 14:38:19 GMT
copeland@cookman.edu writes:
> We have recently had a couple of students posting hate newsitems
>(real polemics). We feel that we can't just cut off the offenders without
>getting into First Amendment issues that we would prefer to avoid.
[...]
You've already done one thing right. You've decide to deliberate
rather than act in haste.
If you were a public college, the First Amendment would outlaw
censorship even of hate speech. As a private college, you are not
legally bound to the First Amendment. You are, however, legally bound
to your Student Code; it is part of the legal contract between
students and the College. What does it say about free expression?
In my opinion, student articles published to the Net, should be
treated the same as student publications such as the school newspaper.
For most schools, this means that the student are free to write what
they wish *and* that they, not the school, are responsible for what
they write. (Schools may require a disclaimer to this effect on the
student publication.) At other schools, this means that both the
newspaper and Netnews are subject to censorship. For example,
Marquette University, a Jesuit University in Milwaukee, punished the
student editors of its paper for running an for a pro-choice ad. It
later expelled a student from the computer for writing an
offensive-to-many Netnews article.
Finally, remember that no matter what you decide, your students have a
moral (and perhaps legal) right to due process. This means that there
should be clear written rules; that before you punish students or
censor their publications, students should be given a chance to speak;
that if they request it, they should be given a formal hearing; and
that they be informed of the procedure to appeal.
I'm enclosing some FAQ's from the Computers and Academic Freedom
newsgroup/mailing list and info about the newsgroup
(alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk).
- Carl Kadie
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing ===============
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
a: Yes. Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a
university's mission. Most universities encourage and support student
expression and publication. Most universities also seem to give full
network access to all users, even students. (This conclusion is based
on an informal survey posted to comp.admin.policy in October, 1991.
[cafv01n33])
There is probably no need to create special rules for student computer
media; your university likely already has rules for student media.
(Look in your Student Code.) In the U.S., most student publications
are free of university screening, censorship, and most retaliation.
(For state universities, this is a legal requirement.) At the same
time, most universities disclaim responsibility for student
publications, even when the university "owns the presses."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
news/cafv01n33
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/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?
=================
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/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/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/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.]
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send caf-news cafv01n33
send caf-faq netnews.reading
send caf-faq media.control
send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send caf-law stanley-v-magrath
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law rust-v-sullivan
send caf-law perry-v-perry
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/news/cafv01n33
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/media.control
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment ==========
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?
No. The federal courts have said that harassing speech is different
from offensive speech. While face-to-face harassment can be
prohibited, mere offensive speech is protected by the principles of
academic freedom and, at state universities, by the Constitution.
The courts have also said that that it is unconstitutional at state
universities to base campus speech restrictions on EEOC rules. Here is
part of a decision:
==============Excerpt uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ==========
(3) PARALLEL TO TITLE VII LAW
The Board of Regents argues that this Court should find the UW Rule
constitutional because its prohibition of discriminatory speech which creates a
hostile environment has parallels in the employment setting. The Board notes
that, under Title VII, an employer has a duty to take appropriate corrective
action when it learns of pervasive illegal harassment. See Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986).
The Board correctly states Title VII law. However, its argument regarding
Title VII law has at least three difficulties. First, Title VII addresses
employment, not educational, settings. Second, even if Title VII governed
educational settings, the Meritor holding would not apply to this case. The
Meritor Court held that courts should look to agency principles when
determining whether an employer is to be held liable for its employee's
actions. See id. Since employees may act as their employer's agents, agency
law may hold an employer liable for its employees actions. In contrast, agency
theory would generally not hold a school liable for its students' actions since
students normally are not agents of the school. Finally, even if the legal
duties set forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW
Rule constitutional. Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot supersede
the requirements of the First Amendment.
============================
Private institutions are legally free to violate the standards set by
the Constitution and academic freedom. They should not, however, try
to justify their violations with appeals to government rules.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send caf-faq netnews.liability
send caf-faq netnews.reading
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability ===============
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the
University may *increase* its liability.
(Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)
According to the book _Law of the Student Press_ (in reference student
newspapers), "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)"
The recent _Cubby v. Compuserve_ decision also suggests that a
no-screening policy may be best. The judge wrote: "CompuServe has no
more editorial control over such a publication than does a public
library, bookstore or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for
CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially
defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do
so."
- Carl
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/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners
cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the
stories are false.
=================
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.
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
=================
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 cubby-v-compuserv
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-faq netnews.reading
send caf-faq netnews.writing
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/cubby-v-compuserv
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
=================== 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 -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <9204211523.AA16756@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 05:23:43 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.personals
From: luser@disk.uucp (luser)
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <1992Apr16.173745.16190@disk.uucp>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:37:45 GMT
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.
>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.
Hurm .... now I call forwarding ALL your email to someone w/o their
permission SLIGHTLY harassing. :-)
LUSER [Mike G]
--
| luser@disk.UUCP | Let your mind go |
| uunet!coplex.com!luser!mikeg | and your body will follow. |
| GEnie: LUSER | -- Steve Martin |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <9204211523.AA16765@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 05:23:55 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
From: saddler@bcstec.boeing.com (Ray Saddler [BCS] Unix Warlord)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <2287@bcstec.boeing.com>
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:02:13 GMT
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.
Uh, okay. Instead of punishing her with hate mail, perhaps we'll all
just mail to root@iitmax.iit.edu and/or postmaster@iitmax.iit.edu
Gee, or even look up in the Usenet Maps and find the admin's name and
enjoy making a call :^P
>
>--
>"Don't ever try to understand women, just love them!!"
And this is how you love them? This is love? Rob...rob...rob...
>Rob
>ee448rsw@iitmax.iit.edu
>x10019@gandalf.corp.mot.com
--
Ray E. Saddler III saddler@bcstec.boeing.com ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
BCS System/Network Admin ..!uunet!bcstec!saddler /__// //__ / /\ // _
P.O. Box 3999 M.S. 47-10 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= /__//__//__ _/_ / //__/
Seattle, WA. 98124 U.S.A +1 206 655 6954 Computer Services
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <9204211524.AA16774@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 05:24:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
From: bleys@tronsbox.UUCP (Bill Cavanaugh)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <3715@tronsbox.UUCP>
Date: 17 Apr 92 22:13:01 GMT
In article <1992Apr16.174345.14691@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
>He did, and complained that she was letter-bombing him (because she
>forwarded 20 letters of support within an hour that "flooded his mailbox".)
>
I'd hate to come down on the unpopular side of an issue like this, but
isn't 20 letters "within an hour" harrassment? If he hadn't logged on
for a day, would he have found 20 * 24 hours, or 480 letters? Or, to
be more reasonable, would he have found 200 letters? By responding in
kind, she trivialized his harrassment of her while giving him a loaded
gun.
--
* Bill Cavanaugh bleys@tronsbox.xei.com *
* *
"Right now time is having its way with you."
Van Halen
XY + XX = :-)
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.personals] Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <9204211525.AA16783@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 05:25:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
From: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (Kenneth Jamieson)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Message-ID: <3723@tronsbox.UUCP>
Date: 18 Apr 92 05:51:58 GMT
What follows is the text of a message I just mailed out......
******************************
To: root@iitmax.iit.edu
Subject: Re: MODERATOR PLEASE READ!!
Newsgroups: alt.personals
In-Reply-To: <1992Apr15.002623.4245@iitmax.iit.edu>
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
Cc: root@nature.berkeley.edu
Bcc: trish
(copy to the root admin on nature.berkely.edu)
In article <1992Apr15.002623.4245@iitmax.iit.edu> you write:
>Please read posting from epg@nature.berkeley.edu
>. I wish to file charges against her.
>
For what it is worth (as one admin to another), ee448rsw on
your machine has admitted on the net to harassing the user in question above.
His assertion that she was mis-using network bandwidth was
completely unfounded, she was using the appropriate group and was
doing quite a bit to liven the place up.
I do not know how many messages she may have forwarded to him,
but there was no malicious intent there. His assertion was that there
was no support for her on the net, she forwarded some email she did
NOT author to show that there was support. In fact, she took some
steps to help PREVENT any attack upon him by not revealing his
identity on the public forum.
>ee448rsw@iitmax.iit.edu
>
>P.S. At the moment all my mail is forwarded to her - please wait a day
>or so if you need to contact me.
This, however IS a malicious attack. There is a distinct
difference between forwarding selected email, and the wholesale
forwarding of an unknown amount of data in raw form.
If anyone needs some reminding of what the alt.* section of
the net IS (light-hearted) and ISN'T (a sandbox for anyone who likes to
play net.god) it is ee448rsw.
>"Don't ever try to understand women, just love them!!"
>Rob
>ee448rsw@iitmax.iit.edu
>x10019@gandalf.corp.mot.com
--
+--[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Lingerie, Consulting, RPG's and ANIME ]-+.sign
| Please send email for detailed product or catalogue information! |ature
| Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1 |Virus
|---NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by anybody!---|V3.2
| Original contents are Copyright (c)1992 |1992!
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Regulation of e-mail/bulletin boards
Message-ID: <1992Apr21.151543.22461@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 21 Apr 92 15:15:43 GMT
larry8@emx.utexas.edu (Larry ) writes:
>Does anyone know of any attempts to regulate/license users of
>electronic communication media. I am especially interested in
>attempts motivated by a desire to prevent criminal activity (e.g. fraud)
[...]
Well, the CS department at your university claims authority to
1) Ban any email or netnews that is demeaning, that "bring[s]
discreted to the University or Department", or that is patently
offensive.
2) Search user files to find evidence of banned email or netnews (or
for any other reason)
3) To expel users from the computer forever for banned expression.
User have no explicit right to a hearing, an appeal, or any due
process.
As far as I know, the department has not yet tried used the (in my
opinion, unconstitutional) authority it claims. However, I imagine
that the policy has a chilling effect on your classmates.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
policies/cs.utexas.edu
=================
Computer Use Policy of the Department of Computer Science at the
University of Texas.
(Critiqued)
=================
policies/cs.utexas.edu.critique
=================
Critique of Computer Use Policy of the Department of Computer Science
at the University of Texas
Summary: The policy is better than most but 1) due process procedures
should be detailed, 2) privacy should be better protected, and 3)
unconstitutional speech restrictions should not be imposed.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send other-comp-policies cs.utexas.edu
send other-comp-policies cs.utexas.edu.critique
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/policies/cs.utexas.edu
pub/academic/policies/cs.utexas.edu.critique
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
From: erh0362@tesla.njit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [oh.general, et al.] Re: Help stop the KKK
Message-ID: <1992Apr21.135435.1@tesla.njit.edu>
Date: 21 Apr 92 18:54:35 GMT
>|> > - On University of Cinncinati campus, we have started organizing a
>>|> > counter-demonstration. The general idea is for it to be
>>|> > confrontational but not violent.
>>|>
>>|> > - We hope to mass enough people to drown out any speeches, and
>>|> > defeat any recruiting efforts the Klan will make.
>>|>
>>|> "Hi there... we're a group of citizens who are concerned about the
>>|> Klan's negative attitudes towards the civil liberties of others, so
>>|> in order to protest against their attitudes we're going to try to
>>|> deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech."
>>|>
>>|> Bleah.
>>|>
>>|> -- William December Starr
> Shouting down tactics and "confrontational" goals are seemingly ever
> popular strategies in today's society when you disagree with another
> group's platform. For Queer Nation's shameless lambasting of priests
> during Catholic Mass to the shouting down tactics used by other groups
> to disallow political candidates to speak their minds, it seems to me,
> as noted by William Starr, that it reeks of hypocrisy.
>
> Let me be on record as being disgusted with the ignorant beliefs of the
> KKK, and I'm not voicing an attack on QN or any other group as well.
> I just hate to see well meaning people attemping (as is the current
> vogue) to destroy the 1st ammendment rights of whoever they happen
> to disagree with.
>
> After all, what happened to the philosophy of "I may disagree with your
> positions and beliefs, but I will fight to the death to preserve your
> right to express them"? Today it's more like "You offend me, so I'm going
> to prevent you from speaking, whether by legislation, litigation, or
> simple mob participation."
>
I believe in freedom of speech. That means, quite simply, freedom to
say anything in any public place (with the usual restrictions on yelling fire
in a crowded theater) AT ANY TIME, AT ANY VOLUME, AND NO MATTER WHO ELSE IS
ALREADY SPEAKING. That the KKK may be trying to say something at the same time
I am, in no way inhibits my right to free speech (or theirs). Free speech is
not polite. It is not nice. It is frequently rude, vicious, and nasty. That`s
what makes it so important.
Elliotte Rusty Harold Department of Applied Mathematics
elharo@m.njit.edu New Jersey Institute of Technology
erh0362@tesla.njit.edu Newark, NJ, 07103
> --------pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu----(614) 297-8474----------------
> Paul A. Prior Ban anchors, not reef tanks "With friends like this,
> 2nd year medical student who needs anemones?"
> The Ohio State U. College of Medicine Tobacco Kills- Please don't smoke!
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 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 02.15
Message-ID: <1992Apr21.225453.27417@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 22:54:53 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n15
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending March 29, 1992
[Issues #12, #13, and #14 are still in production.]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-3 are about removal of the alt.* newsgroups by the Computer
Resource Center at the University of Nebraska.
1. Lack of resources is a legitimate reason to remove (or not select)
a set of newsgroups. Disk drives aren't the only cost in providing
Netnews service. Other costs include staff and the computers
themselves.
<1992Mar24.91906.8818@ms.uky.edu>
2. "The issue is not really whether Nebraska doesn't have the
resources to carry the alt.groups. The issue, instead, is whether
they're using 'limited resources' as an excuse for not carrying
newsgroups they regard as controversial."
<1992Mar27.225144.29958@eff.org>
3. [A UNL alum:] "The reasons given for the decision are so
transparent as to be internationally embarrassing to the University."
"There may be newsgroups that you wish not to take. If that is the
case, be honest about it." "If you are in need of additional
resources, they should be requested [...]"
<1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
Notes 4-6 are about privacy in email and Netnews reading.
4. Here are the results of a poll of U. of Illinois sys admins about
email privacy. Opinions varied. One thinks that only a judge should be
able to authorized an email search. Another thinks that keyword
searches are OK without such authorization.
<1992Mar23.182015.18970@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
5. Here are the results of a similar poll of non-U. of Illinois sys
admins. One respondent says that searches for technical reasons are
not the same as searches to investigate wrong doing. One says that he
or she was once asked to search a users files, but flatly refused.
<1992Mar23.184747.13631@eff.org>
6. Sys admin have a legitimate need to look at users' .newsrc files
(the files that tell what newsgroups user's read). This information
helps sys admins configure the Netnews facilities. However,
"readership information for specific users should be kept
confidential."
<1992Mar25.101311.8450@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 7-9 are about the law and freedom of speech (and association).
7. At Auburn University in Alabama, the student government, the State
Attorney General, and the State Legislature are trying to remove
recognition of the Gay Lesbian Alliance, a student organization.
<1992Mar24.191617.13162@eff.org>
8. A student at the University of Southern California asks for help in
filing a 'hate speech' complaint against a fellow student. You have no
grounds for filing. "State universities have no authority (i.e. it is
illegal for them) to punish students for hate speech. The way to fight
such bad speech is with good speech." [Editor's note: USC is not a
state university.]
<1992Mar25.205435.31172@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
9. [A professor who studies sexual harassment:] "It sounds generally
right" that merely making offensive-to-some information available has
never been found to create an illegal hostile environment. "The
availability of all kinds of materials in libraries is completely
protected....now, that's a TRUE First Amendment issue!"
<1992Mar25.180208.4528@eff.org>
Notes 10-11 are about specific network and university polices.
10. [Gordon Cook:] The National Science Foundation should drop its
acceptable use policy because 1) Congress doesn't seem to want it 2)
it would allow commercial enterprises to offer more and better
services to research and education.
<9203232058.AA00975@tmn.com>
11. "This is a critique/review of the U. of Delaware computer policy
proposal." The policy is *very* polished. "I do have some concern
about punishment before 'conviction'" and "[t]he policy could be
improved by saying that nondisruptive, noncommercial "personal use" of
the computer [is] permitted and encouraged subject to whatever
limitations local sites may impose." [Editor's note: The policy draft
is available via anonymous ftp from zebra.cns.udel.edu as file
pub/udel.guidelines_draft. Or, for a possibly out of date version,
send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send other-comp-policies udel.edu
]
<1992Mar26.220927.5131@eff.org>
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, or Carl
M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses
and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr21.233717.16022@anomaly.sbs.com>
Date: 21 Apr 92 23:37:17 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>You are, however, legally bound
>to your Student Code; it is part of the legal contract between
>students and the College. What does it say about free expression?
Sigh. A college must not place any limits on free expression. That
does not mean the college has to provide a medium for that
expression.
[Usual 500+ line .signature deleted]
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan, KD1HZ /
-- Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!kd1hz / I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 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: <9204220250.AA19527@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 16:50:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 21 00:00:00 1992
From: tjw@vm2.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Message-ID: <1992Apr21.181651.1@vm2.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 21 Apr 92 23:16:51 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.
Do you suppose it would have made a difference that you were working at the
time? Would you still be in trouble if you were just another user of the
lab? Does "harrasment" extend to your personal time?
Terry
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr22.132941.4349@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 13:29:41 GMT
kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
[...]
>Sigh. A college must not place any limits on free expression. That
>does not mean the college has to provide a medium for that
>expression.
[...]
Do you mean that it is proper for a college to say "We will support a
student newspaper, a quad/square, email, and newsgroups, but only for
expression we find inoffensive?"
If so you are wrong.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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?
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-faq media.control
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/faq/media.control
pub/academic/student.freedoms
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 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: <9204221332.AA20802@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 03:32:48 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
From: lwl@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lydia Leong)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <75252@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 92 05:23:33 GMT
In article <8838.Apr2201.17.1092@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>One comment on rhosts: If B@YY sets up an rhosts entry for A@XX then
>B@YY is saying, in effect, ``Anyone with the right to use A@XX has the
>right to use B@YY.''
>
>In this situation some actual person (Joe Shmoe, say) has been granted
>access to both B@YY and A@XX. The administrator of XX also has access to
>A@XX, obviously. So by setting up an rhosts entry from one to the other,
>Joe is letting the administrator of XX use B@YY. If this use is against
>YY's policy then the rhosts entry should not be set up.
This conclusion isn't valid, because "having access to Z" is
different from "having the right to use Z".
Sure, my system administrator can su into my account and from there
rlogin to any of the places where I have .rhosts files, but he has
absolutely no right to do this, EVEN if I have flagrantly violated
the computing policy on his machine. If he believes I am a threat to
another machine, contacting the administrator of the other machine
is the appropriate way to handle things. A professional, IMHO, should
not be messing around in user's private files unless absolutely necessary,
and he certainly should not be in an account that he has not been invited
to use. (And it is against the policy of almost every machine to let
more than one user into an account).
Abusing a priviledged account in this way violates both the privacy
of the user and the security of the other system involved. The intent
of a .rhosts file is to let a specific person use that account.
Of course, one is inadvertently allowing priviledged accounts on
system XX to use system YY, but I should hope that one can safely
assume that this will not happen; for one system administrator to
violate the privacy and security of another system would be an
incredible breach of professional ethics.
I trust that the administrators of the systems I use do not read
private files without a very good reason, and I would hope that
no administrator would ever consider using a user's .rhosts file
to enter a system that they would otherwise not have access to.
Summary: the original poster's argument is invalid, because a
system administrator does not have a "right" to the accounts
of his users. Sorry for being long-winded.
-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Lydia Leong | C code. C code run. Run code run... please!
lwl@eniac.seas.upenn.edu | Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
lwl@imsasun.imsa.edu | "man reboot" (-n option): Avoids the sync(1). It
lwl@csa.bu.edu | can be used if a disk or the processor is on fire.
-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <9204221501.AA27724@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 07:01:24 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
>
>kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Sigh. A college must not place any limits on free expression. That
>>does not mean the college has to provide a medium for that
>>expression.
>[...]
>
>Do you mean that it is proper for a college to say "We will support a
>student newspaper, a quad/square, email, and newsgroups, but only for
>expression we find inoffensive?"
>
>If so you are wrong.
>
>- Carl
[...]
Carl, I think you're jumping to a conclusion here. Mr. Deignan said that free
expression should not be limited by universities. He said that this does not
mean that universities _must_ provide media for the expression. Clearly, if
the media are already in place, the expression emanating therefrom should be
unfettered. I don't see how you came to the conclusion you did, and I don't
see Mr. Deignan's comment as in any way leading to your conclusion.
In other words, Big U shouldn't censor the media that are currently in place;
but it is not required to provide such media where non exists.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 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: SWITCH quietly drops newsgroup restrictions
Message-ID: <1992Apr22.165322.8357@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 16:53:22 GMT
kadie writes:
>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>
An email correspondent in Switzerland writes: (posted anonymously with
the correspondent's permission)
"Not anymore. Thanks to public uproar, including postings from eff.org,
SWITCH now distributes any newsgroups they receive freely."
Apparently, SWITCH has not made an announcement of the change in
policy; they just changed.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
From: craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu (Craig Helmuth)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr22.161019.29211@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 92 16:10:19 GMT
In article <1992Apr21.233717.16022@anomaly.sbs.com> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com
(Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>You are, however, legally bound
>>to your Student Code; it is part of the legal contract between
>>students and the College. What does it say about free expression?
>
>Sigh. A college must not place any limits on free expression. That
>does not mean the college has to provide a medium for that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>expression.
^^^^^^^^^^
Nonsensical statement, imho, sheer doublespeak...thats like saying
"you are guaranteed free speech, but not a place to speak freely".
In a public forum (i.e. a "public" university) unless some clear guidelines
are met, speech should not be restricted. It seems to me we lack those
guidelines (in so far as I can see at least...), particularly as it relates
to electronics media. THAT sounds like an *interesting* task...
>
>[Usual 500+ line .signature deleted]
>
>MD
>
>--
>-- Michael P. Deignan, KD1HZ /
>-- Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com / I'm not a bigot,
>-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!kd1hz / I hate everyone.
>-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
>
Craig Helmuth, Network Manager | craig@fred.gi.alaska.edu
Geophysical Institute | fncah@alaska.bitnet
University of Alaska Fairbanks | "Its all FANTASY...until its HISTORY"
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: otto@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: [alt.personals] The Verdict (trial of little 'e')
Message-ID: <1992Apr22.122315.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 18:23:15 GMT
From: epg@nature.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: The Verdict (trial of little 'e')
Message-ID:
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:49:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.si8djINNs4m
Sender: epg@nature.berkeley.edu
Organization: U.C.B.
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu
CC: epg@nature
The verdict: My right to post will not be revoked. (Not that I had much
fear of that in the first place.) :-)
My systems administrator has fixed my mailer so that all letters from
the blue meanie will be automatically deleted. A certain official at
IIT has informed me that the blue meanie will keep his privildges.
Perhaps he will grace us with more posts. :-) I have sent no further
mail to this meanie, and do not intend to again as God is my
witness. (Yes, God has even written me a few letters) :-)
So I consider myself acquitted. Yippie! And since I got so many great
letters of support, I WILL keep posting. Thanks a bunch!
*Because I was endowed with a mind, heart and soul,
I enjoy everything in life.*
Just me,
little 'e'
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Policy archive at University of New Mexico
Message-ID: <199204221825.AA10087@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 10:25:44 GMT
Here is the readme file and listing of the files available via
anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory /ethics. (Also
ux.acs.umn.edu.)
================ 00.read.me ======================
Please understand that this directory is _still_ in
development. The INDEX was last updated by Dec. 22, 1991.
Please mail me contributions in any format that is handy
at the addresses below.
grish
Dave Grisham
Security Administrator, Phone (505) 277-8148
Computer & Information Resources & Technology Internet dave@unma.unm.EDU
Univ. of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 BITNET DAVE@UNMB
========================================
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 6032 Dec 23 13:17 00.INDEX
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 498 Dec 23 13:19 00.read.me
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 15060 May 31 1989 Acadia.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 2474 Aug 15 1989 BITNET.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4530 Aug 23 1989 Baylor.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 1963 May 31 1989 Bibliography
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4891 Aug 23 1989 BostonU.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 3832 May 31 1989 Canadian.criminal.code
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 8632 Mar 16 1990 ColgateU.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4946 May 14 1991 ColumbiaU.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4463 Jul 10 1989 DanWebster.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4535 May 14 1991 East.IllinoisU.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 7962 May 31 1989 JMadisonU.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 6483 Aug 15 1989 Kansas.State.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 6938 Dec 20 13:50 Marquette.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 7906 Jan 17 1990 Mich.TechU.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 12699 Mar 16 1990 MichStU.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 2119 Aug 22 1989 Minnesota.law.info
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4236 Mar 22 1990 NewCastleU.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 8138 Mar 16 1990 NewMexStU.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4807 Oct 21 1991 OregonState.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 3367 May 31 1989 Other.Info
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 10030 Jan 30 07:53 Purdue.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 5878 Oct 21 1991 RIACS.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4715 Nov 8 1990 RoseHulman.CS.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4883 Jun 5 1989 UMC.CS.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 2753 May 14 1991 UofArizona.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 1714 Aug 23 1989 UofIdaho.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 2509 Jan 17 1990 UofMissoriKC.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 7298 Aug 23 1989 UofMissouriC.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4080 Jan 17 1990 UofMissouriRolla.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4536 Apr 29 1991 UofNCarolina.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 10407 Dec 23 14:48 UofNewMexico.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 2697 May 31 1989 UofPitt.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 3425 May 31 1989 UofWales.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 4394 May 14 1991 UofWashington.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 8624 May 31 1989 WashU.Engr.policy
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 8498 Jun 5 1989 WestVir.law
-rw-r--r-- 1 dave 15 5908 Jun 1 1989 Wisconsin.law
-rw------- 1 dave 15 14402 May 14 1991 temp
-rw------- 1 dave 15 54226 May 14 1991 unfiled
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Marquette University's Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr22.183810.10419@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 18:38:10 GMT
[Marquette U. is a private religious University. - Carl]
======================================================
Marquette University Part I. General Computing Policy
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Part II. WiscNet/Internet Policy
December 17, 1991
I. Policy on Authorized Use of M.U. Public Computer Systems
The use of the facilities of Computer Services are available at no
direct charge to all faculty, registered students, and staff for University
research, educational purposes, and administrative work only. Persons using
computing resources for other than the above stated purposes, such as for
outside consulting, or for work for another institution, or person, must
apply for a funded/industrial access code, submit a purchase order, and
pay for resources at the current rate.
All computer clients must use computing equipment, software, and
network access in a manner consistent with appropriate University codes
of conduct and not prohibited by applicable statutes of the Wisconsin
Criminal Code. The unauthorized use of access codes or privileges
associated with an access code not assigned to a client, or the reading,
copying, altering or destroying of files or software for which the
client has not been given authorized access by the owner; the intentional,
or negligent altering or destroying of files or software provided by
Computer Services, or actions which interfere with computer access by
other clients is serious misuse of the system. STUDENTS, UNDERGRADUATE
OR GRADUATE, MAY NOT ALLOW ANYONE EXCEPT THE ENDORSER TO USE THE
COMPUTER SYSTEMS WITH THEIR ACCESS CODE.
All client user access code applications must be endorsed by a
member of the faculty or an administrator at the director or department
chairperson level, or an administrator designated by them. The person
endorsing a project is responsible for direct supervision of all work
associated with it. Any resource limit change must be requested by the
person who endorsed the project and will be implemented only with
the approval of the appropriate C.S.D. Manager. When the nature of a
renewable access code changes, such that a new endorser code will result,
or when an access code can be deleted before the standard expiration date,
C.S.D. should be informed in writing as soon as possible.
In the event that C.S.D. observes what we consider to be misuse of
the computer resources, we will contact the endorser or their supervisor
and recommend one or more of the following actions be taken:
o the project be more carefully supervised,
o the client be required to pay for computer resources,
o the offender be denied access to the system temporarily or
permanently,
o that appropriate University disciplinary action or civil action
be taken.
All other appropriate C.S.D. policies, including the use of valid
Marquette University identification in order to secure input/output, apply.
II. WiscNet/Internet - Policy
Policy Statements
WiscNet, like CSD and other computing support facilities has
formal usage policy statements. Such statements provide information on
the purpose of the network, what activities the network is designed to
support and general uses. Users are expected to both know the letter of
all applicable computing policy statements, as well as be able to
discern the spirit of such statements since a complete list of every
possible acceptable or unacceptable use would be impractical.
Please also refer to the MU mainframe usage policy which is printed
in Chapter 1 of the VAX User's Guide and on all access code application
forms.
Legal Issues
WiscNet and the Internet should never be used for purposes intended
to incite crime. For example, it is illegal to post a credit card number,
a telephone credit card number, or a computer password. In addition, the
networks cannot be used for personal profit. For example, do not use a
discussion list to advertise items for sale or to solicit business.
Copyright is also an important issue. When sharing programs
with others over the network, be sure the software is not
copyrighted or licensed, or if it is, be sure to secure permission of
the copyright holder.
Security and Privacy Issues
Never consider electronic communications either private or secure.
Remember that email messages can be saved indefinitely on the receiving
computer. Copies can easily be made and forwarded to others either
electronically or on paper. In addition, messages sent to nonexisting
or incorrect usernames are delivered to a person designated as Postmaster
for either the remote or local site.
WiscNet Acceptable Use Policy (June 15, 1990)
"The purpose of WiscNet is to advance education, research and
public service by assisting in the exchange of information among research
and educational institutions by means of high-speed data communication
techniques and to assist those institutions in gaining access to
scientific and educational resources. The network will support
collaborative instruction, research and public service; facilitate
access to regional, national and international networks and hence to
such resources as supercomputer centers; and generally support the
education and research mission of the members.
- Use which is consistent with the purposes of WiscNet is acceptable.
- Activities in direct support of acceptable use are also acceptable,
such as administrative communications, which support the infra-
structure needed for education and research.
- Use by for-profit organizations for collaborative activities with
education and research institutions is acceptable.
- Use for commercial and industrial activities is generally not
acceptable and may be permitted only when it can be justified under
items 1-3 above.
- Communications which violate Wisconsin, federal or international
laws are not acceptable.
- Activities designed to interfere with the ability of other users to
make effective use of the network are not acceptable."
The above statements of policy are not meant to be exhaustive.
The WiscNet Board of Directors is the final authority on questions of
acceptable use of the network. Until an issue is resolved, questionable
use should be considered "not acceptable."
WiscNet member organizations are responsible for seeing that
their communities are aware of this acceptable use policy, and that the
policy is followed in both letter and spirit.
Members are expected to take reasonable measures, given the
constraints of technology and management practices, to ensure that traffic
entering WiscNet from other networks conforms to this acceptable use policy.
Conversely, members are expected to take similar measures to avoid
situations where traffic from their organization violates the policies of
connecting networks which receive WiscNet traffic.
Submitted by: Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager
Computer Services Division
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 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: <9204221859.AA22483@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 08:59:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
From: rjq@phys.ksu.edu (Rob Quinn)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Date: 22 Apr 1992 17:25:46 GMT
Message-ID:
In <75252@netnews.upenn.edu> lwl@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lydia Leong) writes:
]I trust that the administrators of the systems I use do not read
]private files without a very good reason, and I would hope that
]no administrator would ever consider using a user's .rhosts file
]to enter a system that they would otherwise not have access to.
Do you trust the administrator to maintain enough security so
that no one else could read your files? Do you trust every single
one of them in your network of .rhosts files? And just because you
trust them, should your systems person trust them? By trusting them,
you are forcing every other user on your system to trust them.
]Summary: the original poster's argument is invalid, because a
]system administrator does not have a "right" to the accounts
]of his users. Sorry for being long-winded.
Who cares whether he has the right to or not. You have to assume the
worst. By trusting the other admin's, I could be putting the users who
trust in me in trouble.
--
Rob Quinn "Nothing is too good for a friend"
rjq@phys.ksu.edu
QuinnBob@KSUVM.BITNET
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mack23@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Chris Walsh)
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <1992Apr22.195810.17852@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 19:58:10 GMT
[ SysAdmin su's to JoeUser, rlogin's to OtherHost, rm's file on
OtherHost, since file (an executable) is prohibited on SysAdmin's
machine, although not on OtherHost]
I am a SysAdmin here. We run 15 Unix workstations, umpteen PCs, etc.
Our users often seek to have rlogin capability on hosts outside our subdomain,
and hence under other SysAdmins purview, so I can see how I might one day
want to be as reckless and stupid as the SysAdmin in this example.
If I *ever* impersonated another user solely to impose my impression of a desir-
able policy on a machine administered by someone else, I would expect to be
fired immediately. If I was not fired, I'd quit, because it'd prove my boss
didn't know his job. What such an action is:
1. violation of other SysAdmin's rights (you, in effect, impose your
view on her machine).
2. violation of user's rights.
What the SysAdmin should do is:
contact sysadmin at OtherHost and explain
why SysAdmin would like it if file were removed, citing security ramifications.
Explain to SysAdmin that rlogin connectivity might be a bad plan, if file is
permitted to exist on OtherHost nevertheless.
alternatively, the moron could just prevent JoeUser from starting up any
remote shells on SysAdmin's machine. It might take five minutes of thought,
but that's why this guy is getting paid!
This is an example of the most flagrant SysAdmin irresponsibility I have yet
to hear of.
Chris
P.S. The *only* exception I can think of is if the file SysAdmin sought to
remove had obvious and devastating security ramifications. Even in
this case, the ultimate decision should be made by the administrator
of OtherHost: call her in the middle of the night if it is so important.
If she refuses to rm it herself, disable all service connections to
OtherHost, do a full backup of all files, don asbestos underwear...
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: Marquette University's Policy
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 20:26:44 GMT
In <1992Apr22.183810.10419@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> WiscNet and the Internet should never be used for purposes intended
>to incite crime. For example, it is illegal to post a credit card number,
>a telephone credit card number, or a computer password. In addition, the
>networks cannot be used for personal profit. For example, do not use a
>discussion list to advertise items for sale or to solicit business.
I object to their use of the name Internet in describing policies which
apply only to certain portions of the network. There are parts of the
Internet where there are no or different usage policies from those noted
above (e.g. PSInet, Alternet, CERFnet, and many others). They should
specificly note which networks restrict such use, and that because all
of their traffic (presumably) goes out through WiscNet, that all traffic
has to at least comply to their usage policy. In addition, their example
is more encompassing in restriction than the restrictions of the networks
which do have usage restrictions. For example, posting a for sale ad
on misc.forsale.computers for an old hard drive would widely be held to
be acceptable. Soliciting business, and other commercial activities are
prohibited by such networks, generally.
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | "when you gonna make up your mind?
(805) 893-4113 | when you gonna love you as much
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | as i do?" -Tori Amos
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 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: <9204222155.AA23511@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 11:55:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 22 00:00:00 1992
From: bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Message-ID: <1992Apr22.182626.23764@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 92 18:26:26 GMT
In article rjq@phys.ksu.edu (Rob Quinn) writes:
>In <75252@netnews.upenn.edu> lwl@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lydia Leong) writes:
>]Summary: the original poster's argument is invalid, because a
>]system administrator does not have a "right" to the accounts
>]of his users. Sorry for being long-winded.
>
> Who cares whether he has the right to or not. You have to assume the
>worst. By trusting the other admin's, I could be putting the users who
>trust in me in trouble.
Those users are already "in trouble" from the moment that they
allowed telnetd or rlogind to run on their system and allow remote
connections from outside their physical sphere of control. Taking advantage
of someones .rhosts file is the most trivial way that a rogue system
administrator could break into your account on another system.
Replacing the local telnet/rlogin binaries and adding logging
capabilities to save your passwords wouldn't be too hard since the sources
for these programs are widely available. Next up the level of difficulty
would be putting the network interface on some machine on your local
ethernet into promiscious mode and gathering the first few hundred bytes of
data that gets sent to the telnetd/rlogind port for each new connection.
This would allow wholesale gathering of account information for machines the
rogue SA has no access to at all.
If you are really concerned about security, you shouldn't allow
network logins. If that is unacceptable, then you do what you can and put in
place policies on what is considered improper behavior. The activities of
both regular users and system administrators can and should covered in these
policies. Inter-organizational policies also need to be developed as well.
Typically, that would mean that SAs should not take advantage of privileges
that they might have on systems which they control to subvert the security
(however lax) of systems which they do not control.
Bill Bogstad
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Telnet access to University Press Catalog
Message-ID: <199204231530.AA25974@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 07:30:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.cwis-l
From: jensen@UNLINFO.UNL.EDU (michael jensen)
Subject: Telnet access to University Press Catalog
Message-ID: <199204230250.AA18037@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 23:38:40 GMT
Judy Hallman, who generates the CWIS listings at UNC, suggested
that I post a message on this list. Stepping this perilously
close to advertising on a list makes me nervous, but we'd also
like feedback, and need to get the word out to scholars and
interested parties that:
The University of Nebraska Press recently unveiled a telnet-
accessible online catalog of our over 1700 books. More than
1100 titles have descriptive blurbs attached to them.
Full-text searches of either author/title or descriptive
blurbs are possible in this system.
telnet crcvms.unl.edu
login info
go to (7), University Press
Follow the screens from there.
This resource is quite new, and so we'd like whatever
feedback we can get from our users.
Please send comments and/or complaints to:
Michael Jensen
jensen@unlinfo.unl.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Telnet access to University Press Catalog
Message-ID: <199204231531.AA26032@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 07:31:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.cwis-l
From: GATEH@CONNCOLL.bitnet
Subject: Re: Telnet access to University Press Catalog
Message-ID: <199204231353.AA24168@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 13:12:52 GMT
> The University of Nebraska Press recently unveiled a telnet-
> accessible online catalog of our over 1700 books. More than
> 1100 titles have descriptive blurbs attached to them.
> Full-text searches of either author/title or descriptive
> blurbs are possible in this system.
Geez, this one has me a little confused, as far as the NSF acceptable
use policy goes. Looking at the policy:
> /nsfnet/acceptable.use.policies/nsfnet.txt February 1992
>
> THE NSFNET BACKBONE SERVICES ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
>
> GENERAL PRINCIPLE:
>
> (1) NSFNET Backbone services are provided to support open research and
> education in and among US research and instructional institutions,
> plus research arms of for-profit firms when engaged in open
> scholarly communication and research. Use for other purposes is
> not acceptable.
Well, UNP isn't really a research arm of a for-profit firm, it's
more a for-profit arm of a research firm ;-). Does this still count?
> SPECIFICALLY ACCEPTABLE USES:
>
> (8) Any traffic originating from a network of another member agency of
> the Federal Networking Council if the traffic meets the acceptable
> use policy of that agency.
This bit confuses me as well, as it appears to say that commercial
traffic is okay on the NSF backbone, just so long as it originated
on a regional net (where commercial traffic may be acceptable, as I
understand it).
> UNACCEPTABLE USES:
>
> (10) Use for for-profit activities (consulting for pay, sales or
> administration of campus stores, sale of tickets to sports events,
> and so on) or use by for-profit institutions unless covered by the
> General Principle or as a specifically acceptable use.
>
> (11) Extensive use for private or personal business.
Clearly the UNP is a for-profit activity, but it may be covered
under the General Principle, so it's still not clear. I suppose if
I had to guess, I would say that it probably is covered under the
GP, as a for-profit contributing to research (I assume that the
service is indeed acceptable, since it is now available).
The one that still has me wondering, tho, is specific use #8...
- Gregg
Gregg TeHennepe | Academic Computing | Internet: gateh@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu
SysAdm | Connecticut College | BITNET/CREN: gateh@conncoll
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Telnet access to University Press Catalog
Message-ID: <199204231552.AA26493@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 07:52:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.cwis-l
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Telnet access to University Press Catalog
Message-ID: <199204231535.AA26169@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 15:30:23 GMT
GATEH@CONNCOLL.bitnet writes:
>> The University of Nebraska Press recently unveiled a telnet-
>> accessible online catalog of our over 1700 books. More than
>> 1100 titles have descriptive blurbs attached to them.
>> Full-text searches of either author/title or descriptive
>> blurbs are possible in this system.
>Geez, this one has me a little confused, as far as the NSF acceptable
>use policy goes. Looking at the policy:
[...]
The NSF AUP applies to the people who telnet via NSFnet to the
University of Nebraska Press server. It does not (should not) apply to
the Press which initiates no telnets itself.
And what if no legitimate user of NSFnet has a legitimate use of the
Press server? Should the Press server close down? I don't think so,
because the server is likely available via another networks with AUP's
different from that of NSFnet.
Just as with interlibrary loan systems, it should be the requester,
not the provider, who is responsible for policy enforcement. To have
it otherwise, gives every link and node in the network authority to
veto any service.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
From: jarvis@psych.toronto.edu (Brian Jarvis)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr23.150725.1232@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: 23 Apr 92 15:07:25 GMT
In article <1992Apr22.132941.4349@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>
>>Sigh. A college must not place any limits on free expression. That
>>does not mean the college has to provide a medium for that
>>expression.
>
>Do you mean that it is proper for a college to say "We will support a
>student newspaper, a quad/square, email, and newsgroups, but only for
>expression we find inoffensive?"
>
>If so you are wrong.
Read again. That's not what he said.
Brian
--
Brian A. Jarvis, Rm. 4026, Sidney Smith Hall, Dept. of Psychology,
jarvis@psych.toronto.edu University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
System Administrator M5S 1A1 (416) 978-3948
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr23.175248.28395@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 17:52:48 GMT
Here is the whole thread of conversation:
copeland@cookman.edu writes:
>We have recently had a couple of students posting hate newsitems
>(real polemics). We feel that we can't just cut off the offenders without
>getting into First Amendment issues that we would prefer to avoid. Yet
>cutting off outgoing News for all our undergraduates seems a bad choice,
>too. Surely postmasters at other colleges and universities have had
>this problem. Please e-mail me any comments and suggestions on what
>sort of policies are in effect at your institution, and I will summarize
>to the net.
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>You are, however, legally bound
>to your Student Code; it is part of the legal contract between
>students and the College. What does it say about free expression?
kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Sigh. A college must not place any limits on free expression. That
>does not mean the college has to provide a medium for that
>expression.
In article <1992Apr22.132941.4349@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
>Do you mean that it is proper for a college to say "We will support a
>student newspaper, a quad/square, email, and newsgroups, but only for
>expression we find inoffensive?"
>If so you are wrong.
jarvis@psych.toronto.edu (Brian Jarvis) writes:
>Read again. That's not what he said.
The only alternative interpretation that I see is that Mr. Deignan was
saying that one way to stop student hate speech in university-owned
media is to stop student speech in university-owned media. If so, this
was a nonsequitur. Also, I don't think that this is the kind of policy
help that the original poster was looking for.
Back to my original point. The Student Code for many (most?)
universities prohibits censorship even in univeristy-owned media. I'm
enclosing excerpts from the student code of my school and references
to law. (These are applicable to state universities.)
- Carl
========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/uiuc.code.excerpts ============
Here are some excerpts from the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign's Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations
Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
"STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
I. Preamble
A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus
is a member of the University community of which all members have at
least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from
institutional censorship;"
...
"III. Campus Expression
A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the
University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order.
[...]
B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite
and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable
requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities.
C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors
and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student,
faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial
policy or content."
...
...
"VI. Student Affairs
[...]
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. [...]
2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their
own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should
not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers
does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed
either by the sponsoring group or the institution."
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing ===============
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
a: Yes. Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a
university's mission. Most universities encourage and support student
expression and publication. Most universities also seem to give full
network access to all users, even students. (This conclusion is based
on an informal survey posted to comp.admin.policy in October, 1991.
[cafv01n33])
There is probably no need to create special rules for student computer
media; your university likely already has rules for student media.
(Look in your Student Code.) In the U.S., most student publications
are free of university screening, censorship, and most retaliation.
(For state universities, this is a legal requirement.) At the same
time, most universities disclaim responsibility for student
publications, even when the university "owns the presses."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
news/cafv01n33
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/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?
=================
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/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/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/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.]
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send caf-news cafv01n33
send caf-faq netnews.reading
send caf-faq media.control
send caf-law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send caf-law stanley-v-magrath
send caf-law student-publications.misc
send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send caf-law rust-v-sullivan
send caf-law perry-v-perry
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/news/cafv01n33
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/media.control
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
From: billp@pcsbst.pcs.com (Bill Potter)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr23.153142.8735@pcsbst.pcs.com>
Date: 23 Apr 92 18:40:16 GMT
In article <1992Apr21.143819.2746@m.cs.uiuc.edu>,
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> copeland@cookman.edu writes:
>
> > We have recently had a couple of students posting hate newsitems
> >(real polemics). We feel that we can't just cut off the offenders without
> >getting into First Amendment issues that we would prefer to avoid.
> [...]
>
> You've already done one thing right. You've decide to deliberate
> rather than act in haste.
>
> If you were a public college, the First Amendment would outlaw
> censorship even of hate speech. As a private college, you are not
> legally bound to the First Amendment. You are, however, legally bound
> to your Student Code; it is part of the legal contract between
> students and the College. What does it say about free expression?
<...>
> Finally, remember that no matter what you decide, your students have a
> moral (and perhaps legal) right to due process. This means that there
> should be clear written rules; that before you punish students or
> censor their publications, students should be given a chance to speak;
> that if they request it, they should be given a formal hearing; and
> that they be informed of the procedure to appeal.
Noting that the original post and all the follow-up that I've seen
to date have "world" distribution, I'm concerned that the discussion
seems to be centering around the 1st Amendment to the US constitution.
Now whereas the 1st Amendment may give people the right to make various
types of statements within the US, it give no such right once outside
the borders of the US.
Examples - "The Auschwitz Lie" and postings of that ilk are almost
certainly illegal in Israel and many European countries.
- openly racist statements may well be offences against the
British Race Relations legislation.
- A "sendsys bomb" if targeted against a site in Germany
would almost certainly be a threatening behaviour offence.
I don't want to get into a debate about whether it's better to have a
First Amendment or not, or the validity of any of the laws given in my
examples. I just want to point out that other countries have other
habits or customs and it might be appropriate for institutions in
the US to restrict distribution of certain postings to the US.
=============================================================================
Bill Potter : unido!pcsbst!billp : croft - n. - a piece of land
PCS GmbH : billp@pcsbst.pcs.com : in the Highlands surrounded
D8000 Muenchen : You can't sink a RAINBOW : completely by regulations.
=============================================================================
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr23.204613.1594@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 20:46:13 GMT
billp@pcsbst.pcs.com (Bill Potter) writes:
[...]
>Noting that the original post and all the follow-up that I've seen
>to date have "world" distribution, I'm concerned that the discussion
>seems to be centering around the 1st Amendment to the US constitution.
>Now whereas the 1st Amendment may give people the right to make various
>types of statements within the US, it give no such right once outside
>the borders of the US.
[...]
Indeed, the 1st Amendment does not *give* rights in the U.S. It merely
guarantees that the U.S. government will not infringe on (what, in the
opinion of many, is) a pre-existing right. In fact, since the original
poster is at a private school in the U.S., the 1st Amendment has no
legal authority on his campus.
>First Amendment or not, or the validity of any of the laws given in my
>examples. I just want to point out that other countries have other
>habits or customs and it might be appropriate for institutions in
>the US to restrict distribution of certain postings to the US.
[...]
Most of the postings in this tread have been about moral rights (i.e.
freedom of expression as part of academic freedom), not legal rights.
I doubt if anyone outside the U.S. was misled in to thinking that the
U.S. 1st Amendement protects their freedom of expression. The
academic freedom and freedom of expression are not U.S. concepts. The
U.S. concept of academic freedom (especially for students) comes from
Germany. The right of freedom of expression is recognized in the U.N.
charter (although not in as strong of form as in the U.S. Bill of
Rights.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: More songs about buildings and ftp.uu.net
Message-ID: <9204232342.AA28322@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 13:42:15 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: More songs about buildings and ftp.uu.net
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 21:43:10 GMT
I thought I would add to this thread from the perspective of someone
who operates an ftp archive. The logging here has been going on for
a few months now. Initially, this was done without notice. The
main README file had info about upload policies, but there was no
pointer for new users to read this.
The logging was done in response to a number of people abusing their
priveleges by uploading their personal files to distribute to friends
or to bypass their local quotas temporarily. And some people were
uploading X-rated image files. As anyone who reads the pictures
groups knows, I have nothing against x-rated image files. However,
various local and network policies prohibit their distribution through
public ftp archives. I would be held personally responsible for any
such files found on my site.
Not long after logging was started, someone uploaded about 10 x-rated
image files to the main incoming directory. Because of the surprising
response from the remote site, I started a dialouge on the matter in
the pictures discussion groups on the matter about what should be done.
As a result of this discussion, it was decided that a notice of the
logging should be posted immediately at login, and also an explanation
of the upload restrictions. A number of other sites now post such
notices also. Note that many sites still do logging, but do not post
a notice about it. The logging is nothing new, just the notices are.
My notice reads:
============================================================
NOTICE: All transactions are logged. If you don't like
this, disconnect now. All the public files are kept in the
directory /pub and below. Do not upload anything which
could get me in trouble. This includes illegally copied
software, x-rated image or text files, etc. If you do not
obey this warning, your actions will be reported.
============================================================
The physical disk for the ftp area is on ferkel.ucsb.edu.
It would likely be faster and more reliable to use ferkel
instead of piggy, oinker, or cavevax. (The systems are all
logically equivalent though.)
============================================================
If you see something strange happening (permission denied
on files, etc.), drop me email at jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu.
============================================================
If your ftp client doesn't seem to be working correctly, try
logging in with '-' as the first character in your password.
If users login with '-' as the first character in the password,
they receive the message:
230 Guest login ok, read /README before using system.
because '-' disables multi-line messages which confuse older
ftp clients.
In a later discussion in another group (I don't remember which), several
people argued that the login name of 'anonymous' implied that no logging
would take place. As a result of this, my initial action was to remove
the login 'anonymous' as a ftp login, using 'ftp' and 'guest' instead.
This ended up screwing up mirror programs, archie, and the like, so I
changed things to send the message:
331 Guest login ok, 'anonymous' login doesn't mean you won't be logged.
if a user logs in as 'anonymous'.
I feel that such notices are the only effective ways to prevent misuse
of my server. Logging is the only effective way to detect misuse
quickly and easily. It is not meant to be used in a 'Big-Brother'
manner. I receive the ftp logs in mail every morning from the
previous day, and do a quick grep on it to see if anything happened.
If nothing suspicious is noted, its deleted.
In other discussions, I likened this logging to having a security camera
in a store. The potential for abuse is there in each case, but security
cameras are accepted to help prevent crime. The logs should be accepted
by users to prevent misuse. If misuse could not be controlled because
of the lack of logs, it would be possible for some ftp archives to be
closed down completely. Like store cameras, most stores have cameras
recording your actions without you knowing it, and many ftp sites log
you without you knowing about it.
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | "when you gonna make up your mind?
(805) 893-4113 | when you gonna love you as much
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | as i do?" -Tori Amos
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <1992Apr23.235407.3663@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 23 Apr 92 23:54:07 GMT
Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroups clari.tw.education,
clari.news.law.profession, and clari.news.group.women. For more info
on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (UPI) -- The Harvard Law Revue parody of a slain
female professor has divided the faculty at the prestigious school,
embroiled in continuing controversies over alleged racism and sexism in
hiring practices.
One law professor, David Kennedy, said charges should be brought
against the students who spoofed an article written by slain New England
School of Law Professor Mary Joe Frug.
Kennedy said charges should also be brought against the outgoing
editors of the Revue, who he claimed were ``responsible for maintaining
a working and academic environment hostile to women.''
Three other law professors, including Alan Dershowitz, contend that
the parody's authors should not be punished because their freedom of
speech is protected by the First Amendment.
In a statement Wednesday to the school's disciplinary board, they
asked that Kennedy's motion be dismissed because of the authors' rights
to free speech.
In the two-page memo, Dershowitz, Charles Fried and Charles Nesson
said that although the parody ``failed to show respect for the dignity
of others,'' that ``failing cannot ... be the occasion for disciplining
the authors of a printed text such as the ... parody.''
Dershowitz, a constitutional law expert, said, ``my hope is not only
that they dismiss it, but that they reprimand the professor who filed
it.''
``I think many of the Harvard faculty are behaving not as judges but
as victims,'' he added.
Kennedy said ``certainly there must be some level of misbehavior by
students that is sufficiently either cruel or contemptible to raise
questions about our certification of the individuals involved as members
of the bar.''
According to Kennedy, sexism at the Revue was apparent before the
parody was written and has worsened since.
Kennedy said the parody was a kind of sexual harassment against
women.
The disciplinary board did not respond Wednesday to either request
and gave no indication when it would, said Harvard Law spokesman Michael
Chmura.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: More songs about buildings and ftp.uu.net
Message-ID: <9204240038.AA28462@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 14:38:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 19:43:48 -0400
From: "Jane F. Kinkus"
Subject: Re: More songs about buildings and ftp.uu.net
>I'm scared to imagine what it is exactly their logging, and that if we "don't
>like [it], disconnect now!". I guess we should be glad that we were even told
>But now that I think of it, if I have nothing to hide, then, well, who cares
>who's keeping logs on me, I have nothing to hide.
I think the reason that having some person/organization keep some kind
of tabs on us makes us uneasy, even when we have nothing to hide, is
that it is so easy for someone to take a little information and draw all
sorts of conclusions about us, including inaccurate and even false ones.
this has probably happened many times to each of us, and not even by
big brother, but by people we know, like family, friends, and
acquaintances.
So take heart,just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean that
you shouldn't be paranoid! :^)
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 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 02.16
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.025527.7500@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 02:55:27 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n16
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending April 5, 1992
[This week's guest editor is Mark Sheehan, sheehan@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu.
Issues #12, #13, & #14 are still in production.
At Mark's suggestion, I've added a bibliography on database security
to the CAF archive. It was compiled by G. Pernul and G. Luef. To
get this document by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line:
send caf-books pernul,_g
- Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is a policy docoument from North Dakota State University:
1. [NDSU POLICY ON MISUSE OF COMPUTER FACILITIES] Responsible computer
use means files, passwords, and output are private; no offensive
material shall be entered or sent; no unauthorized copies shall be
made; no unauthorized commercial use shall be made; violators shall
be disciplined.
<199204012129.AA24760@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
2-5 continue the story about removal of alt.* news groups by
the Computer Resource Center at the University of Nebraska
2. Justifying the U of Nebraska's removal of alt.* groups on the basis
of economics may be a masquerade for censorship. Students would
probably be willing to pay for alt.* access. Another poster's
accusation that tuition-paying students are freeloading is ironic.
3. Universities can make their own decisions about what network
expenditures are reasonable for their circumstances. They step out of
line, however, if they or their policies infringe on individuals' or
groups' rights to participate in legal network activities _at their
own expense_. Individuals have many options, though campuswide news
service is probably beyond the means of most.
<1992Apr3.013330.23763@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
4. It's reasonable to cut all alt groups, or any other whole branch of
the news group hierarchy for reasons of economics. "It's what the
hierarchies are *there* for...." If individual groups are cut because
of objectionable content, that's censorship. If all of a branch is cut
because of a few offensive groups, there's also a problem.
<1992Mar31.221948.9349@clarinet.com>
5. The group, Nebraska University Students for Electronic Freedom,
promotes academic freedom, works to protect privacy, acts as "watch
dog" group for university administration, educates the user community,
and strives to broaden access to electronic communication systems.
<1992Apr1.192701.28737@eff.org>
Notes 6-8 discuss e-mail privacy concerns about postmasters
interfering and about users reposting others' mail.
6. The law says providers of electronic communications service can
look at mail if necessary, but must keep it confidential in most
cases. It allows providers to divulge evidence of illegal activity
to proper authorities. Codes of ethics should have the same basis,
but may further limit postmasters' rights to view others' mail.
"Users should...have the right to understand the privacy
limitations of their system, even if some of them don't agree with
those limitations."
<1992Mar31.000038.4435@rice.edu>
7. The postmaster should have the right to view the body of any
message, but should not necessarily have a right to an understanding of
its meaning. Thus encryption is OK. One reason postmasters need to see
message bodies is because that's where some mail systems store the
headers the postmaster needs to return misaddressed messages.
8. Contrary to what one poster asserts, it's not illegal in your
own e-mail to quote from a message sent you by another user. On the
other hand, in extreme cases, it may be a civil wrong -- a tort.
While the original sender may have a common law copyright to the
exact word of her/his message, it is, at least in the case in
question, "fair use" of that material to resend it.
<303@gls47212.law.cwru.edu>
Note 9 helps resolve some concerns about harassment of a presumably
innocent bystander following the recent virus ruckus at Cornell.
9. Stuart Lynn of Cornell Communications and Information
Technologies (CIT) wrote this poster to explain the facts behind a
scary news item in a Cornell-area paper. CIT was not flexing its
muscle, Lynn says, and warning users that it could make their e-mail
public if it wished. However, "Cornell's counsel does not feel that the
ECPA of 1986 applies to it because it is not providing e-mail services
'to the public.' Only to the members of the Cornell Community."
<1992Apr1.025240.17959@cs.cornell.edu>
Notes 10-11 continue the criticism of Iowa State University's
ethics statement and netnews policy.
10. "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.)"
<1992Apr2.174625.23219@eff.org>
11. The Iowa State policy is more enlightened than the University
of Nebraska - Lincoln policy. Users should have little concern
about lists being kept of individuals who have requested access to
restricted news groups. Similar lists kept by libraries, video
stores, etc. exist and their misuse has not chilled their commerce.
The ISU policy recognizes the impossibility of policing postings to
news groups.
<1992Apr4.050354.13778@tssi.com>
Note 12 is about the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom.
12. "One place good place to report censorship incidents is the
Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom. Reports here may help increase
awareness of, for example, computer-media censorship. The
Newsletter only prints reports that are documented with newspaper
articles."
<1992Mar31.152657.1753@eff.org>
- Mark]
--- 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 =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.032115.8031@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 03:21:15 GMT
>Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
>Electronic Newspaper newsgroups clari.tw.education,
>clari.news.law.profession, and clari.news.group.women. For more info
>on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
> CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (UPI) -- The Harvard Law Revue parody of a slain
>female professor has divided the faculty at the prestigious school,
>embroiled in continuing controversies over alleged racism and sexism in
>hiring practices.
[...]
> The disciplinary board did not respond Wednesday to either request
>and gave no indication when it would, said Harvard Law spokesman Michael
>Chmura.
Here is some background information.
Harvard is, of course, a private University.
Alan Dershowitz, one of the law professors who expressed support for
the student's freedom of expression, is probably the best known civil
liberties lawyer in the U.S.
Page 12 of the 1992 _America's Best Colleges_ by U.S. News and World
Reports says "Acknowledging the remarkable vitality of grass-roots
publishing at the school [Harvard, the school they rated #1 -cmk],
officials have set up a new center for publications. It offers
offices, computers, phones and production equipment to any student
publication that reserver space. Among the new campus publications:
'The Rag,' a feminist newsletter, and 'Tablu Rasa,' a magazine
offering a 'multi-opinional forum.'"
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.035254.4383@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 03:52:54 GMT
In article <1992Apr24.032115.8031@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
>>Electronic Newspaper newsgroups clari.tw.education,
>>clari.news.law.profession, and clari.news.group.women. For more info
>>on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
>
>> CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (UPI) -- The Harvard Law Revue parody of a slain
>>female professor has divided the faculty at the prestigious school,
>>embroiled in continuing controversies over alleged racism and sexism in
>>hiring practices.
>[...]
>> The disciplinary board did not respond Wednesday to either request
>>and gave no indication when it would, said Harvard Law spokesman Michael
>>Chmura.
>
>Here is some background information.
>
>Harvard is, of course, a private University.
>
>Alan Dershowitz, one of the law professors who expressed support for
>the student's freedom of expression, is probably the best known civil
>liberties lawyer in the U.S.
>
>Page 12 of the 1992 _America's Best Colleges_ by U.S. News and World
>Reports says "Acknowledging the remarkable vitality of grass-roots
>publishing at the school [Harvard, the school they rated #1 -cmk],
Harvard was not rated #1. Yale Law was, three years running. Harvard
Law was fourth two years ago, and second the last two years after
extensive alumni complaints to USNWR.
>officials have set up a new center for publications. It offers
>offices, computers, phones and production equipment to any student
>publication that reserver space. Among the new campus publications:
>'The Rag,' a feminist newsletter, and 'Tablu Rasa,' a magazine
>offering a 'multi-opinional forum.'"
Neither of these are law reviews.
--
Ted Frank + "She says, 'For $1,000 I would have taken off my panty
1307 E 60 St, #109 + hose." -- Punchline to joke Walter Cronkite told.
U o' C Law Skool + "Don't be a doctor. You can't even hold your fork
Chi, IL 60637 + right." -- Richard Epstein's mother
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.081031.21711@clarinet.com>
Date: 24 Apr 92 08:10:31 GMT
There are many interpretations of this issue.
For example, somewhere in Kansas, I think, was a cable company that had a
public access channel. The KKK produce a show and, as per the rules, they
got to show it on the public access channel.
As expected, there were calls to ban it. But the laws were clear that you
couldn't deny access to a particular group for their unpopular political
views.
So they took a drastic step -- they decided to cancel the whole public
access channel. It was better to have no channel than one with the KKK,
they said.
The courts responded in an equally dramatic way. They forced them to
reinstate the channel. Since it was clear why they got rid of the
channel, it was, in intent, no different from banning the particular
program.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <9204241140.AA22862@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 03:40:35 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
>
>In article <1992Apr24.032115.8031@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>>Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
>>>Electronic Newspaper newsgroups clari.tw.education,
>>>clari.news.law.profession, and clari.news.group.women. For more info
>>>on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
>>
[...]
>>
>>Here is some background information.
[...]
>>
[talking about Harvard:]
>
>>officials have set up a new center for publications. It offers
>>offices, computers, phones and production equipment to any student
>>publication that reserver space. Among the new campus publications:
>>'The Rag,' a feminist newsletter, and 'Tablu Rasa,' a magazine
>>offering a 'multi-opinional forum.'"
[Ted Frank writes:]
>
>Neither of these are law reviews.
No, they aren't. But the fact the Harvard has provided the equipment and
space for any student publication seems to indicate that it has made a
commitment to freedom of expression. Apparantly the parody in question was
printed in a law review; if it's a parody, and clearly not a serious
note or article, then what is the harm? As I recall, Jerry Falwell
unsuccessfully tried to sue _Hustler_ for running an insulting cartoon that
was clearly parody. He lost. This seems like a similar situation.
Bob
Bob Solon, DSAC-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
From: jester@crash.cts.com (Ken Bibb)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.062330.381@crash.cts.com>
Date: 24 Apr 92 06:23:30 GMT
In <1992Apr23.204613.1594@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>billp@pcsbst.pcs.com (Bill Potter) writes:
>[...]
>>Noting that the original post and all the follow-up that I've seen
>>to date have "world" distribution, I'm concerned that the discussion
>>seems to be centering around the 1st Amendment to the US constitution.
>>Now whereas the 1st Amendment may give people the right to make various
>>types of statements within the US, it give no such right once outside
>>the borders of the US.
>[...]
>Indeed, the 1st Amendment does not *give* rights in the U.S. It merely
>guarantees that the U.S. government will not infringe on (what, in the
>opinion of many, is) a pre-existing right. In fact, since the original
>poster is at a private school in the U.S., the 1st Amendment has no
>legal authority on his campus.
>>First Amendment or not, or the validity of any of the laws given in my
>>examples. I just want to point out that other countries have other
>>habits or customs and it might be appropriate for institutions in
>>the US to restrict distribution of certain postings to the US.
>[...]
>Most of the postings in this tread have been about moral rights (i.e.
>freedom of expression as part of academic freedom), not legal rights.
>I doubt if anyone outside the U.S. was misled in to thinking that the
>U.S. 1st Amendement protects their freedom of expression. The
I think Bill meant that posting hatespeak posts with a world distribution
*may* be a criminal act if those posts are being propagated into countries
whose laws are different from our own.
Since I know almost *nothing* about law (especially international law),
would this be a criminal act? The distribution of an article is under
the control of the poster, so it could be argued that sending the post to
that country was a voluntary act...
--
jester@crash.cts.com
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.124834.12644@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 12:48:34 GMT
In article <1992Apr24.032115.8031@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
>Page 12 of the 1992 _America's Best Colleges_ by U.S. News and World
>Reports says "Acknowledging the remarkable vitality of grass-roots
>publishing at the school [Harvard, the school they rated #1 -cmk],
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
[...]
>Harvard was not rated #1. Yale Law was, three years running. Harvard
>Law was fourth two years ago, and second the last two years after
>extensive alumni complaints to USNWR.
[...]
You are perhaps thinking of the Harvard Law School? In any case,
Harvard University *is* ranked #1 in the 1992 _America's Best
Colleges_ by U.S. News and World Reports.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: More songs about buildings and ftp.uu.net
Message-ID: <9204241325.AA29780@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 03:25:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: More songs about buildings and ftp.uu.net
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 03:34:16 GMT
owsl_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (--<<[...]>>--) writes:
>230- Welcome to the UUNET archive.
>230- All transfers are logged with your host name and email address.
>230- If you don't like this policy, disconnect now!
>I'm scared to imagine what it is exactly their logging, and that if we "don't
>Actually, this sounds like I'm saying something with a viewpoint politically,
>when I re-read it, but actually it is a projection of a dis-order in my
>head, paranoia, and I'm actually being silly in being worried in this.
Let's see..
You're sitting there using the university's computer system provided to
you for your education to access the resources of a commercial service
provided to you at no cost and you have the gall to complain that
they are logging your transactions?
What an asshole.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | What's the difference between Jane Fonda
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | and Bill Clinton? Hanoi Jane went to
Marietta, Ga | Viet Nam.
jgd@dixie.com | Need public access in Atl? Write me.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Marquette University's Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.141319.14043@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 14:13:19 GMT
[...]
>I. Policy on Authorized Use of M.U. Public Computer Systems
[...]
> In the event that C.S.D. observes what we consider to be misuse of
>the computer resources, we will contact the endorser or their supervisor
>and recommend one or more of the following actions be taken:
> o the project be more carefully supervised,
> o the client be required to pay for computer resources,
> o the offender be denied access to the system temporarily or
> permanently,
> o that appropriate University disciplinary action or civil action
> be taken.
[...]
C.S.D. presupposes that anyone it accuses of misuse is in fact an
offender. It sounds as if a user could be permanently expelled from
the system without ever having a chance to speak, without the chance
of a formal hearing, and without an opportunity to appeal. Giving the
final decision to an endorser (such as a professor) does not provide
due process. At most schools, a professor cannot suspend a student
from his or her classrooms without due process. At MU, a professor,
who may know little of computers, can expel a student from the
computer system on his or her own.
[...]
>II. WiscNet/Internet - Policy
>Policy Statements
> WiscNet, like CSD and other computing support facilities has
>formal usage policy statements. Such statements provide information on
>the purpose of the network, what activities the network is designed to
>support and general uses. Users are expected to both know the letter of
>all applicable computing policy statements, as well as be able to
>discern the spirit of such statements since a complete list of every
>possible acceptable or unacceptable use would be impractical.
Users are "expected to ... know the letter of all applicable computer
policy statements" but no list of policy statements is provided. It
appears that CSD doesn't know the letter of all applicable computer
policy statements.
[...]
>In addition, the
>networks [WiscNet and Internet - cmk]
>cannot be used for personal profit. For example, do not use a
>discussion list to advertise items for sale or to solicit business.
[...]
This is factually incorrect. Some parts of the Internet are
commercial. Even the parts that are not commercial, such as NSFnet and
WiscNet, allow some commercial activity (within strict limits).
[...]
> Never consider electronic communications either private or secure.
Does this mean that the CSD will not treat user email as confidential?
So what is missing? There is no indication that this policy was
created openly with the participation users and the University
committee. There is no protection for freedom of expression. The due
process protection is inadequate. There is no privacy protection.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.140335.6862@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 92 14:03:35 GMT
In article <1992Apr24.124834.12644@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In article <1992Apr24.032115.8031@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
>Kadie) writes:
>
>>Page 12 of the 1992 _America's Best Colleges_ by U.S. News and World
>>Reports says "Acknowledging the remarkable vitality of grass-roots
>>publishing at the school [Harvard, the school they rated #1 -cmk],
>
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Harvard was not rated #1. Yale Law was, three years running. Harvard
>>Law was fourth two years ago, and second the last two years after
>>extensive alumni complaints to USNWR.
>[...]
>
>You are perhaps thinking of the Harvard Law School? In any case,
>Harvard University *is* ranked #1 in the 1992 _America's Best
>Colleges_ by U.S. News and World Reports.
Given that the story is about Harvard Law, that is the relevant frame of
reference, yes.
--
Ted Frank + "She says, 'For $1,000 I would have taken off my panty
1307 E 60 St, #109 + hose." -- Punchline to joke Walter Cronkite told.
U o' C Law Skool + "Don't be a doctor. You can't even hold your fork
Chi, IL 60637 + right." -- Richard Epstein's mother
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Marquette University's Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.171643.17245@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 17:16:43 GMT
In the previous critique, I tried to look at the policy on its face.
This article is a (very) short history.
On "14 Dec 91 02:18:07 GMT", account 2714sviatkos@vms.csd.mu.edu
posted an offensive-to-many article titled "Faggots must die!!"
On "18 Dec 91 17:28:33 GMT", Ann Mallinger, User Services Manager of
the Computer Services Division at MU, announced in an article titled:
"Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos":
"Access code 2714sviatkos has been removed and the person involved
is restricted from use of any Computer Services computing facilities.
Our computer use policy as well as our network acceptable use policy
clearly prohibit activity such as the inflammatory message posted
Friday evening, December 13, 1991."
On "December 17, 1991" (according to the preface), Ann Mallinger
"submitted" a policy titled "General Computing Policy" and
"WiscNet/Internet Policy". The document gives no indication that it is
a revision to an existing policy. It does refer to other "applicable
computing policy statements", but the only ones it mentions explicitly
are WiscNet's Acceptable Use Policy and the "MU mainframe usage policy
which is printed in Chapter 1 of the VAX User's Guide and on all
access code application forms." (Aside: If anyone has copies of
previous versions of the "General Computing Policy" or the "MU
mainframe usage policy", please email me a copy.)
The day before I heard about the MU incident, I wrote this paragraph:
======================================================
The usual life cycle for policy seems to be:
no policy
student does something annoying, but not against the rules
student is punished
harsh policy is created to (ex post facto) justify the punishment
folks complain about that the policy is too harsh
a committee is formed
a more evenhanded policy is created
=========================================================
The MU policy seems to confirm my theory. I hope it continues to
progress.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
batch/dec_22_1991
=================
All CAF-Talk notes from the week ending Dec. 22, 1991.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-batch dec_22_1991
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/batch/dec_22_1991
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.men, et al.] Re: Gay Recruitment and Homophobia (Was: Feminists growing old)
Message-ID: <9204241723.AA01193@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 07:23:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: cwinkler@oregon.uoregon.edu (Celia Winkler)
Subject: Re: Gay Recruitment and Homophobia (Was: Feminists growing old)
Message-ID: <24APR199208422898@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 1992 08:42 PDT
In article <1992Apr24.142107.28100@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes...
> Now, some might point to those books as a means of recruitment. That
> argument might have some validity in that if I'd not had access to any
> positive information concerning homosexuality, I might have opted to
> try to live a straight life - a life which would have been a lie for me.
> Though I might have taken up the trappings of a straight life, I would
> still be homosexual in orientation (there is no doublt in my mind).
>
> Even after reading on the subject, it was years between my coming out
> to myself as gay and the first time I actually came into contact with
> other gay people or any gay community. How could I be recruited by people
> I could not even find? Books? If that is the case then everyone who
> published a book is seeking to recruit people, and gays are no more
> guilty than anyone else in that respect.
This was a wonderful post. I just wanted to alert folks, in case they
didn't already know it, that there are many movements to make it illegal
for public entities to "present homosexuality in a positive light." The
town I live in has such an ordinance on the ballot. This would mean that
the books that helped folks like this poster understand his feelings could
conceivably be removed from public libraries. (At least, there'd be court
battles about it--one wonders about the constitutionality of these proposed
laws.)
An initiative for a state-wide prohibition against "presenting homosexuality
in a positive light" will also be on the state ballot. This would mean that
any university class that discussed homosexuality without condemning it
could be attacked. Academic freedom and all that. The same constitutional
problems seem to arise here as well. But until the measure is declared
unconstitutional, it would be bound to have a chilling effect.
Dunno, but it seems to me that these kinds of proposed laws and ways of
thinking make some assumptions that may not be valid. It assumes a lot
about the nature of sexuality. It encapsulates it, isolates it, reifies
it. It separates sexuality from sensuality. It separates sexuality
from other emotions, such as affection. And so on.
The more I think about it, the more I realize how little I really
understand sexuality. Wasn't there someone who said something like:
The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know...
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dmg3693@VALPO.bitnet (David Gabrius)
Subject: unsubscribe
Message-ID: <199204241742.AA17561@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 04:00:00 GMT
unsubscribe ece.res@valpo.bitnet
unsubscribe ece.res%valpo.bitnet@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
From: jim@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (James Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Marquette University's Policy
Message-ID: <3137@spool.mu.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 92 19:48:22 GMT
In article <1992Apr24.141319.14043@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[...]
>>I. Policy on Authorized Use of M.U. Public Computer Systems
>
>C.S.D. presupposes that anyone it accuses of misuse is in fact an
>offender. It sounds as if a user could be permanently expelled from
>the system without ever having a chance to speak, without the chance
>of a formal hearing, and without an opportunity to appeal. Giving the
>final decision to an endorser (such as a professor) does not provide
>due process. At most schools, a professor cannot suspend a student
>from his or her classrooms without due process. At MU, a professor,
>who may know little of computers, can expel a student from the
>computer system on his or her own.
First of all, let me say that I am not defending CSD's policies. I just
thought some clarification of computing at MU was in order.
Student accounts come from two places. Either they are needed for a class
(usually engineering) and the professor will arrange accounts for the entire
class which last until the end of the semester, or the student will find a
professor to authorize an independent study account. Many students have an
independent study account plus several class accounts. The math/statistics/
computer-science department also runs its own machines and is in no way
connected with CSD (well, besides the internet).
The prof. who endorses an account can not renew it for any reason, but there
are other professors who can renew it.
-Jim Phillips
Marquette University
ALL MORTALS MUST DIE!
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 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: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.16
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.201222.20849@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 20:12:22 GMT
A correction:
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
> At Mark's suggestion, I've added a bibliography on database security
> to the CAF archive. It was compiled by G. Pernul and G. Luef. To
> get this document by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
> Include the line:
> send caf-books pernul,_g
[...]
Instead, include the line:
send acad-freedom/books pernul,_g
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
From: gpriores@oracle.com (Gordon Prioreschi)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID:
Date: 24 Apr 92 20:36:11 GMT
In article <1992Apr23.235407.3663@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> One law professor, David Kennedy, said charges should be brought
>against the students who spoofed an article written by slain New England
>School of Law Professor Mary Joe Frug.
>[...]
> Three other law professors, including Alan Dershowitz, contend that
>the parody's authors should not be punished because their freedom of
>speech is protected by the First Amendment.
>[...]
> Dershowitz, a constitutional law expert, said, ``my hope is not only
>that they dismiss it, but that they reprimand the professor who filed
>it.''
Ever since that comment he made about the Kennedy rape trial
(something about the sociopolitical message a conviction would carry
being more important to some feminists than justice being served),
I've had a lot of respect for Al. Further confirmation of my
assessment.
> The disciplinary board did not respond Wednesday to either request
>and gave no indication when it would, said Harvard Law spokesman Michael
>Chmura.
Good.
Cordially,
-g
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 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 02.12
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.203129.21162@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 20:31:29 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n12
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending March 8, 1992
[This is issue #12. Issues #13, #14, #17, and #18 are in production.]
Correction: To get the bibliography on database security mentioned in
issue #16, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom/books pernul,_g
- Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-5 are about SWITCH's policy of not carrying certain newsgroups
1. "SWITCH may be a private organization, but as information provider
to institutions of higher education they have a moral responsibility to
_not_ use their position to manipulate which information the public is
exposed to and which it isn't."
<1992Mar2.025634.13544@mtholyoke.edu>
2. "The right to publish what we want is important, but the right not
to be told by others what you *must* publish or transmit is of equal
importance. These two rights are the two sides of freedom of expression."
<1992Mar02.082931.21643@clarinet.com>
3. "In addition to banning some usenet newsgroups, SWITCH is also blocking
packets to the local eunet chapter (chuug). We have to route most
packets from Zurich to Geneva and back to Zurich. Others go as far as
Amsterdam, and, yes, still others go to the USA and come back (hee
hee). SWITCH is blocking nntp, telnet and ftp to local sites connected
to eunet."
<1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
4. "And when a USENET feed decides that it will not carry certain
newsgroups, you are free to get your own feed from somewhere else. It
isn't convenient, it isn't as cheap, maybe, but nobody said that USENET
had to be convenient and cheap. And it certainly isn't censorship."
<1992Mar3.003102.27987@talon.ucs.orst.edu>
5. [A user from Switzerland] "Can the government (or a governmental
organisation) decide on anarbitrary basis to cut some perfectly legal
newsgroups and let others pass freely?"
<1992Mar3.184031@litsun.epfl.ch>
Notes 6-9 are about game and IRC policies in light of U of Cincinnati
move to terminate accounts of users who telnet to "game" and IRC hosts.
6. "Yes, the users have to become responsible with the use of the resources
and get involved in policy-making. But the administrators should help
in this process by asking for input, opening policy meetings, and by
acting less arbitrarily upon the users they are trying to serve."
<1992Mar1.230835.9357@ms.uky.edu>
7. A student defends the right to telnet to foriegn hosts because it is
often for valid academic reasons.
<199203022336.AA12510@eff.org>
8. "If I was asked to hire a programmer I would much rather hire someone who
was familiar with the resources available on the net, becoming familiar
with them involves using it for recreation as well as work."
<1992Mar6.042104.14586@wpi.WPI.EDU>
9. "In my opinion, users should participate in the development of policy.
Also, unless you want to set up a formal "computer-infractions judical
committee", you should should tie into regular university judicial
procedures."
<1992Mar7.195213.17699@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 10-11 are about configuring your email reader to filter out
messages from certain individuals.
10. A technique for filtering using elm is explained.
<1992Mar5.164036.26921@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>
11. Another techinque for filtering, using HM, is explained.
<1992Mar6.021936.5715@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Adam]
--- 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 =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Marquette University's Policy
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.211118.21792@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 21:11:18 GMT
jim@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (James Phillips) writes:
[...]
The prof. who endorses an account can [decide] not [to] renew it for
any reason, but there are other professors who can renew it.
[...]
Thanks for the clarification. But, now the policy makes even less sense.
> In the event that C.S.D. observes what we consider to be misuse of
>the computer resources, we will contact the endorser or their supervisor
>and recommend one or more of the following actions be taken:
>
> o the project be more carefully supervised,
This makes sense.
> o the client be required to pay for computer resources,
This makes sense. For example, a student might reimburse the class
resource account to make up for resources he or she wasted by goofing
off or breaking a rule. (I would hope that all (or no) goofing off
would be punished, not just that which produces a Netnews article
offends many.)
> o the offender be denied access to the system temporarily or
> permanently,
This doesn't make sense. Ignoring due process for now, shouldn't it
say "the endorsement be withdrawn temporarily or permanently". As
written it suggest that an endorser has authority to deny access to
the system even if the client has another endorser.
> o that appropriate University disciplinary action or civil action
> be taken.
Why does CSD ask the endorser to start University disciplinary action?
It seems that if CSD has already determined that the client is an
"offender", it should be able to start University disciplinary action
on it own.
I think the idea of CSD conferring with the endorser is good. However,
the policy should clarify the authority of the CSD and the endorser.
Also, the policy should provide due process. Finally, the policy
should not be enforced selectively; it is unfair to outlaw all
personal use, but to enforce this only when the use results in Netnews
articles that offend some.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal, et al.] Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <9204250056.AA03058@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 14:56:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <57937@cup.portal.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 16:45:08 PDT
None of the reports on the net have mentioned the most offensive part of
what these people did. According to the newspaper stories, the article
appeared in a publication that is distributed to everyone who attends some
dinner. One of the persons invited to that dinner was the husband of
the slain professor.
This is extremely rude. Aren't there codes of professional conduct for
lawyers that should prevent such behaviour? Don't most Bars have a
vague "good character" requirement for admission? Would the behaviour of
these people indicate a lack of such good character?
In short, if they are disciplined for this, is it really a First Amendment
issue or just a professional responsibility issue?
Tim Smith
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.010826.22216@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 01:08:26 GMT
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>According to the newspaper stories, the article
>appeared in a publication that is distributed to everyone who attends some
>dinner. One of the persons invited to that dinner was the husband of
>the slain professor.
That is pretty awful. But such rudeness is a social wrong. It need
not, and should not, be punished by the authorities (civil, academic,
or the bar). To you really want to empower rudeness police?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.014909.26922@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 01:49:09 GMT
jester@crash.cts.com (Ken Bibb) writes:
[...]
>I think Bill meant that posting hatespeak posts with a world distribution
>*may* be a criminal act if those posts are being propagated into countries
>whose laws are different from our own.
[...]
Hate speech restrictions should be the least of our worries. Usenet
reaches many jurisdictions with many speech restrictions. Some of
these jurisdictions are in a state of civil wars. Some are under
military law. Some are dictatorships. Many ban one topic or another.
For example, should we watch what we post about abortion, an topic
that is very important in many parts of the world, because some of
that discussion may be illegal in Ireland? If so, must the cable
network CNN also close down, too. (They too discuss abortion and their
signal can be received in Ireland.) Should we create a distribution
that says "Not Ireland, not Guam"?
Boston University, here in the U.S., forbids "transmitting or making
accessible offensive [or] annoying [...] material." Should we create a
distribution that says "Not Boston University", so that none of its
users will accidently violate BU policy?
In my opinion, we have no moral obligation to aid the censors of other
nations (or other schools). As far as I know, we also have no legal
obligation to aid them.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/february_1992
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
policies/bostonu.edu
=================
Ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
(Critiqued)
=================
policies/bostonu.edu.critique
=================
Critique of the ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
Summary: 'In the name of protecting privacy, the policy attacks
privacy. It says the University has the power to "without notice, ...
inspect ... any data [or] file". It imposes speech restrict[ion]s that
would be ridiculed if applied to the campus as a whole. It says the
user may not "mak[e] accessible offensive [or] annoying material"'
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/news february_1992
send acad-freedom/policies bostonu.edu
send acad-freedom/policies bostonu.edu.critique
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/news/february_1992
pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu
pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu.critique
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
From: victor@hp9k.lag.itesm.mx (Ing. Victor Gutierrez Aladro)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Computer Studies in USA
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Apr 92 01:44:13 GMT
Hi everybody,
I want to know the studies plan for computer science in some USA university, if someone have this information, can you send it to me ?? or tell me where can i get it (maybe some Internet computer have it).
Thanks in advance.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin
Subject: Apologies to Tarl Neustaedter
Message-ID:
From: mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 20:10:17 PDT
I wish to express my profuse apologies to Tarl Neustaedter for the
public posting of private e-mail he sent me.
I had made the post on my system, then a few minutes later,
reconsidered, and cancelled the post. I checked my logs to make sure
it had not gone anywhere, and that was what was indicated. The actual
article was deleted from my message base at that time.
When I received Tarl's objection a few minutes after that, I told him
that I had posted it to my system, but killed it right afterwards. I
assured him that I had eliminated it from my message base, and that it
had not gone anywhere. Apparently, I was mistaken on that count.
I've checked my neighboring sites, and the cancel control messages are
there, but the post that was cancelled is not. I can only assume that
one of the copies got sent after all, and that I missed it in the
logs. The cancel messages are propagating as far as I know, so many
of you may not even know what I am talking about.
But I felt that I owed Tarl a public apology nonetheless.
[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US -- cerritos.edu!batpad!mike
[] Long Beach, California
[] Vote for ME - I'm well-tapered, half-cocked, ill-conceived and TAX-DEFERRED!
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
From: steve@thelake.mn.org (Steve Yelvington)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Apr 92 07:48:14 GMT
[In article <1992Apr23.153142.8735@pcsbst.pcs.com>,
billp@pcsbst.pcs.com (Bill Potter) writes ... ]
> Now whereas the 1st Amendment may give people the right to make various
> types of statements within the US, it give no such right once outside
> the borders of the US.
The First Amendment confers nothing. It restricts Congress from
infringing a natural human right. It does not restrict the
governments of other countries from having conflicting views about my
rights, but I pay good taxes to support the U.S. military, which is
obligated to protect me from foreign interference.
> I don't want to get into a debate about whether it's better to have a
> First Amendment or not, or the validity of any of the laws given in my
> examples. I just want to point out that other countries have other
> habits or customs and it might be appropriate for institutions in
> the US to restrict distribution of certain postings to the US.
I know it is politically incorrect to suggest that other countries or
other cultures might have their heads shoved up their butts.
Nevertheless, this is both bad law and bad policy. If the governments
of other nations find what I have to say offensive, that's their
business. Whatever the governments of other countries might think is
not my problem.
I'm not posting in Germany. German laws, French laws, Irish laws,
and (God forbid) Singapore laws do not apply in my little town. I am
posting in Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota, USA. If my words are
reproduced by some (computer?) device located in Baghdad or Beijing
or some other place where it is illegal or unhealthy to declare that
the king is a fink, then (out of contrariness) I hope the king hears
me, but the responsibility lies with the operator of the device.
---
Steve Yelvington Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota, USA
steve@thelake.mn.org umn-cs!thelake!steve
The king is a fink.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
From: steve@thelake.mn.org (Steve Yelvington)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Apr 92 07:52:14 GMT
[In article <1992Apr24.062330.381@crash.cts.com>,
jester@crash.cts.com (Ken Bibb) writes ... ]
> Since I know almost *nothing* about law (especially international law),
> would this be a criminal act? The distribution of an article is under
> the control of the poster, so it could be argued that sending the post to
> that country was a voluntary act...
It could be argued, but it would be nonsense. I'm not exporting my
opinions anywhere. Someone else may be importing them. Good for them. But
they're not me.
---
Steve Yelvington Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota, USA
steve@thelake.mn.org umn-cs!thelake!steve
The king is a fink.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <9204251508.AA04092@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 05:08:46 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
From: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <3804@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 92 15:51:04 GMT
Well, it seems that that's publishing acceptable use policies is in
vogue these days, so I offer the following statement that signed by
account holders on our systems here at VA Tech. This general document
describes USER responsibilities and has been cleared by our legal
eagles. A similar document detailing SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR (yes, from
the RFC 1244 model) responsibilities is forthcoming.
This is meant to be a general University-wide statement and individual
departments are free to add any other particulars that apply to their
environment.
***************************************************************************
Appropriate Use of Information Systems
at Virginia Tech
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Access to computer systems and networks owned or operated by Virginia
Tech imposes certain responsibilities and obligations and is granted
subject to University policies, and local, state, and federal laws. Ap-
propriate use always is ethical, reflects academic honesty, and shows
restraint in the consumption of shared resources. It demonstrates re-
spect for intellectual property, ownership of data, system security
mechanisms, and individuals' rights to privacy and to freedom from in-
timidation, harassment, and unwarranted annoyance.
GUIDELINES
In making appropriate use of resources you must:
o use resources only for authorized purposes.
o protect your userid from unauthorized use. You are responsible for
all activities on your userid or system.
o access only files and data that are your own, that are publicly
available, or to which you have been given authorized access.
o use only legal versions of copyrighted software in compliance with
vendor license requirements.
o be considerate in your use of shared resources. Refrain from monop-
olizing systems, overloading networks with excessive data, or wast-
ing computer time, connect time, disk space, printer paper, manuals,
or other resources.
In making appropriate use of resources you must NOT:
o use another person's userid, password, files, system or data
without permission.
o use computer programs to decode passwords or access control informa-
tion.
o attempt to circumvent or subvert system security measures.
o engage in any activity that might be harmful to systems or to any
information stored thereon, such as creating or propagating viruses,
disrupting services, or damaging files.
o use University systems for partisan political purposes, such as us-
ing electronic mail to circulate advertising for political candi-
dates.
o make or use illegal copies of copyrighted software, store such
copies on University systems, or transmit them over University net-
works.
o use mail or messaging services to harass, intimidate, or otherwise
annoy another person, for example, by broadcasting unsolicited mes-
sages or sending unwanted mail.
o waste computing resources, for example, by intentionally placing a
program in an endless loop or by printing excessive amounts of pa-
per.
o use the University's systems for personal gain, for example, by
selling access to your userid or by performing work for profit in a
manner not authorized by the University.
o engage in any other activity that does not comply with the General
Principles presented above.
ENFORCEMENT
The University considers any violation of appropriate use principles or
guidelines to be a serious offense and reserves the right to copy and
examine any files or information resident on University systems
allegedly related to inappropriate use. Violators are subject to disci-
plinary action as prescribed in the honor codes and the student and em-
ployee handbooks. Offenders also may be prosecuted under laws including
(but not limited to) the Privacy Protection Act of 1974, The Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, The Computer Virus Eradication Act of 1989,
Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property, The Virginia Computer
Crimes Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Access to
the text of these laws is available through the Reference Department of
the Newman Library.
***********************************************************************
Comments are welcome in an effort to stimulate the discussion and to
prevent endless loops trying to define the "ideal" environment.
-Randy Marchany
VA Tech Computing Center
Blacksburg, VA 24060
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <9204251856.AA04370@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 08:56:18 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: Marc VanHeyningen
Subject: Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.112340.5566@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 11:23:32 -0500
In article <3804@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
> [ most of a mostly reasonable statement deleted ]
>o use computer programs to decode passwords or access control informa-
> tion.
I didn't know that there existed algorithms for decoding passwords; if
there are, you've got a big problem with your configuration. I assume
this means that ftp'ing, say, COPS and running it on one of your systems
is forbidden? Putting "break system security" right next to this on the
rule list seems be analagous to saying "If you walk into a bank and
casually look around to notice video cameras, where the vault is, how
hard the lock might be to pick, and the like, it's equivalent to
actually robbing it."
>o use University systems for partisan political purposes, such as us-
> ing electronic mail to circulate advertising for political candi-
> dates.
Hmm. Clearly sending an email message saying "Vote for Bush" to every
single user of the system is probably an excessive use of resources.
But forbidding all partisan political activities could be taken so far
as to ban alt.politics.elections, or talk.politics.misc, from the
system. This doesn't seem reasonable (for that matter, neither does me
sending email to a friend to make plans for an upcoming meeting of Jerry
Brown supporters, if the friend is one.)
>o use mail or messaging services to harass, intimidate, or otherwise
> annoy another person, for example, by broadcasting unsolicited mes-
> sages or sending unwanted mail.
As has been pointed out before, "unwanted" is much too broad. If
someone is running a program which is slowing my workstation down, and I
ask him to stop it or lower it's running priority, is that "unwanted
mail"? Of course, when I get a note from the sysadmin saying that the
user has lodged a complaint about the "unwanted mail", I can complain
that the notice is "unwanted mail", and eventually demand that we all be
found in violation.
--
_ _ Marc VanHeyningen mvanheyn@indiana.edu mvanheyn@iubacs.BITNET
/ / \ mputer-\ Your health care choices:
| | | oky Science immediate access, limited costs, high-tech medicine
\_ \_/ gnitive/ Pick any two.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <9204251856.AA04379@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 08:56:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.172415.29384@cirrus.com>
Date: 25 Apr 92 17:24:15 GMT
In <3804@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
>o access only files and data that are your own, that are publicly
> available, or to which you have been given authorized access.
Later:
>In making appropriate use of resources you must NOT:
>
>o use another person's userid, password, files, system or data
> without permission.
The question here is whether a person's files are considered to be
"publicly available" if their protection allows public access but the
owner has not specifically authorized anybody to access these files. The
policy ought to clarify this. I suggest wording like this: "You may
read any file whose protection settings allow you read access. However,
you may not modify any files without the owner's explicit permission."
Also:
>o use only legal versions of copyrighted software in compliance with
> vendor license requirements.
I suggest splitting this into two different items and rewriting as follows.
o use copyrighted material in accordance with copyright law.
o abide by the provisions of any applicable license agreement
that has been signed by you or the University.
Reasoning:
a. "Copyrighted material" is broader than "copyrighted software" and
recognizes that computer systems are used for processing text and
graphics which could be copyrighted.
b. It is good to separate out references to copyright law and contract
law as I have done above, because they are very different things.
c. The second clause as I have written it recognizes the validity only
of signed license agreements, and for good reason. It has become very
common in the software market for vendors to dream up the strangest
license agreements, which only an idiot would sign. Nobody seriously
expects them to be enforcible just because somebody opened a package. No
university should force its students to abide by such licenses.
--
Rahul Dhesi
UUCP: oliveb!cirrus!dhesi
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <9204251857.AA04388@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 08:57:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.172708.29475@cirrus.com>
Date: 25 Apr 92 17:27:08 GMT
Here's another nit. It says that you may not:
>o use University systems for partisan political purposes, such as us-
^^^^^^^^
> ing electronic mail to circulate advertising for political candi-
> dates.
Is it ok to use the University system for campaigning in favor of a
presidential candidate not affiliated with any party?
--
Rahul Dhesi
UUCP: oliveb!cirrus!dhesi
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Is this a privacy violation ?
Message-ID: <9204252037.AA04712@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 10:37:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
From: marco@ocf.berkeley.edu (Marco Nicosia)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Is this a privacy violation ?
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Apr 92 18:54:40 GMT
In article ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
)[moving to comp.admin.policy, since it's a general admin issue]
)
) Wes> == Wes Morgan
)
) Wes> I was considering changing the mailer's error message in these
) Wes> cases from "user unknown" to "This individual is no longer
I haven't seen the previous articles, so I don't know what these cases
are... please forgive me.
) Wes> affiliated with the College of Engineering; this user no longer
) Wes> exists." Hopefully, the user(s) on the other end (or their
) Wes> postmasters) would see the message and cease the dumping.
)
) Wes> Would you consider this message a violation of the ex-user's privacy?
)
)I wouldn't, but some might. My personal solution to this would be to
)change the error message to "this user no longer exists", removing the
)clause about affiliation. I know that the one implies the other, but in
)this case, you're probably better off pulling a CYA... *sigh*
)--
)Christopher Davis | ECONOMIC OBSERVATIONS DEPARTMENT
This would be OK, as long as the people who are receiving the bounces know
that they got the right address. In that case, it would be safe to assume
that any "user unknown" errors are caused by discontinued accounts.
However, I work at a facility which is mainly patronized by people who do not
know the system well at all, and they make lots of mistakes. These people
also have friends that they are trying to e-mail all over the place and on
lots of different Nets(subnets, clusters...)
It's one of my jobs to make sure that they can contact these people. Often,
my users make mistakes in spelling(You try spelling maelstrom the first time
and see if you don't type maelstorm!) and the only way to trace down the
problem is to consult the headers.
Now, if the user mistypes the address name, and I see, "This user is no
longer at this institutuion," I'm going to give the user a completely
inaccurate solution("Well, that user doesn't exist on their system, why
don't you make a long distance phone call and get his/her REAL address?")
In summary, "user unknown" is a general enough message that I know I can't
depend on it(For instance, our cluster depends on a registry, when that dies
for some reason, all users are unknown, but the accounts are still there) yet
gives me a starting point for investigation.
Considering the privacy question, I consider:
If you receive a piece of mail(Snail Mail, not E-mail) for a person
who no longer works at your office, what should you do?
Marco Nicosia
OCF Staff Member
--
Marco Nicosia
marco@ocf.Berkeley.EDU
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.213655.893@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 21:36:55 GMT
In article <1992Apr24.032115.8031@eff.org>,
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) said:
> Alan Dershowitz, one of the law professors who expressed support
> for the student's freedom of expression, is probably the best
> known civil liberties lawyer in the U.S. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No kidding... as one of my professors, who shall remain anonymous,
once put it, in all of the American legal system the most dangerous
place to be standing is between Alan Dershowitz and a tv camera. :-)
But seriously, folks, Dershowitz _is_ one of the good guys out there.
-- William December Starr
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.sganet] Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204252345.AA08456@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 15:45:27 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: BMCCONNE@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (Brian McConnell)
Subject: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204250421.AA28481@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 04:03:38 GMT
Hello netters!
As some of you probably already know, there is a major debate now in
progress at Auburn university which has gone all the way to the state
capitol of Alabama. This debate started when the Auburn Gay and Lesbian
Alliance requested recognition from the Auburn student government assn,
and therefore access to student fees.
The short story... The student government refused, citing Biblical grounds
for denying the group access to university facilities and student fees.
The university administration overruled the decision. As of this evening,
both houses of the Alabama state legislature have passed a law which will
_ban_ gay and lesbian student unions from state schools statewide. The
governor of Alabama Guy Hunt will sign the bill.
I am writing you not as the moderator of SGANet, but as an individual who
is deeply concerned about the erosion of basic civil liberties in Alabama.
I would like to ask that we, as a group of students, discuss a statement
condemning this action, and supporting the right of AGLA to free speech,
free assembly, and access to the same student fees which their own members
pay. Regardless of your feelings about gay and lesbian rights, I think the
issue at stake here is much more basic. The government of Alabama is
attempting to rescind free speech and assembly rights of a group under the
guise of public morality.
There is a procedure in SGANet by which a member can call for a resolution
to be distributed to local student unions for debate and consideration. It
is voluntary. I will not make that call, but I am encouraging others to
discuss this issue, and if agreement can be reached, call for such
distribution.
I'll be glad to throw in my two cents worth later if the discussion takes
on a life of its own.
Brian S McConnell
bmcconne@vtssi.vt.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.sganet] Re: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204252345.AA08517@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 15:45:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: JOPEARLSTEIN@VAXSAR.VASSAR.EDU
Subject: Re: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204251408.AA02096@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 14:07:00 GMT
Hi there. I wanted to state my support for Brian's suggestion; I think if
there IS support for AGLA out in SGA-Net land, we should issue some kind of
resolution. It is intolerable that university students will be denied
representation and support because of their identity as a gay, lesbian or
bisexual student. This is a violation of EVERYONE'S civil rights, and an
affront to all student government officials who represent a diverse
constituency, whether or not they personally identify as gay, lesbian or
bisexual. I
strongly urge everyone to voice their support for AGLA and hope to see a
resolution presented.
I'm a little bogged down to write the resolution myself, but if someone wants
to do it with me, write me directly.
-Joanna Pearlstein
Vice President, Vassar Student Association (SGA), 1991-1992
Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York
jopearlstein@vaxsar.vassar.edu or 914-451-3952
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.sganet] Re: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204252345.AA08578@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 15:45:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: MATNEY_M@gold.colorado.edu (Find Malinda at 2-7474 or in UMC 333)
Subject: Re: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204252032.AA06378@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 21:29:00 GMT
Here is a first draft. I have adopted many wordings from a similar bill
at this university to the situation which now confronts us.
Feel free to email comments to matney_m@cubldr.colorado.edu
---------------
25 April 1992
SGANET RESOLUTION
Sponsored and Authored by University of Colorado Student Union Executive
Malinda M. Matney.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION HISTORY
The students of colleges and universities around the world exist not only
as individuals, but also as a community unified in the fight to ensure
student rights.
Discrimination based upon an individual's sexual orientation continues to
be one of the only forms of discrimination that goes unchecked and
continues to be condoned. This is not only an issue that affects people's
jobs, educations and daily existences but also their very lives and well-
being. Any individuals who do not support the mere existance and funding
of peaceful groups of students who act consistently with the mission of
all universities, the exchange of ideas, are denying their fellow human
beings' basic rights. Many countries specify rights that such discrimination
violates. The United States' Constitution, as one example, guarantees rights
to peaceful assembly and free speech, both of which are violated when
peaceful groups are denied the opportunity to meet in compliance with a
university's purpose.
As long as no one is willing to grant basic civil rights and protection to
prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, verbal and
physical bashing, bigotry and racism will continue to be an acceptable
part of our society. We, as students, united in a common cause, must take
action to stop any and all forms of discrimination.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF SGANET, REPRESENTING STUDENTS
AROUND THE WORLD, THAT:
Section 1: SGANET demands that groupings of students not be banned based
upon the sexual orientation of their members or their
topics of discussion.
Section 2: SGANET strongly urges that all college and university students
urge their student governances and their trustees to
include "sexual orientation" in their anti-discrimination
policies.
Section 3: SGANET strongly encourages all those who support equality for
all members of their university or college communities
to rally their support at all student governance and
trustee meetings at their institutions until sexual
orientation becomes part of their anti-discrimination
policies.
Section 4: This resolution takes effect upon appropriate passage according
to the regulations of SGANET.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me know what y'all think.
Malinda
matney_m@cubldr.colorado.edu
Thanks, Brian, for bringing this matter to our attention!!
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Is this a privacy violation ?
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Apr 92 14:23:22 GMT
Personally, as a mail user, if I leave a site I'd like people who send me
mail to get back MORE information, not less. What I'd like is for them
to get back mail saying
Brian is no longer bh@this-computer.foo.bar; he has moved to
bh@new-computer.somewhere.else. Your mail has been forwarded
there automatically, but please update your records since
this forwarding service expires on 5/1/93.
This could be done by putting the forwarding info and a call to the
vacation program into /usr/lib/aliases. This is similar to what the
phone company and the post office do when you move, although not
exactly the same.
As for the privacy issue, sysadmins could offer departing users their
choice of three levels of information: "no such user" or "no longer here"
or what I've suggested. One of these could be chosen as the default and
users could be told that the others are available by request.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.sganet] Re: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204261636.AA20285@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 08:36:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204260000.AA08931@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 23:58:20 GMT
MATNEY_M@gold.colorado.edu (Find Malinda at 2-7474 or in UMC 333) writes:
>Here is a first draft. I have adopted many wordings from a similar bill
>at this university to the situation which now confronts us.
I suggest that "Section 1" address the academic freedom and civil
liberties issue. For example:
'SGANET reaffirms the U.S. Constitution which recognizes "the right of
the people peaceably to assemble" and Joint Statement on Rights and
Freedoms of Students which says: "[Students] should be free to
organize and join associations to promote their common interests."'
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
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) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law constitution.us
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/constitution.us
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/caf
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.sganet] Re: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204261636.AA20358@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 08:36:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: BMCCONNE@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (Brian)
Subject: Re: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204260139.AA10008@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 01:33:39 GMT
One note about passing a resolution through SGANet. SGANet, per se, cannot
pass a resolution which represents anyone's views except those logged into
SGANet. However, what I am suggesting is that once a draft wording is
agreed on, that our membership submit said resolution for debate at their
home universities, and then mail copies (after approved) to concerned
parties in Alabama.
Hundreds of resolutions from around the world will have more impact than
one resolution passed by an arbitrary gathering of people.
The resolution would read like:
"We, the students of University ___ ..." get the drift...
Thanx,
Brian
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 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.] SPA -- what are your rights?
Message-ID: <9204261645.AA06639@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 06:45:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
From: kozowski@ohsu.edu (Eric Kozowski)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: SPA -- what are your rights?
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.182639.17035@ohsu.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 92 18:26:39 GMT
Has anyone out there ben "audited" by the SPA? What legal authority do
they have? What rights do you have against them? Do you have to show them
all of you computers (what a chore that would be)? Can you tell them to
take hike? Any other tips or comments?
--
Eric Kozowski | System/Network Administrator
kozowski@ohsu.edu | Oregon Health Sciences University
| 840 SW Gaines Rd GH113
503/494-4537 | Portland, Oregon 97201
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security, et al.] Sources For Help With System Administration
Message-ID: <9204261647.AA06648@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 06:47:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.admin.policy,comp.archives.admin,comp.sys.next.sysadmin,comp.sys.sun.admin,comp.unix.admin,news.admin,news.sysadmin.
From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Sources For Help With System Administration
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.212147.576@lokkur.dexter.mi.us>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 21:21:47 GMT
Ugh! I sat down seven hours ago to do a minor update to this posting
and it came out a bit longer than I'd planned. This will be the second
to last posting in this form. I will get another out in a few weeks
with whatever corrections and additions come in; then it's time to put
it texinfo format and spread it to the world.
The sections on magazines, mailing lists, newsgroups and service
companies are all new. The books section has quadrupled in size.
-- Steve
===========================================================================
This is a repost and update of my list of generally available help on
administering UNIX systems. This list is reposted irregularly to
alt.security, comp.admin.policy, comp.archives.admin, comp.sys.next.sysadmin,
comp.sys.sun.admin, comp.unix.admin, news.admin and news.sysadmin.
Editiorial opinions and reviews are my own unless otherwise noted.
This list is broken down into categories:
1. Papers and proceedings
2. Magazines
3. Books
a. General UNIX Admin
b. Security
c. Physical Datacomm
d. Software Datacomm
e. Other Specialized Topics
4. Archives
5. Mailing lists
6. Newsgroups
7. Service companies
This list is updated on an irregular basis; additions are welcomed.
Steve Simmons
Inland Sea
9353 Hidden Lake Circle
Dexter, MI 48130-9519
+1 313-426-2086
scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us
Last update: Sat Apr 25 13:07:23 EDT 1992
1. Papers and Proceedings:
The USENIX Association does several specialty conferences and workshops
of interest to admins. The proceedings are available from the USENIX
Association, 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 215, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA,
email to office@usenix.org.
The USENIX Large Installation System Administration (LISA) conferences
are held annually. Available proceedings are:
LISA I (1987, Philadelphia, PA) $ 4.00
LISA II (1988, Monterey, CA) $ 8.00
LISA III (1989, Austin, TX) $13.00
LISA IV (1990, Colorado Springs, CO) $15.00 Usenix members
$18.00 Nonmembers
LISA V (1991, San Diego, CA) $20.00 Usenix members
$23.00 Nonmembers
The first three are of varying quality, but there are definate jewels
in there. IV and V are uniformly good. The great bulk of items
described are freely availabl. LISA VI is in Long Beach, California
Oct 19-23, 1992. Write office@usenix.org for details. There will be
a definate LISA VII as well.
The USENIX Security Workshop proceeding are also available. A mixture
of the practical and theoretical, they are well worth digging through.
Workshop I (1988, Portland, OR) $ 7.00
Workshop II (1990, Portland, OR) $13.00 Usenix members
$16.00 Nonmembers
There is a third workshop scheduled for September of this year.
2. Magazines:
The USENIX Association newsletter `;login;' has recently gotten a new
editor, Rob Kolstad. Rob is well-known as a writer and lecturer on
sysadmin topics; and he's been soliciting articles on sysadmin from
yours truely among others. These should start appearing in a month of
two. The manazine is free to members of the Association. Get data on
joining USENIX from the addresses above.
"UNIX Review" has a regular column by Rob on system administration,
"Daemons & Dragons", plus occasional other items on sysadmin.
Subscriptions free to qualified readers, write to UNIX Review, Box
7439, San Francisco CA 94120-7439 for an application form.
Non-qualifiers can pay $55.00/year (USA). May be cheaper if you find
the right card in the magazine, but I always throw that stuff away. My
favorite UNIX magazine. Published monthly.
"UNIX/World" has no regular column on sysadmin, but regularly publishes
columns and articles on the topic by various folks. More business- and
beginner- oriented than "UNIX Review". Available by subscription only
from "UNIX/World, Subscription Services, P.O. Box 570, Hightstown, NJ,
08520-9328, or by phone at 1-800-257-9402x29. 1 year $18 (USA).
Number two on my list of UNIX magazines, I actually pay for it.
Published monthly. Mention my name if you subscribe, maybe they'll
give me a free sub. :-)
"root" is a magazine dedicated to system admistration. I don't have a
sub so can't speak directly on it's quality. Bjorn Satdeva (whose
opinion I highly respect) speaks well of it and writes a regular column
for it. As of Oct 1990 it was $32/year, six issues per year. Write to
632 East Bidwell Street, Suite 56, Folsom, CA 95630, or call them at +1
916-351-0831.
"Open Systems Today" is a weekly magazine on "open systems". This was
formerly known as "UNIX Today". They have a regular column by Bruce
Hunter on sys admin, and Sean Fulton occasionally writes on the topic
in his column. Once a prime source of news, it's been going slowly
downhill. Free to qualified subscribers, write to Open Systems Today,
Circulation Department, P.O. Box 2170, Manhasset, NY, 11030-4376.
3. Books:
Books are listed with title, author, date of publication, ISBN number,
and length. I don't give prices, as they change over time. Any
bookstore can order this books by ISBN number. Reviews are my own
unless otherwise noted. I also gladly accept reviews from independant
sources, use the reviews below as a guide. Keep reviews *capsules*,
100 words or less.
Note some of the books are simply listed, as I haven't read them
thoroughly enough to do an honest review. Hint, hint.
On O'Reilly books: I like O'Reilly. They've got a great batting
average, good prices, and good quality. Many bookstores don't
carry their stuff or have to order it. I'd assume O'Reilly makes
more money if you order from them directly, and they get the books
out right away. Write to 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol
CA, 95472 to get a catalog and be put on their mailing list.
Blunt plea: In 1991 I attempted to buy and read every book I could
find on UNIX- and IP-network related topics. Reading time gave out
before money did, but I still spent nearly $1000. A copy of this
review list is being sent to every publisher mentioned in hopes they'll
add me to their reviewer list on this topic. Still, there's only so
many hours in the day, especially for non-paying work on a topic with
which I'm already fairly intimate. If you know of a place which *pays*
for reviews of books, let me know.
Disclaimer: Publishers send manuscripts out for review and comment
at various stages in the publication process. Sometimes they pay me
to do detailed reviews/editing. In those cases I've added a note.
IMHO this does not affect my rating of the final book. They never
listen to me anyway. :-)
3a. General UNIX Admin:
"UNIX For Super-Users" by Eric Foxley. Addison-Wesley, 1985, ISBN
0-201-14228-7. 213 pp. Paperback. Some good basics, now somewhat
dated. The first book written on the topic. Disclaimer: I was one of
the technical reviewers. [[reviewed by scs]]
"UNIX Administration Guide For System V", by Rebecca Thomas and Rik
Farrow. Prentice-Hall, 1989, ISBN 0-13-942889-5. 636 pp. Paperback.
*The* book to have if you've got System V. Particularly good for
standalone systems. May be tedious for the experienced UNIX user or
admin. Very little on networking, see Nemeth/Snyder/Seebass or Stern.
Recommended for SysV shops. [[reviewed by scs]]
"UNIX System Administration Handbook", by Evi Nemeth, Garth Snyder and
Scott Seebass. Prentice-Hall, 1989, ISBN 0-13-933441. 591 pp.
Paperback. *The* book to have if you've got BSD or derivatives (Sun,
Mt. Xinu, Sequent, etc). Requires more expertise to read, but pretty
well done. Covers much broader scope than Thomas/Farrow, but that's
BSD vs SysV. Recommended in general, especially for BSD-based UNIXes.
[[reviewed by scs]]
"Managing NFS and NIS" by Hal Stern. O'Reilly & Associates, 1991, ISBN
0-937175-75-7. 393 pages. Paperback. Hal is a regular contributer on
the net and on the Sun-Managers mailing list. He is always lucid and
correct; if he posts something on Sun-Managers I archive it first, then
read it. The book is of the same high quality. Highly recommended if
you have a Sun or NFS-based network. [[reviewed by scs]]
"UNIX System Administration" by David Fiedler and Bruce Hunter. Hayden
Books, 1986, ISBN 0-8104-6289. 320 pages. Paperback. Not as thorough
or up-to-date as either Nemeth/Snyder/Seebass or Thomas/Farrow, but
more general. Somewhat simpler than N/S/S, so might be useful to the
brand new admin. [[reviewed by scs]]
"Essential System Administration" by Aeleen Frisch. O'Reilly &
Associates, 1991, ISBN 0-937175-80-3. 440 pages. Paperback. I've
only skimmed this book, but it looks pretty decent. Covers both
flavors of UNIX at a fairly reasonable level. If you don't have a lot
of money and have a mix of System V and BSD machines, this looks like
the book you want. [[reviewed by scs]]
For a non-book on system adminstration, see `tcp-ip-admin.doc.Z' in
section 4 (Archives) of this document.
3b. Security:
"UNIX System Security" by Patrick H. Wood and Stephen G. Kochan.
Hayden Books, 1985, ISBN 0-8104-6267. 299 pages. Hardback. Not to be
confused with the book of the same title by Rik Farrow. The
grandfather of all books on UNIX security. Wood and Kochan are good
writers and present their topics well. Unfortunately it's now pretty
dated, especially with regards to networks. Last I checked was
available only in hardback and quite expensive. [[reviewed by scs]]
"The Cuckoo's Egg" by Cliff Stoll. Pocket Books, 1989, ISBN
0-671-72688-9. 356 pages. Mass-market paperback. A breezy,
entertaining book about one of the best-known computer security
incidents ever. Eminently readable, recommended. [[reviewed by scs]]
"UNIX System Security" by Rik Farrow. Addison-Wesley, 1990, ISBN
0-20-1-57030-0. 278 pages. Paperback. Not to be confused with the
book of the same title by Patrick H. Wood and Stephen G. Kochan. Not
read in detail; looks pretty good. Appendices on suid programs and the
internet worm are nice. [[reviewed by scs]]
"Practical UNIX Security" by Simon Garfinkel and Gene Spafford.
O'Reilly & Associates, 1991, ISBN 0-937175-72-2. 481 pages.
Paperback. Not read. The table of contents lists several items not
covered in other books, such as Kerebos, legal issues, and firewalls.
A qualified review is solicited. [[comments by scs]]
3c. Physical Datacomm:
"RS-232 Made Easy: Connecting Computers, Printers, Terminals, and
Modems" by Martin D. Seyer (2nd edition). Prentice-Hall, 1991, ISBN
0-13-749854-3. 436 pages. Paperback. I have fond memories of the
first edition of this book as the only thing I ever read on RS-232 that
made sense. We called it "RS-232 For Idiots", but it was just what we
needed. That copy belonged to a long-gone employer, and I was quite
pleased to find this new edition. It's over 3 times longer, but most
of the new material is incredibly extensive appendices on how various
manufacturers wire up their serial ports. Still readable, still
useful. *No* UNIX-specific data. [[reviewed by scs]]
"Keeping The Link" by Martin Nemzow. McGraw-Hill, 1988, ISBN
0-07-046302. 366 pages. Hardcover. This is not a good but, but
nonetheless was a valueable addition to my library. It's overall
comments on network management, marketing, etc, are worthless. What
makes it useful is the detailed treatment on the physical handling of
an ethernet. Includes step by step instructions with photos on how to
make taps; how to debug physical and electrical problems with TDRs and
various other test equipement; drawings and pictures of various common
cables and other connection hardware; tables of various minima and
maxima, etc. Recommended in spite of itself. [[reviewed by scs]]
"Telecommunication Wiring" by Clyde N. Herrick and C. Lee McKim.
Prentice-Hall, 1992, ISBN 0-13-151531-4. 253 pages. Hardback.
A good book to have for doing the physical planning or installation
of a network. Strong in all the areas where Nemzow is weak, does
not cover any of the areas Nemzow is good at. [[reviewed by scs]]
3d. Software Datacomm:
"Internetworking With TCP/IP, Volume I: Principles, Protocols, and
Architecture" by Douglas E. Comer. Prentice-Hall, 1991, ISBN
0-13-468505-9. 547 pages. Hardback. This is the second edition of
what was *the* book to have on TCP. For the second edition various
topics have been expanded and it was broken into two volumes.
Fortunately everything of interest to the sysadm is in volume one. How
IP works, in clear and clean detail. If you ever have to start
grabbing packets and decode them, this is the book you want next to
you. An excellent book for self-teaching on IP network protocols.
Expensive. [[reviewed by scs]]
"An Introduction to TCP/IP" by John Davidson. Springer-Verlag, 1988,
ISBN. 100 pages. Paperback. The Comer book is better than this one
in every way except price, and the value for the dollar is much much
better with Comer. Not recommended. [[reviewed by scs]]
"The Simple Book: An Introduction To Management of TCP/IP-based
Internets" by Marshall T. Rose. Prentice-Hall, 1991, ISBN
0-13-812611-9. 347 pages. Hardback. With a title like that, they
somehow left out the most important fact: "using SNMP". This book is
an interesting read. Difficult in spots, Rose is nonetheless an
interesting and sometimes entertaining writer. He pulls no punches
when criticism is needed, but is good at keeping facts and editorial
comments separate. This book is more about how SNMP works than on
using it, but is still quite useful to the admin. [[reviewed by scs]]
For a non-book on system adminstration, see `tcp-ip-admin.doc.Z' in
section 4 (Archives) of this document.
3e. Other Specialized Topics:
"System Performance Tuning" by Mike Loukides. O'Reilly & Associates,
1990, ISBN 0-937175-60-9. 336 pages. Paperback. When I heard this
book was coming out, I was very sceptical that any treatment could be
both broad enough and deep enough to be useful. I was wrong. Loukides
has successfully taken a difficult topic and written a book useful for
all but the newest admins. Full of practical advice for a variety of
UNIX systems, he has done a most commendable job. Recommended.
[[reviewed by scs]]
"Zen And The Art Of The Internet" by Brendan Kehoe. Prentice-Hall,
1992, ISBN (to be determined, forthcoming). This is the second edition
of Brendan's wildly successful document of using the Internet. Due out
in a month or two, this succinct and inexpensive book is useful for
*anyone* who uses the Internet, not just admins. "The greatest thing
since spliced cable" according to one reviewer. The first edition is
available by anon ftp from various sites; do an archie query on `zen'.
Better yet, buy a copy - Brendan needs the money. Disclaimer: I was
one of the technical reviewers. [[reviewed by scs]]
"Programming Perl" by Larry Wall and Randall Schwartz. O'Reilly &
Associates, 1991(?), ISBN 0-937175-64-1. 482 pages. Paperback. At
the 1991 LISA conference I chaired two sessions, both of which focused
on tools useful the the admin. After the fourth consecutive paper on a
tool written in perl, I half-seriously suggested we change the session
name to "the perl user group". Perl is a wonderful language for
writing UNIX admin tools in, and this book is the best way to learn
it. [[reviewed by scs]]
"UNIX Shell Programming, Revised Edition" by Stephen G. Kochan and
Patrick H. Wood. Hayden Books, 1990, ISBN 0-672-48448-X. 490 pages.
Paperback. There are various books on shell programming, but this is
best. Recommended. [[reviewed by scs]]
"Using UUCP and Usenet" by Grace Todino and Dale Dougherty. O'Reilly &
Associates, 1991(?), ISBN 0-937175-10-2. 210 pages. Paperback. I've
not actually read this book, but so many people have recommended it so
strongly that it's *got* be be listed here. UUNET used to give away a
copy with every subscription; does one need a stronger recommendation?
4. Archives:
These are available in the system administration archives at the
University of Michigan. They are available for anonymous ftp from
terminator.cc.umich.edu in ~ftp/unix/sysadmin/how-to. The following
descriptions are excerpted from the ReadMe file from that directory:
tcp-ip-admin.doc.Z & tcp-ip-admin.ps.Z:
"Introduction to Administration of an Internet-based Local Network" by
Charles Hedrick of Rutgers University. To quote from the cover sheet,
"This is an introduction for people who intend to set up or administer
a network based on the Internet networking protocols (TCP/IP)." A nice
overview. Available in two forms, doc.Z is suitable for dumb printers
while ps.Z is PostScript. Written in 1988.
tcp-ip-intro.doc.Z & tcp-ip-intro.ps.Z:
"Introduction to the Internet Protocols", also by Charles Hedrick
of Rutgers. From the cover sheet, "This is an introduction to the
Internet networking protocols (TCP/IP). It includes a summary of the
facilities available and brief descriptions of the major protocols in
the family." 28 pages. Available in two forms, doc.Z is suitable for
dumb printers while ps.Z is PostScript. Written in 1987.
setup-ftp.Z:
How to set up your site to allow anonymous FTP safely. Taken from
the Sun-Nets mailing list, it contains a good list of actions that must
be taken and recommends (as do I) that you read the manual. Compiled
by Claude P. Cantin (CLAUDE.P.CANTIN@NRC.CA) from advice given on the
sun-nets mailing list. Written Feb 12, 1990.
kolstad.sendmail.Z
How to do a sendmail config file. The same article published in Rob
Kolstad's 'Daemons and Dragons' column in UNIX REVIEW, very kindly
released with permission from Miller-Freeman, written 1990. A good
set of advice on doing your sendmail.cf file.
sendmail-tutorial.txt.Z
Originally posted to net.wizards in 1985. Comments on this from
Eliot Lear :
The following was written by Dr. Charles Hedrick of Rutgers
University sometime in 1985. Please read it with the understanding
that rule numbers are nothing more than function names. For further
reference, I suggest the Sun Tutorial on Sendmail in their manuals.
-eliot
The Computer Emegergency Response Team maintains an anonymous FTP archive
of past alerts and other data on cert.sei.cmu.edu.
5. Mailing Lists
There are three types of mailing lists available for administrators:
general admin, machine-specific admin, and security. They're listed
separately below.
5a. General admin:
Bjorn Satdeva runs the System Administration Mailing list. To
join write sysadmin-request@sysadmin.inc. Low volume, but Bjorn
hasn't pushed the list real hard.
5b. Machine-specific lists:
Sun-Managers is the most useful administration mailing list in the
world, period. In spite of strict posting rules it still gets a
lot of volume. To join Sun-Managers send your request to
sun-managers-request@eecs.nwu.edu. Phil (the moderator) will send
you a list of rules when you're placed on the list, read them and
live by them before sending to the list itself.
DecStation-Managers is modelled on Sun-Managers. Much lower volume
but equally useful on an article-by-article basis. Send your request
to decstation-managers-request@ornl.gov.
I've heard rumors of other machine-specific admin lists, but don't
know any specifics. Info welcomed.
5c. Security lists:
Neil Gorsuch runs a general list on security. It's been quite
inactive of late and he may have dropped it. Send add requests
to security-request@uninet.cpd.com.
The Computer Emergency Response Team runs several lists. Everyone
should be on their notification list for security events, send
add requests to cert@cert.sei.cmu.edu.
They also run a tools mailing list. Membership is restricted to
system programmers, system administrators and others with a legitimate
interest in the development of computer security tools. If you would
like to be considered for inclusion, please send mail to:
cert-tools-request@cert.sei.cmu.edu
6. Newsgroups:
alt.security Security issues on computer systems.
alt.security.index Pointers to good stuff in alt.security. (Moderated)
comp.admin.policy Discussions of site administration policies.
comp.archives.admin Issues relating to computer archive administration.
comp.security.announce Announcements from the CERT about security. (Moderated)
comp.sys.next.sysadmin Discussions related to NeXT system administration.
comp.sys.sun.admin Sun system administration issues and questions.
comp.unix.admin Administering a Unix-based system.
comp.virus Computer viruses & security. (Moderated)
misc.security Security in general, not just computers. (Moderated)
news.admin Comments directed to news administrators.
news.sysadmin Comments directed to system administrators.
FYI, this notice is posted to *all* those groups.
7. Service Companies:
Policy statement: I do not in any way endorse any of these companies
(OK, except my own. :-)). This listing is provided as a public service
to any company or person which sells administration services. If admin
is not your primary business, please don't send an entry. If you would
like to be added to the service list, send the following data: Name,
contact person, surface address, email address, voice phone, fax number,
and a *MAXIMUM* of 25 words of description. I reserve the right to edit
your description. See the existing descriptions for examples of what I
consider reasonable. These listing are in alphabetic order by company.
This is the first time this category has been posted to the list; I
wrote the listings for all present entries.
Name: Great Circle Associates
Contact person: Brent Chapman
Surface addr: 1057 West Dana Street, Mountain View, CA 94041
Email addr: Brent@GreatCircle.COM
Voice: +1 415-962-0841
FAX: +1 415-962-0842
Description: ". . . with clients who've gotten 100-1000 workstations
and realize that sendmail is broken, NFS is broken, automount
sounds neat, YP is broken, DNS is broken . . . "
Submitted by: Steve Simmons, scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us
Last update: April 25, 1992
Name: /sys/admin, Inc.
Contact person: Bjorn Satdeva
Surface addr: 2787 Moorpark Avenue, San Jose, CA 95128
Email addr: bjorn@sysadmin.com
Voice: +1 408-241-3111
FAX: ?
Description: Site evaluation, automated administration, security,
training programs,telephone consultation, site-customized
procedures.
Submitted by: Steve Simmons, scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us
Last update: April 25, 1992
Name: /sys/admin, Inc.
Contact person: Bjorn Satdeva
Surface addr: 2787 Moorpark Avenue, San Jose, CA 95128
Email addr: bjorn@sysadmin.com
Voice: +1 408-241-3111
FAX: ?
Description: Site evaluation, automated administration, security,
training programs,telephone consultation, site-customized
procedures.
Submitted by: Steve Simmons, scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us
Last update: April 25, 1992
--
When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.motss, et al.] Boycott Alabama if it passes
Message-ID: <9204262047.AA07333@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 10:47:46 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
From: lfoard@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
Subject: Boycott Alabama if it passes
Message-ID: <1992Apr26.034106.2517@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 26 Apr 92 03:41:06 GMT
If the anti-gay bill being considered by Alabama passes please don't just
sit and do nothing. We have a huge amount of economic power, if everyone
who reads soc.motss and soc.bi where to boycott Alabama and explain to
every company and person involved why it would have an effect. This group
is read by 100,000 people PLEASE DON'T JUST SIT THERE while they walk
all over us, do something!!!
My personal plans:
Since it looks like it is probably going to pass I'm going to hold off
sending off the Alabama parts of the mailing list I recently bought.
If the bill does pass I will be sending out explanations to the people
who would have recieved ad's explaning why I am not doing business with
Alabama.
If I do recieve any response from mail already on its way to Alabama
it will be returned with an explanation. I will also respond to any
solicitations from Alabama with an explanation of why they are being
rejected.
I know many people reading this have the opportunity to economically damage
Alabama much more than I do, please realize that if this passes that every
dime you give to Alabama brings you one step closer to the destruction of
your freedom where ever you may be.
Please do everything in your power to convince your friends to do the same,
if we do nothing our rights will continue to be erroded around the country.
If we can damage Alabama to the tune of millions (only $10 for each person
who will read this), it will send a message to other states where religious
nuts are trying to pass legislation. Money is the most powerful force in
politics, the people reading this have 100's of millions of dollars to
spend, put your money where your mouth is.
Any one know where I can find a list of companies based in Alabama?
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ncsa.general
Subject: One year later: NCSA email and University computer privacy policies
Message-ID: <1992Apr26.204032.20854@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 92 20:40:32 GMT
On April 1st, 1991 (no fooling), the University of Illinois's National
Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) set down an email policy
that permits searches and punishment of faculty, students, and
researchers who strongly criticize the University, or the NCSA, in
e-mail.[ncsa.email] The policy was apparently created to justify,
after the fact, the computer-file searches of a student employee who
was suspected of sending an obnoxious email message.
[cafv01n09,banned.1991]
The policy was criticized as violating of Constitutional protections,
academic freedom, and the spirit of the University privacy policy. The
criticism asserted that not only were the rights of NCSA computer user
violated, but also the rights to anyone who might correspond via email
with an NCSA computer user.[ncsa.email].
On April 29, 1991, in reaction to the criticism, the NCSA asked
Campus-Wide Committee on Computing and Networking to review the
policy.[cafv01n04] The Committee is made up of representatives of many
University departments, including the NCSA, the Computer Services
Office (now the Computer and Communications Services Office), the
Department of Computer Science, the University Library, etc. The NCSA
said that the old policy would stand until a some policy replaces it.
By early September 1991, the Committee drafted a "Protection of
Electronic Mail and Files" statement. The draft is very similar the
University's general privacy policy [uiuc.code.excerpt] and if adopted
would (in my opinion) correct all the major problems with the NCSA
policy.
Although the policy draft has been made available to people outside
the Committee (e.g. me) and even to other universities, it has yet to
be made public at this University.
As far as I know, nothing happened with the proposal until January or
February 1992, when University Office of Campus Legal Counsel told the
Committee that they thought the proposal was a poor idea. Apparently
the gist of their objection is that by broadening University privacy
policy to include computer files, the University might increase its
liability. No one knows the Councel's exact opinion, because all their
remarks were oral. A pessimistic explanation for the Legal Counsel's
advice is that would prefer to wait until lawsuits (hopefully at other
public universities) established the minimum legal rights of academic
computer users. Presumably, the Legal Counsel would then recommend
that the University meet the minimum legal obligation.
The Situation Today:
The NCSA policy is still in force, although, as far as I know, it has
never been used (except for its one ex post facto application.)
The "Protection of Electronic Mail and Files" proposal is stalled. In
some ways, however, because of the Committee is so representative, the
proposal is already the de facto policy on campus.
To date, only a few people on this campus have seen the proposal (or
even heard of it); however, other universities have a copies of it and
seem to have found it useful as they formulate their computer privacy
policy.
- Carl Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
ncsa.email
=================
The National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) is a department
in the University of Illinois' Graduate College. On April 1, 1991
the NCSA set down a new e-mail policy. The policy was cleared by the
University's legal counsel and the Graduate College. Faculty, students,
and researchers, however, were not consulted.
This note has three parts. The first is a critique of the policy. The
critique concludes that the policy is inconsistent with the
Constitution, Academic Freedom, and University policy. The second part
of this notes is the text of the policy. The third part is notes from
a conversation with an NCSA Administrator.
[As of March 1992, a campus committee has developed draft of an email
policy that recognizes some user privacy rights. The draft however,
seems to stalled and has not been formally adopted.]
=================
news/cafv01n09
=================
Computers and Academic Freedom News, vol. 01, no. 09.
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
news/cafv01n04
=================
Computers and Academic Freedom News, vol. 01, no. 04.
=================
uiuc.code.excerpts
=================
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom ncsa.email
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n09
send acad-freedom banned.1991
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n04
send acad-freedom uiuc.code.excerpts
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/ncsa.email
pub/academic/news/cafv01n09
pub/academic/banned.1991
pub/academic/news/cafv01n04
pub/academic/uiuc.code.excerpts
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <1992Apr26.012819.4201@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 92 05:28:18 GMT
In article <1992Apr25.010826.22216@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>
>>According to the newspaper stories, the article
>>appeared in a publication that is distributed to everyone who attends some
>>dinner. One of the persons invited to that dinner was the husband of
>>the slain professor.
>
>That is pretty awful.
Could somebody please post a brief summary of the parody, itself, and any
additional information that would be pertinent to recognizing how it was so
awful?
So far, all I know is that the parody involved a column written by a
woman who had been slain. But I have no idea what makes this so awful.
(That is, writing a parody of something written by a slain individual
does not strike me as obviously awful, in and of itself. There must be
something more to the specifics of this matter.)
It's getting quite annoying to be discussing what amounts to a completely
hypothetical matter--we are told that it was an awful thing, and we hear about
the controversy, but I, for one, have no idea what was so terrible.
--
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 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell)
Subject: more on not providing alt.* (unl, etc.)
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 22:52:24 GMT
It's fairly reasonable to exclude the alt.binaries.* hierarchy on the
grounds of not enough space. But it seems like a better policy than
excluding all of alt.* would be to expire articles sooner.
I've not seen anyone else raise this possibility of alternate
ways of managing resources...
--
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell
From caf-talk Caf Apr 26 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell)
Subject: more on not providing alt.* (unl, etc.)
Message-ID: <1992Apr26.224241.25429@socrates.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 22:42:41 GMT
It's fairly reasonable to exclude the alt.binaries.* hierarchy on the
grounds of not enough space. But it seems like a better policy than
excluding all of alt.* would be to expire articles sooner.
I've not seen anyone else raise this possibility of alternate
ways of managing resources...
--
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell
