From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 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: <9204271302.AA09453@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 03:02:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: rp@iscp.bellcore.com (Robert Pearlman)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <1992Apr26.154016.24270@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
Date: 26 Apr 92 15:40:16 GMT
Generally the thing seems reasonable. But G-d is or isn't in the
details.
1)
|> o protect your userid from unauthorized use. You are responsible for
|> all activities on your userid or system.
This is reasonable for governmental, judicial, corporate statements. It
feels wrong for a school addressing its students. Example: student A
steals student B's password and really wrecks things (even though, perhaps,
A had his/her own passport.) By the letter of the lamb, B is "responsible".
What does that mean? B will be expelled, turned over to the police, billed
$5,000,000.36 which is what A's messing around cost the school, plus postage
and handling? Yes, B --should-- have kept the password safe. What if A
stole it from the school's control? Lawyer's tell you to say: "It's
your responsibility." These are your students.
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.
Wouldn't everybody feel safer if you made this "knowingly engage". Your
examples are good, but what if somebody accidentally lets the cycle eater
out of the basement?
And a comment on Desi's post: he suggests
o abide by the provisions of any applicable license agreement
that has been signed by you or the University.
Problem: how's the student to know what agreements the University signed?
I guess you should make sure to flash copyright warnings as appropriate.
Good try, though. (Late with sacrificial lamb: Passover just finished)
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [sci.philosophy.tech, et al.] So Long
Message-ID: <199204271313.AA15248@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:13:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.books,soc.culture.soviet,talk.politics.soviet,alt.sex
Subject: So Long
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.103719.11516@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 92 14:37:18 GMT
Since the Harvard University Math. Department, in its infinite wisdom, has
reassessed my tenuous connection with its mainstream activities, and
decided to cut me off from their computer network, lest I should succeed in
completing my long-suffering thesis, I find myself obligated to bid a fond
farewell to all my Internet friends and adversaries. So long; it's been a
giggle. Your expressions of eternal gratitude, or not, should be addressed
to Professor Wilfried Schmid, schmid@zariski.harvard.edu.
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't :
: Connais pas! Connais pas! think :
: so :
: Mikhail Zeleny :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 :
: for another hour, or so email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu :
: afterwards, send a telegram :
: :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: Godel's Incompleteness Theorm
Message-ID: <199204271323.AA16094@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:23:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Godel's Incompleteness Theorm
Message-ID: <1992Apr22.090427.11413@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 92 13:04:24 GMT
In article
oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
>Mikhail Zeleny writes in regards to the Shanker article in
>the "Goedel's Theorem in Focus": [surprise, surprise]
MZ:
> It is also predictably content-free, in a collection otherwise ranging from
> ground-breaking to insightful, to informative. Why anyone would think that
> Wittgenstein's remarks on the significance of G\"odel's Theorem were of any
> interest in the investigation of the latter, is altogether beyond me.
OY:
>If and when you actually read the article, and still find your above
>question "why would anyone think ..." unanswered, feel free to write
>up whatever is troubling you and post it to an appropriate newsgroup
>or mail it to me, and I'll be glad to take it to Shanker in the hope
>that he will provide you with additional help and/or references.
It so happens that I read that article, along with the rest of the book,
about two years ago. What struck me at the time was not so much the
quality of its research and writing, which was at least serviceable, but
the triviality of its subject matter, which was remarkable, even in the
light of the general negligibility of Wittgenstein's remarks on the
philosophy of mathematics. In other words, it's not that the author
doesn't understand his subject matter, but that his subject has nothing
interesting to say about it.
Two years ago, at the party held on the occasion of Alonzo Church's
retirement, David Kaplan told the following story, pointing out its
protagonists as he spoke. It seems that, at the time of his general
examination, a certain PhD candidate, who has since gone on to acquire
some reknown, had the utmost difficulty in passing its logic part, to
the extent that the faculty was presented with an uncomfortable dilemma
of either refusing a degree to an otherwise promising student, or, in
granting it, lowering its estabilished standard of excellence in the
relevant area. They deliberated away, until Alonzo Church (who was
making one of his rare appearances at a departmental meeting) came up
with a suggestion to let our hero pass, on the condition that he promise
to abstain from writing and publishing any articles on the philosophical
significance of G\"odel's Theorems. The suggestion was approved by the
faculty and gratefully accepted by the student, and I am happy to say that
neither of the two books he has published since contains any references to
the aforementioned subjects.
The world would be a far better place if more philosophers were to follow
Church's injunction. Too bad Wittgenstein couldn't benefit from it.
>oz
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't :
: Connais pas! Connais pas! think :
: so :
: Mikhail Zeleny :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET :
: :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Xref: eff comp.ai.philosophy:5168 sci.logic:1137
Path: eff!widener!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!pacbell.com!mips!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!widder!zeleny
From: zeleny@widder.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Understanding Logic (was re: Godel Incompleteness Theorm)
Message-ID: <1992Apr22.124607.11418@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 92 16:46:05 GMT
References: <1992Apr22.010037.21305@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 58
Nntp-Posting-Host: widder.harvard.edu
In article <1992Apr22.010037.21305@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
wlfong@logos.waterloo.edu (Philip W. L. Fong) writes:
>Recently I posted a request for introductory references on Godel Incompleteness
>Theorm. I received a lot of replies, and I would like to thank
>all who reponded to the posting. Attached is a list of the replies I
>received. Some of them contain bibliographical information that you
>may be interested in. If you would like to suggest more introductory
>references on Godel's Theorm, please forward them to me at
>wlfong@logos.waterloo.edu. Thank you again.
>
>Philip
>[...]
>Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 12:11:02 -0400
>From: tkprasad@valhalla.cs.wright.edu (Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad)
__________________^^___________
>
>
>You can read "Godel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstader
>and "Godel's Proof" by Nagel and ...
>Both have extremely informal and palatable treatment of
>Incompleteness theorem. The former is a Pulitzer Prize Winner.
>The latter book was written in 1950's and is NYU Press I think.
>You can also look at "Metamagical Themas" by the first author
>for an article on self-reference.
>
>Avoid looking at First-order logic text books. Even though I work in
>logic, I understood more from the informal descriptions than the gory
>proof in Enderton!
>
>Good Luck.
>Prasad
>
You might want to consider a career change. Although not a single one
among my students in the Harvard Extension introductory logic class
professes to "work in logic", none among them have failed to understand
"the gory proof in Enderton".
On second thought, the department name in your address explains everything.
>[...]
I am crossposting this to sci.logic, so Herb Enderton can enjoy it, too.
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't :
: Connais pas! Connais pas! think :
: so :
: Mikhail Zeleny :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET :
: :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Xref: eff comp.ai.philosophy:5175 sci.logic:1142
Path: eff!news.byu.edu!gatech!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!birkhoff!zeleny
From: zeleny@birkhoff.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Understanding Logic (was re: Godel Incomplete
Message-ID: <1992Apr22.171934.11424@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 92 21:19:32 GMT
References: <1992Apr22.010037.21305@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1992Apr22.124607.11418@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: birkhoff.harvard.edu
In article
owens@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Christopher Owens) writes:
>In <1992Apr22.124607.11418@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@widder.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
>> You might want to consider a career change. [...] On second thought,
>> the department name in your address explains everything.
CO:
>Where on earth did you develop the notion that this kind of abusive
>crap constitutes acceptable discourse?
The same place that instilled those anal-retentive instincts of an arbiter
of acceptable public discourse in your character, Chris. I guess each of
us derives a different lesson from his family.
By the way, you wouldn't happen to be a computer "scientist", would you?
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't :
: Connais pas! Connais pas! think :
: so :
: Mikhail Zeleny :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET :
: :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Xref: eff comp.ai.philosophy:5181 sci.philosophy.tech:2442 sci.logic:1146
Path: eff!widener!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!pacbell.com!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Godel's Incompleteness Theorm
Message-ID: <1992Apr23.013140.11455@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 23 Apr 92 05:31:38 GMT
References: <1992Apr22.090427.11413@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Apr22.173139.7504@unx.sas.com>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 93
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu
In article <1992Apr22.173139.7504@unx.sas.com>
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>In article <1992Apr22.090427.11413@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>|>In article
>|>oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
MZ:
>|>>It is also predictably content-free, in a collection otherwise ranging from
>|>>ground-breaking to insightful, to informative. Why anyone would think that
>|>>Wittgenstein's remarks on the significance of G\"odel's Theorem were of any
>|>>interest in the investigation of the latter, is altogether beyond me.
GM:
>I *knew* when I saw this remark that you were courting trouble. I have
>just been involved in a similar discussion concerning Wittgenstein in
>sci.philosophy.meta. I was going to send in a brief followup saying
>something like "Now you are going to get it from the Wittgenstein groupies."
>But I thought better of it. (I probably should have thought better of
>this!)
Well, I had thought better of following up on your valiant efforts; the
mere thought of enduring a personal message from Hakki Kocabas had cooled
whatever ardor I possessed...
MZ:
>|>It so happens that I read that article, along with the rest of the book,
>|>about two years ago. What struck me at the time was not so much the
>|>quality of its research and writing, which was at least serviceable, but
>|>the triviality of its subject matter, which was remarkable, even in the
>|>light of the general negligibility of Wittgenstein's remarks on the
>|>philosophy of mathematics. In other words, it's not that the author
>|>doesn't understand his subject matter, but that his subject has nothing
>|>interesting to say about it.
GM:
>We're dealing not so much with mathematics or philosophy here, but with
>a personality cult. Arguments will rage, but nothing will be settled.
>It will be unclear what the dispute is all about. I once served on the
>dissertation board for a Ph.D. candidate who was doing her dissertation
>on Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics. At that time I was quite
>familiar with the Wittgenstein corpus of course. Your characterization
>strikes me as fairly accurate. But look: you just *can't* go around using
>words like "negligibility of Wittgenstein's remarks" and "has nothing
>interesting to say about it"! These kinds of remarks about the master
>*cannot* be tolerated. They are evidence of *your* failure to understand.
>Give it up and repent while there is still time.
Well, I have a theory about this. It seems that the oracular style of LW
fulfils a desperate need for certainty that haunts a certain class of
people. Why attempt to solve the classic problems of philosophy, when you
can regurgitate an endless array of indistinguishable meta-propositions
about them? Why argue, when you can pronounce? an argument calls for a
modicum of knowledge of your subject matter, whereas a Wittgensteinian
meta-pronouncement requires nothing more than an Eliza-like ability to
parse the original question, returning blithely: "What would it be like to
{propositional attitude verb} that X?" Paradoxically, it is by advancing
this kind of open-ended skepticism, that the Wittgensteinian adept submits
to his master's dogma. Worse, even as he denies the transcendental norm,
he gladly submits himself to the tyranny of the lowest common denominator,
the hallowed billion-headed idol of the descriptive linguist.
A few years ago I was sufficiently impertinent to challenge Alonzo Church
about the semantical adequacy of the Logic of Sense and Denotation, asking
him if he ever wondered whether the fanatical monodenotationalism of his
system accorded well with the semantical workings of natural languages.
Characteristically, he replied: "I was never very impressed with the way
natural languages worked." At first, as a fan of several natural
languages, I couldn't quite stomach his attitude; later I came to realize
that our prescriptive capacity had to be as much of a part of the natural
order as the rest of our linguistic competence. It is a profound error to
arbitrarily privilege one over the other, as do both Wittgenstein and
Chomsky; unlike Saint Ludwig (Montague's derision of TG notwithstanding),
the latter, at the very least, is not motivated by a profound ignorance of
the rules in question.
ObShanker: of all the papers in the G\"odel volume, only the last one cites
Hofstadter's magnum opus. Copiously. More than it cites G\"odel himself.
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't :
: Connais pas! Connais pas! think :
: so :
: Mikhail Zeleny :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET :
: :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Xref: eff comp.ai.philosophy:5199 sci.logic:1155
Path: eff!widener!ukma!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!rutgers!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Understanding Logic (was re: Godel Incomplete
Message-ID: <1992Apr23.223457.11493@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 92 02:34:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr23.223457.11493
References: <1992Apr22.010037.21305@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
<1992Apr22.124607.11418@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Apr23.230500.25737@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 56
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu
In article <1992Apr23.230500.25737@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
nea@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (norman.e.andrews) writes:
MZ:
>It's unfortunate that a thread like this one becomes disrupted by someone
>like MZ. There are just some people who, probably through a lack of
>self-esteem, constantly need to get the attention of others by gratuitously
>insulting people and dumping on them. MZ seems to be trying to show off
>his intellect by dumping on others, a tactic he really doesn't need to do.
>
>Damn, MZ can really make positive contributions from time to time. Too bad
>he's got such a problem relating to real people.
>
>Look, MZ, everyone knows you're bright, in some ways, so quit trying to
>make yourself look superior by dumping on others. It has the opposite
>effect on all but the truly inferior, and you don't crave their attention
>that much, do you? -- Norm Andrews norm@mtuxo.att.com or n.e.andrews@att.com
You know, Norm, I don't have the least bit of a problem relating to other
people. Whenever other people say something intelligent, I acknowledge it;
whenever they say something stupid, I berate them. On the other hand,
whenever they say something insulting, I insult back.
Perhaps you just don't get it, so I'll spell it out: I feel insulted when
someone sees himself fit to take a public dump on culture. Like, for
instance, when I see a pearl like: "Avoid looking at First-order logic text
books. Even though I work in logic, I understood more from the informal
descriptions than the gory proof in Enderton!"
You see, Norm, I really don't give a fuck whether you, or anybody else,
decide to patronize me or to belittle me; on the other hand, I happen to
give a fuck when someone decides to fuck with them old Platonic Ideals, not
to mention the people I happen to respect. This here is a public medium,
and you better get used to the fact that, for every nitwit diligently
striving to turn it into an enormous international _sottisier_, there is
bound to be someone like me, attempting to resist the tidal wave of
complacent stupidity. To each his own.
>--
>Norm Andrews
>AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room MT-2C402
>200 Laurel Avenue, Middletown, NJ 07748
>VOICE: (908) 957-5786 FAX: (908) 957-5604
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't :
: Connais pas! Connais pas! think :
: so :
: Mikhail Zeleny :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET :
: :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's Incompleteness Thm)
Message-ID: <199204271325.AA16258@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:25:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
From: wlfong@logos.waterloo.edu (Philip W. L. Fong)
Subject: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's Incompleteness Thm)
Message-ID: <1992Apr23.164131.15250@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 16:41:31 GMT
An Open Apology to Mr Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad
================================================
Dear Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad,
Recently I posted a request for reference to introductory text on Godel's
Incompleteness Theorm. You are one of the people to whom I would like to
express my gratefulness for the helpful information you have provided.
Today, I read an article <1992Apr22.124607.11418@husc3.harvard.edu>
in COMP.AI.PHILOSOPHY written by Mr. Mikhail Zeleny, which quotes
your reply, and, to my taste, contains some insulting remarks. I included
that in the end of this posting for reference.
I am deeply resentful for the irresponsible remark posted by Mr. Mikhail
Zeleny in the newsgroup. I would also like to apologize for creating
all these arguments by posting a summary of the replies I got. As a new
reader of the newsgroup, I thought that the newsgroup was a place for
serious academic discussion and disciplined scholarly exchange of
information. For this reason I posted the request. For the same reason,
and also thinking that participation in the newsgroup should be a
give-and-take process, I posted the summay, hoping that someone would,
like myself, find the summary useful. I did not realize that someone would
use this as an opportunity for insulting other people. I would like to
apologize for causing the demage by posting your reply, which you forwarded
to me out of good will.
Best regards,
Philip Fong
=============================================================================
Philip Fong wlfong@logos.waterloo.edu
University of Waterloo (519)888-4674
Ontario, Canada (519)725-7795
=============================================================================
: >Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 12:11:02 -0400
: >From: tkprasad@valhalla.cs.wright.edu (Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad)
: __________________^^___________
: >
: >
: >You can read "Godel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstader
: >and "Godel's Proof" by Nagel and ...
: >Both have extremely informal and palatable treatment of
: >Incompleteness theorem. The former is a Pulitzer Prize Winner.
: >The latter book was written in 1950's and is NYU Press I think.
: >You can also look at "Metamagical Themas" by the first author
: >for an article on self-reference.
: >
: >Avoid looking at First-order logic text books. Even though I work in
: >logic, I understood more from the informal descriptions than the gory
: >proof in Enderton!
: >
: >Good Luck.
: >Prasad
: >
:
: You might want to consider a career change. Although not a single one
: among my students in the Harvard Extension introductory logic class
: professes to "work in logic", none among them have failed to understand
: "the gory proof in Enderton".
:
: On second thought, the department name in your address explains everything.
:
: >[...]
:
: I am crossposting this to sci.logic, so Herb Enderton can enjoy it, too.
:
Xref: eff comp.ai.philosophy:5203 sci.logic:1159
Path: eff!widener!ukma!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!rabi.uchicago.edu!trivedi
From: trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's Incompleteness Thm)
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.015515.1500@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 92 01:55:15 GMT
References: <1992Apr23.164131.15250@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Organization: Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago
Lines: 47
In article <1992Apr23.164131.15250@watdragon.waterloo.edu> wlfong@logos.waterloo.edu (Philip W. L. Fong) writes:
PF:
> An Open Apology to Mr Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad
> ================================================
>Recently I posted a request for reference to introductory text on Godel's
>Incompleteness Theorm. You are one of the people to whom I would like to
>express my gratefulness for the helpful information you have provided.
...
>Today, I read an article <1992Apr22.124607.11418@husc3.harvard.edu>
>in COMP.AI.PHILOSOPHY written by Mr. Mikhail Zeleny,
Here is what Mr. Zeleny wrote, highlighting that Mr Krishnaprasad, to whom
the following is addressed, is at a Computer Science department:
MZ:
> : You might want to consider a career change. Although not a single one
> : among my students in the Harvard Extension introductory logic class
> : professes to "work in logic", none among them have failed to understand
> : "the gory proof in Enderton".
> :
> : On second thought, the department name in your address explains everything.
> : >[...]
> : I am crossposting this to sci.logic, so Herb Enderton can enjoy it, too.
I am not as polite as Mr Fong. If straight talk makes you uncomfortable,
please hit "n" now!
This guy, Michael Zeleny, is a completely immature idiot. I personally
know a few friends who have considered suing him and Harvard for attacks on
them (posted from a Harvard address using Harvard's computer resources) and
stand ready to actually do so should that behavior repeat itself. Probably it
will; if so, Mr Zeleny is about to become more famous than he possibly can
with his intellectual achievements.
Here, I would only like to say that I find it in extremely poor taste that
Mr Zeleny, who apparently has nothing to do besides sitting at a COMPUTER
terminal all the time blabbering on various topics and name-dropping
("Herb Enderton" above, "I once challenged Alonzo Church" somewhere else;
the usual occupation of insecure second-raters), would attack someone for
being in a Computer Science department, someone who apparently had done him
no harm.
I feel sorry for Mr Zeleny's "Harvard Extension" students but then many
of us have been cursed with assholes for professors.
-----
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's
Message-ID: <199204271327.AA16489@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:27:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's
Message-ID: <1992Apr23.210937.11487@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 92 01:09:35 GMT
In article <1992Apr23.164131.15250@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
wlfong@logos.waterloo.edu (Philip W. L. Fong) writes:
PWLF:
> An Open Apology to Mr Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad
> ================================================
>
>Dear Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad,
>
>Recently I posted a request for reference to introductory text on Godel's
>Incompleteness Theorm. You are one of the people to whom I would like to
>express my gratefulness for the helpful information you have provided.
>
>Today, I read an article <1992Apr22.124607.11418@husc3.harvard.edu>
>in COMP.AI.PHILOSOPHY written by Mr. Mikhail Zeleny, which quotes
>your reply, and, to my taste, contains some insulting remarks. I included
>that in the end of this posting for reference.
>
>I am deeply resentful for the irresponsible remark posted by Mr. Mikhail
>Zeleny in the newsgroup. I would also like to apologize for creating
>all these arguments by posting a summary of the replies I got. As a new
>reader of the newsgroup, I thought that the newsgroup was a place for
>serious academic discussion and disciplined scholarly exchange of
>information. For this reason I posted the request. For the same reason,
>and also thinking that participation in the newsgroup should be a
>give-and-take process, I posted the summay, hoping that someone would,
>like myself, find the summary useful. I did not realize that someone would
>use this as an opportunity for insulting other people. I would like to
>apologize for causing the demage by posting your reply, which you forwarded
>to me out of good will.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Philip Fong
>
>=============================================================================
>Philip Fong wlfong@logos.waterloo.edu
>University of Waterloo (519)888-4674
>Ontario, Canada (519)725-7795
>=============================================================================
You seem to be on the right track; however you are neglecting to extend
your humble and profuse apologies to every author of a first-order logic
text in general, and Herb Enderton in particular, who were insulted en
masse in their professional capacity by your thoughtless publicising of
your correspondent's idiotic remark. As a new reader of this network, you
might be interested in the Usenet tradition of returning an insult for an
insult.
TKP:
> : >Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 12:11:02 -0400
> : >From: tkprasad@valhalla.cs.wright.edu (Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad)
> : __________________^^___________
> : >
> : >
> : >You can read "Godel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstader
> : >and "Godel's Proof" by Nagel and ...
> : >Both have extremely informal and palatable treatment of
> : >Incompleteness theorem. The former is a Pulitzer Prize Winner.
> : >The latter book was written in 1950's and is NYU Press I think.
> : >You can also look at "Metamagical Themas" by the first author
> : >for an article on self-reference.
> : >
> : >Avoid looking at First-order logic text books. Even though I work in
> : >logic, I understood more from the informal descriptions than the gory
> : >proof in Enderton!
> : >
> : >Good Luck.
> : >Prasad
> : >
MZ:
> : You might want to consider a career change. Although not a single one
> : among my students in the Harvard Extension introductory logic class
> : professes to "work in logic", none among them have failed to understand
> : "the gory proof in Enderton".
> :
> : On second thought, the department name in your address explains everything.
> :
> : >[...]
> :
> : I am crossposting this to sci.logic, so Herb Enderton can enjoy it, too.
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't :
: Connais pas! Connais pas! think :
: so :
: Mikhail Zeleny :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET :
: :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's
Message-ID: <199204271328.AA16571@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:28:15 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
From: trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.022943.2529@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 02:29:43 GMT
In article <1992Apr23.210937.11487@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Apr23.164131.15250@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
>wlfong@logos.waterloo.edu (Philip W. L. Fong) writes:
PWLF:
>> An Open Apology to Mr Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad
>> ================================================
MZ:
>You seem to be on the right track; however you are neglecting to extend
>your humble and profuse apologies to every author of a first-order logic
>text in general, and Herb Enderton in particular, who were insulted en
>masse in their professional capacity ...
This kind of childish immaturity, even a lack of simple decency, is very
typical of Mr Zeleny.
Someone may or may not like certain textbooks; similarly someone
may or may not find a particular proof difficult. However, suggesting
as Mr Zeleny did that someone should consider a change of carrer is a
personal insult on an entirely different plane.
-----
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's
Message-ID: <199204271328.AA16638@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:28:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
From: blenko-tom@CS.YALE.EDU (Tom Blenko)
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.221355.15409@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 22:13:55 GMT
In article <> trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
|In article <> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
|>In article <> wlfong@logos.waterloo.edu (Philip W. L. Fong) writes:
|PWLF:
|>> An Open Apology to Mr Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad
|MZ:
|>You seem to be on the right track; however you are neglecting to extend
|>your humble and profuse apologies to every author of a first-order logic
|>text in general, and Herb Enderton in particular, who were insulted en
|>masse in their professional capacity ...
|This kind of childish immaturity, even a lack of simple decency, is very
|typical of Mr Zeleny.
Zeleny has contributed far more to this forum than Trivedi or his other
detractors, who seem to have far more to say about style than about
substance. This group features reams of empty and ignorant blather
delivered with unimpeachable style. I think it would be improved my
greater substance, which Zeleny delivers, even if the style of delivery
doesn't have all the appeal it might.
Tom
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's
Message-ID: <199204271328.AA16733@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:28:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: trivedi@curie.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.065500.24714@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 25 Apr 92 06:55:00 GMT
In article <1992Apr24.221355.15409@cs.yale.edu> blenko-tom@CS.YALE.EDU (Tom Blenko) writes:
TB:
>Zeleny has contributed far more to this forum than Trivedi or his other
>detractors....
>...I think it would be improved [by] greater substance, which Zeleny delivers,
>even if the style of delivery doesn't have all the appeal it might.
I have nothing against anyone contributing to the substance, although
some people who are less THINKING and more ARGUMENTATIVE always manage
to pull the level of discussion down. In addition, the "style" in question
does not refer to spelling, grammar, or diction, but to unwarranted nasty
personal attacks (IMHO). I have seen it many times. It has always developed
in the same direction.
When someone told him:
everyone knows you're bright, in some ways, so quit trying to
make yourself look superior by dumping on others...
Mr Zeleny saw fit to respond with
You see,..., I really don't give a fuck whether you, or anybody else,
decide to patronize me or to belittle me; [...] I happen to give a
fuck when someone decides to fuck with them old Platonic Ideals...
Some mathematical substance there!
Don't forget that Mr Zeleny *could* have chosen the substance himself.
Mr Krishnaprased had recommended some BEGINNERS' level reading on Goedel's
theorem in response to an inquiry; he characterized certain books or proofs
as difficult (even I understood that he meant "difficult for beginners"),
which is routine academic discourse IMHO.
It was not, as Mr Zeleny was later smarting, personally insulting to anyone:
he did not suggest that logicians should give up on writing books and
become janitors, or that Mr Enderton was fit only for polishing shoes,
or anything like that.
Mr Zeleny, instead of launching into "free career advice [to Mr Krishnaprased]"
and openly forwarding that most ill-mannered and unjustified ridicule to "Herb"
for the latter's amusement, could just possibly have chosen to talk about
Godel's theorems, logic, his own favorite proofs or textbooks, or whatever.
-----
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <199204271329.AA16852@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:29:47 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.045900.11501@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 92 08:58:59 GMT
In article <1992Apr24.015515.1500@midway.uchicago.edu>
trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
AT:
>This guy, Michael Zeleny, is a completely immature idiot. I personally
>know a few friends who have considered suing him and Harvard for attacks on
>them (posted from a Harvard address using Harvard's computer resources) and
>stand ready to actually do so should that behavior repeat itself. Probably it
>will; if so, Mr Zeleny is about to become more famous than he possibly can
>with his intellectual achievements.
Is all that due to my asking you to cease your commercial postings on
behalf of your "friends"? If so, they are just like you in character and
intellect. There, they can sue me now.
AT:
>Here, I would only like to say that I find it in extremely poor taste that
>Mr Zeleny, who apparently has nothing to do besides sitting at a COMPUTER
>terminal all the time blabbering on various topics and name-dropping
>("Herb Enderton" above, "I once challenged Alonzo Church" somewhere else;
>the usual occupation of insecure second-raters), would attack someone for
>being in a Computer Science department, someone who apparently had done him
>no harm.
No comment.
AT:
>I feel sorry for Mr Zeleny's "Harvard Extension" students but then many
>of us have been cursed with assholes for professors.
One of you has even been cursed with an asshole for a mouth; I can only
conjecture as to the contents of your cranium. Incidentally, I am not a
professor; I just grade papers. You failed.
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't :
: Connais pas! Connais pas! think :
: so :
: Mikhail Zeleny :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET :
: :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <199204271330.AA16925@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:30:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.053037.11505@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 92 09:30:36 GMT
In article <1992Apr24.022943.2529@midway.uchicago.edu>
trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
>In article <1992Apr23.210937.11487@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr23.164131.15250@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
>>wlfong@logos.waterloo.edu (Philip W. L. Fong) writes:
PWLF:
>>> An Open Apology to Mr Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad
>>> ================================================
MZ:
>>You seem to be on the right track; however you are neglecting to extend
>>your humble and profuse apologies to every author of a first-order logic
>>text in general, and Herb Enderton in particular, who were insulted en
>>masse in their professional capacity ...
AT:
>This kind of childish immaturity, even a lack of simple decency, is very
>typical of Mr Zeleny.
No comment.
AT:
>Someone may or may not like certain textbooks; similarly someone
>may or may not find a particular proof difficult. However, suggesting
>as Mr Zeleny did that someone should consider a change of carrer is a
>personal insult on an entirely different plane.
Consider it free career counceling. Someone who boasts of being unable to
understand a textbook proof has no business "working in logic".
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien? Qu'est-ce qui est laid? Harvard :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible... doesn't :
: Connais pas! Connais pas! think :
: so :
: Mikhail Zeleny :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 661-8151 :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET :
: :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <199204271330.AA17004@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:30:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.024959.19571@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 25 Apr 92 02:49:59 GMT
In article <1992Apr24.045900.11501@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Apr24.015515.1500@midway.uchicago.edu>
>trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
>
AT:
>>This guy, Michael Zeleny, is a completely immature idiot. I personally
>>know a few friends who have considered suing him and Harvard for attacks on
>>them (posted from a Harvard address using Harvard's computer resources) and
>>stand ready to actually do so should that behavior repeat itself. Probably it
>>will; if so, Mr Zeleny is about to become more famous than he possibly can
>>with his intellectual achievements.
>Is all that due to my asking you to cease your commercial postings on
>behalf of your "friends"? If so, they are just like you in character and
>intellect. There, they can sue me now.
You forgot to mention that you noticed this "commercial" aspect to some
students trying to sell books only after they refused to lower the price
to the level you were demanding! BTW, all would have been happy to discuss
what is or is not appropriate on the net, and abide by the consensus;
what irked them was the PERSONAL nature of attacks from you.
-----
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <199204271330.AA17086@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:30:46 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <1992Apr25.182430.5686@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Date: 25 Apr 92 18:24:30 GMT
All these attacks on MR Zeleny, followed by attempts to create
rules on what is and is not acceptable on the net. I once had
a Mr Johnson tell me to not make what he considered snide
remarks on the net. That is the problem isnt it. Let us impose
our will on others so that we can hear what we want to hear. I
personally appreciate Mr Zeleny for his willingness to take risk,
althought frankly I dont understand much of what he says.
If I dont like some things he says I just ignore them. But
never have I heard him talk of censoring what people say on the
net. If this is to be a free forum we must tolerate all
opinions and move on. If censorship is allowed on this network
then I want no part of the network.
Wayne Peterson
"Mr. Zeleney's alias is Elisa"
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <199204271331.AA17163@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:31:02 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
From: trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <1992Apr26.035101.25299@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 03:51:01 GMT
In article <1992Apr25.182430.5686@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson) writes:
>All these attacks on Mr Zeleny, followed by attempts to create
>rules on what is and is not acceptable... I once had a Mr Johnson
>tell me to not make what he considered snide remarks...
>That is the problem isnt it. Let us impose
>our will on others so that we can hear what we want to hear.
Could it be that you interpret "freedom of speech" to cover your speech
but not of those who disapprove of you?
>I personally appreciate Mr Zeleny for his willingness to take risk,
>althought frankly I dont understand much of what he says.
I personally appreciate Saddam Hussein's even grander tendency to take
"risks", althought frankly I dont understand why he does things that way.
Has it occured to you that when you take risk, it may bring you more
than "appreciation": sometimes that risk just might materialize.
> If I dont like some things ... I just ignore them.
That is your judgement. But remember the common wisdom that crime is
increasing in our society since no one wants to "become involved"!
Personally, I would ignore a person's opinions that I find objectionable,
but not his unjustified attack on an innocent person.
Here, it wasn't even a question of someone losing temper in the middle
of a sharp argument: Mr Krishnaprasad had not said A WORD to Mr Zeleny.
NOT ONE SINGLE WORD.
>If this is to be a free forum we must tolerate all opinions and move on.
I will tolerate opinions. But if I see someone being attacked, I most
certainly will NOT just move on. (That is not to disagree with your
freedom to do as you see fit.)
>If censorship is allowed on this network...
We are free to do what we wish. However, if we play with fire, we might
get burnt. Those are different things.
-----
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <199204271331.AA17263@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:31:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: freitag@elrond.toppoint.de (Claus Schoenleber)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Gode
Message-ID: <1quVJB4w165w@elrond.toppoint.de>
Date: 27 Apr 92 10:42:35 GMT
trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
>...
> I personally appreciate Saddam Hussein's even grander tendency to take
> "risks", althought frankly I dont understand why he does things that way.
> ...
This is far beyond any matter of taste and has nothing to do with defending
"innocent people" or with academic discussion style. Whatever one thinks
about MZ, don't you see, that you're doing exactly the same thing like you
think, MZ had done to others?
> ...
> I will tolerate opinions. But if I see someone being attacked, I most
> certainly will NOT just move on. (That is not to disagree with your
> freedom to do as you see fit.)
> ...
Read your own above statement at this time again.
> ...
> We are free to do what we wish. However, if we play with fire, we might
> get burnt. Those are different things.
> ...
As you say.
Regards,
Claus.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------
Claus Schoenleber I UUCP freitag@elrond.toppoint.de
Metzstr. 54 I ISBN 3-926986
D-W-2300 Kiel 1, Germany I phone +49 431 18863
=================================================================
The Galaxy shall miss you! I "What's the matter?" - "Never mind!"
Isaac Asimov died 06Apr92. I ;-) "What's mind?" - "No matter!"
=================================================================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprasad
Message-ID: <199204271332.AA17376@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 05:32:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprasad
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.174440.11202@cs.wright.edu>
From: tkprasad@valhalla.wright.edu (Thirunarayan Krishnaprasad)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 17:44:40 GMT
In light of Philip Wong's message, I thought it is appropriate
to repost my previous message under the new subject:
My EMAIL to Philip Wong was NOT meant to be a POSTING.
I wanted to convey to him, that for a beginner, the books
GODEL, ESCHER, BACH and GODEL'S PROOF are a good starting
point as they do a good job of explaining the basic ideas.
I do realize that after an informal understanding of the
underlying ideas, one needs the kind of rigorous proofs
given in the textbooks on FOL. My statements have been
interpreted out of context. In fact, I owe a lot to
Enderton's book for whatever I know in logic. I do not
think I deserve the slanderous remarks from Michael Zeleny,
for I did not mean to be disrespectful to anyone. My EMAIL
has been blown out of proportion.
Prasad
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.sganet] Auburn
Message-ID: <199204271435.AA22057@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 06:35:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: theo@SHARK.CSE.FAU.EDU (Theo Heavey)
Subject: Auburn
Message-ID: <199204270549.AA16761@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 21:43:12 GMT
I agree that the Alabama Government needs to withdraw from policing our
freedom of speech..etc ESPECIALLY at our universities.
What else can we do besides these resolutions??
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.sganet] The Auburn Situation
Message-ID: <199204271435.AA22140@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 06:35:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: ST2975@SIUCVMB.bitnet
Subject: The Auburn Situation
Message-ID: <199204262358.AA22748@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 00:26:04 GMT
Brian, Joanna, Malinda and fellow netters,
I agree with the Resolution circulated previously in part. I firmly suppo
rt all civil liberties in the US Constitution and those in state constitutions.
Unfortunately, I do not agree with the wording of the Resolution. I shall try
to explain here.
First, I abhor discrimination in any form, anywhere. Discrimination is re
pugnant to a society which promotes free speech, expression, assembly, etc...
The civil liberties and rights afforded all citizens in the Constitution are no
t mere words subject to the interpretation of a student government or a state l
egislature.
Second, should the Governor sign the bill, I would expect to hear about ce
rtain Auburn students bringing a first admendment case in the federal court of
jurisdiction. From the limited information provided to us netters, I see a str
ong first admendment issue ready for a constitutional law attorney. The Resolu
tion states "...no one is willing to grant basic civil rights and protection...
". As a political sceince major considering law school, the affected students
at Auburn University should vigorously and tirelessly assert the rights of all
American citizens.
Third, I disagree with the Resolution on the basis that the Constitution c
an be used to PREVENT sexual discrimination. The Constitution does protect peo
ple on the basis of sex, race, origin, etc... However, all my readings and st
udies cannot support a claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientati
on. I firmly believe that AGLA can make a very strong case on the abrigdement
of First Amendment rights.
Fourth, Universities and other organizations, such as the city of Chicago,
have and can pass anti-discrimination rules. Unless Auburn has such a rule or
unless the state of Alabama has a rule, I do not think (again these comments a
re based on the limited facts available on this net) the AGLA can prevail on th
e sexual orientation issue.
Finally, I hope my comments have been of some use. I recommend consulting
the local chapter of the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU). Also, I invite
any response to my comments. Again, AGLA has a better oportunity to prevail on
the First Amendment aspect of their claim.
Peace,
Michael P
Southern Illinois University
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.sganet] Ideas on Auburn resolution
Message-ID: <199204271436.AA22296@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 06:36:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: bmcconne@vtssi.vt.edu (Brian McConnell)
Subject: Ideas on Auburn resolution
Message-ID: <199204270334.AA07443@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 03:28:57 GMT
Here's my two cents worth based on the feedback from
Southern Illinois University.
DRAFT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS the Constitution of the United States of America
insures the rights of free speech, free assembly,
and freedom of religion to all citizens, and
WHEREAS the Student Government of Auburn University, and
the Alabama State Legislature have sought to
abridge, through legislation, the rights of a
group of students, the Auburn Gay and Lesbian
Alliance (AGLA) to freely associate as a
student organization, and have sought to
deny this organization access to university
facilities, be it
RESOLVED that the (fill in your organization's name here),
condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the
suspension of the constitutional rights of
free speech and free assembly at Alabama
universities, and be it further
RESOLVED that the (......) urges the repeal of legislation
barring the formation of gay and lesbian student
unions from Alabama universities, and be it further
RESOLVED that the (......) authorizes the (fill in appropriate
official or dept here) to allocate $___.__ in support
of the AGLA to retain legal counsel and initiate
a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of
this legislation.
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 06:36:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: EGBARRA@befac.indstate.edu (Will Barratt)
Subject: Re: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204271405.AA19690@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 14:00:46 GMT
Before everyone gets too upset about what the folks down south are
doing to the GLB orgs, there is significant law on the side of the
student organizations. Refer to Kaplin "the law of higher eduction'
and Barr and Assoc 'Student Services and the Law'.
Denying recognition to organizations is trickey business and has only
held up by the courts in situations of pending violence.
***********************************************************
Will Barratt 812/237-2869 Office
Department of Counseling 812/237-2870 Secretary
Indiana State University, USA 812/237-4348 FAX
EGBARRA@BEFAC.INDSTATE.EDU (Internet)
EGWILLB@INDSVAX1.BITNET (BITNET)
EGWILLB@INDSTATE.BITNET (BITNET)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.activism.d,alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Hate Speech" distinguished from "Panic-Inducing Speech"
Message-ID: <1992Apr27.143505.9602@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 14:35:05 GMT
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
[...]
>I believe that this description of "fighting words" is not quite accurate.
>In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), Justice Murphy wrote for the SC:
>
>"...insulting or 'fighting' words--those which their very utterance inflict
>injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
[...]
I believe the current definition is 1) the language must be delivered
one-to-one, and 2) must be such as to evoke an immediate breach of
peace (as opposed to simply offending the listener). _Chaplinsky vs.
New Hampshire_ is (thankfully) out of date.
According to _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagman, 1991, p.
106: "In 1940 Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was distributing
literature on the streets of Rochester, New Hampshire, when he created
quite a stir by loudly telling everyone he encountered that organized
religions are 'a racket' and by specifically condemning several major
ones by name in great detail. He was arrested an eventually convicted
under a state law that made it an offense to speak 'any offensive,
derisive or annoying word to any person who is lawfully in any street
or other public place'. When the case reached the Supreme Court in
1942 (_Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_), the justices unanimously upheld
the conviction and rejected Chaplinsky's claim that his words and
actions were protected by the First Amendment...."
According to _American Constitutional Law_ by Ralph A. Rossum
and G. Alan Tarr, 1983, p. 379:
"The Court has since [_Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_] defined 'fighting
words' narrowly. It is not enough that speech be offensive, or
invite dispute, or provoke hostility among listeners: only
fact-to-face person insults raise no First Amendment issues. Yet the
difficulty of designing a statute confined to such insults has lead
the Court to overturn convicts on overbreadth or vagueness grounds even
when the speech at issue clearly constituted 'fighting words'"
In _Cohn v. California_, 1971 the Supreme Court restated the
description of fighting words as "those personally abusive epithets
which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of
common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent action.
[...]
Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of the
claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon
unwilling or unsuspecting viewer, and that the State might therefore
legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from
otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest
... While this Court has recognized that government may properly act
in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home
of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the
public dialog ... we have at the same time consistently stressed that
'we are often "captives" outside the sanctuary of the home and subject
to objectionable speech.' ... The ability of government, consistent
with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others
from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon the showing that
substantial privacy interest are being invaded in an essentially
intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would
effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a
matter of personal predilections." ...
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: stevens@Csa1.LBL.Gov (Dave F. Stevens)
Subject: delete
Message-ID: <920427082909.2221233c@Csa1.LBL.Gov>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 15:29:09 GMT
delete dfstevens@lbl.gov from this newsgroup / listserv
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased (was re: Godel's Incompleteness Thm)
Message-ID: <1992Apr27.153942.27514@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 15:39:42 GMT
trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
[...]
>This guy, Michael Zeleny, is a completely immature idiot. I personally
>know a few friends who have considered suing him and Harvard for attacks on
>them (posted from a Harvard address using Harvard's computer resources) and
>stand ready to actually do so should that behavior repeat itself. Probably it
>will; if so, Mr Zeleny is about to become more famous than he possibly can
>with his intellectual achievements.
[...]
Insults and verbal attacks are generally Constitutionally protected
speech. Your friends are very unlikely to have any grounds for a
lawsuit. The way to fight such bad speech is through more speech, not
through suppression by the authorities.
In addition, even if Mr. Zeleny's words are actionable, Harvard is
unlikely to be found liable.
Finally, Harvard (with the possible exception of Mr. Zeleny's
supervisor) generally has an excellent reputation for respecting the
academic freedom. It knows that freedom of expression is central to
academic freedom and that student and staff, in their public
expressions and demonstrations, speak only for themselves.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/hustler-magazine-v-falwell
=================
Summary from _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam, p. 157.
The publisher of a cartoon parody, already found not to be libelous,
could not be punished for the emotional distress the cartoon may have
caused. The Court wrote: "in public debate our own citizens must
tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide
adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First
Amendment."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
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) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law hustler-magazine-v-falwell
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.liability
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
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/law/hustler-magazine-v-falwell
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
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 27 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Apr 92 15:41:05 GMT
rp@iscp.bellcore.com (Robert Pearlman) writes:
>|> o protect your userid from unauthorized use. You are responsible for
>|> all activities on your userid or system.
>
>This is reasonable for governmental, judicial, corporate statements. It
>feels wrong for a school addressing its students. Example: student A
>steals student B's password and really wrecks things [...]
This provision is, I think, particularly untenable on Unix systems used by
students for course work. Very often we assign group projects, in which a
student works with one or more partners. Partnerships may change between
assignments. How do the students in a group share files?
There is a group-membership mechanism in Unix, but it's not good enough
for two reasons. First, only the system administrator can change group
memberships, and this isn't the sort of thing sysadmins want to spend a
lot of time doing. Second, we put all the students in one course into
the same group, because that's how the graders get access to the students'
files for online grading and so on. [Yes, this is a security problem in
itself; there is no technical mechanism to prevent the graders from also
reading the students' other files.]
So, in practice, the students in a group either tell each other their
passwords or put each other in their .rhosts, even though this is forbidden
by our rules too. [I don't make the rules!]
This could be fixed technically if Unix had a TOPS-10-like permission system
that allowed each user to give file use permission on a per-file, per-user
basis. But I'm not sure the cure wouldn't be worse than the disease; the last
thing I want is to encourage my students to become security freaks.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprasad
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Apr 92 15:57:02 GMT
Carl, is there some reason you are reposting all this stuff to a.c.a-f.t?
If someone were threatening to cut off the net access of one of the
participants in that flamewar, I could see how a brief summary of the
original postings followed by a discussion of the official responses
to it would be relevant here.
But just because I want to defend people's right to conduct flamewars,
that doesn't mean I want to read all the flamewars myself.
Yes, I did notice that someone used the word "censorship" in one of the
flames. But unless I'm missing something, that was just an attempt to
raise the ante rhetorically. There was no actual threat of censorship
involved.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: "Nude photo in yearbook stirs campus debate"
Message-ID: <1992Apr27.164301.27154@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 16:43:01 GMT
According to an article in clari.news.sex:
> LAFAYETTE, La. (UPI) -- The University of Southwestern Louisiana's
>just-out yearbook featuring a photograph of a bare-breasted woman in bed
>with a man has drawn attention as well as criticism of the annual's
>``Love, Sex and Dating'' section.
It was an original photo, so no copyright problems.
Against Publication:
The year book business manager. He thinks some student may ask for refunds.
The Vice President of Student Affairs. He thinks it could hurt freedom
of the press on the campus. But he says that he is not the campus
censor: ``The only way I could have stopped it would have
been to go to court. And I don't think any court would have stopped
it.''
Not Obscene:
The university's Communications Committeee chairman
Local newspaper editor
Student Press Law Center in Washington D.C.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 21:49:17 GMT
Summary: The policy shows good user participation and due process.
Privacy could be improved by detailing the procedure by which searches
are authorized. Freedom of expression could be improved by removing
vague speech restrictions.
marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
>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.
I think this is a great trend. It is very much in keeping with the
spirit of a university and it seems to result in better policies.
[...]
> Appropriate Use of Information Systems
> at Virginia Tech
[...]
>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.
The phrase "intimidation, harassment, and unwarranted annoyance" is
vague (perhaps unconstitutionally so) and redundant, unless you are
quoting from a general Tech policy, I suggest the simpler and more
precise "harassment".
>In making appropriate use of resources you must:
>o use only legal versions of copyrighted software in compliance with
> vendor license requirements.
As someone else has pointed out, copyright and licences are two
different things.
>In making appropriate use of resources you must NOT:
>
>o use another person's userid, password, files, system or data
> without permission.
So it is OK to use another person's userid and password with that person's
permission? I don't think that is what you mean to say.
>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.
I think the phrase "might be harmful" is too weak. How about "causes
harm, is intended to be harmful, or is likely to be harmful ..."
>o use University systems for partisan political purposes, such as us-
> ing electronic mail to circulate advertising for political candi-
> dates.
Speech should only be restricted if so required by University
regulation (or law). If this restriction is based on a University
regulation or law, you should reference the regulation.
[...]
>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.
Based on court cases like _UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_ (which
mentioned email), I believe this speech restriction is illegal because
it is too vague and because it illegally restricts First Amendment
rights.
I suggest:
o use mail or messaging services to harass, for example, by,
sending mail after being told that it is unwanted."
>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.
The phrase "personal gain" is vague. It could be a prohibition against
learning. Tech's general policies probably already have a rule about
commercial use of Tech property. I suggest finding that policy and
then just copying it.
>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.
But what are the procedures for authorizing such a violation of user
privacy? What is Tech's general privacy policy? Most state schools
will not search assigned office space or dorm space without some
higher-level authorization (with exceptions for emergencies,
maintenance, etc). Remember, you are constrained by the Constitution
from making "unreasonable searches and seizures". Although, no
lawsuit has (as far as I know) yet established exactly what this means
in the context of academic computer systems at state schools, it is
unlikely to mean any sys op can authorize a search at any time.
> Violators are subject to disci-
>plinary action as prescribed in the honor codes and the student and em-
>ployee handbooks.
This is good. You have found a very simple way to respect the due
process rights of your users. This is much better than policies (e.g.
ACS at Ohio State University) that authorizes the computer center to
suspend students from the computer without any hearing, appeal, etc..
- 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/gates-v-brewer
=================
An excerpt from a newspaper article about email harassment. A judge
agreed that Bill Gates of Mircosoft had been the victim of harassment.
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
policies/acs.ohio-state.edu
=================
Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks for The Office of Academic
Computing at The Ohio State University (Critiqued)
=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
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 uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law gates-v-brewer
send acad-freedom/law constitution.us
send acad-freedom/policies acs.ohio-state.edu
send acad-freedom/faq policy
send acad-freedom caf
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/gates-v-brewer
pub/academic/law/constitution.us
pub/academic/policies/acs.ohio-state.edu
pub/academic/faq/policy
pub/academic/caf
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.activism.d,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: "Hate Speech" distinguished from "Panic-Inducing Speech"
Message-ID: <1992Apr27.144916.2873@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 14:49:16 EDT
In article <1992Apr27.143505.9602@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>
>[...]
>>I believe that this description of "fighting words" is not quite accurate.
>>In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), Justice Murphy wrote for the SC:
>>
>>"...insulting or 'fighting' words--those which their very utterance inflict
>>injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
>[...]
>
>I believe the current definition is 1) the language must be delivered
>one-to-one, and 2) must be such as to evoke an immediate breach of
>peace (as opposed to simply offending the listener). _Chaplinsky vs.
>New Hampshire_ is (thankfully) out of date.
Certainly, in order to be considered unprotected speech, these days, the
"fighting words" must be delivered face-to-face, as you say.
I chose to make my post very brief as I simply wanted to establish that
"fighting words" did not particularly refer to a physical threat. (And
I didn't want to spend a lot of time pouring through the various cases...)
--
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 28 00:00:00 1992
From: ulysses@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (Euathlus Smithii)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: SGANet--what is it?
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Apr 92 05:31:25 GMT
In some of the articles about the Auburn GLBA hubbub, reference was made to
SGANet, which I guess stands for Student Government Association Net. Could
somebody please explain what this is? If UCSB is not represented then I would
like to bring this network to the attention of our AS. Thanks.
-Daniel Bucher
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.privacy
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Surveillance of phone calling records
Message-ID: <1992Apr28.112552.23369@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 11:25:52 GMT
A repost from alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, plus a not of my own
attached at the end:
>From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
>Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Logging outgoing telnet sessions
>Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 11:03:43 IST
>From: Hank Nussbacher
>Message-ID: <92106.110343HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>
>Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
>Subject: Re: Logging outgoing telnet sessions
>I don't believe that is any of your business. Where someone telnets to,
>who they send mail to, etc., should not be logged. Your plan sounds
>an awful lot like "Big Brother" to me.
The phone company records every phone call you make. No one looks
at it until either you feel the bill is wrong and request a detailed
bill or the police feel there is a need to look at who you have been
calling (assuming you are a drug dealer or blackmailer). You may feel
that the phone company is invading your privacy, but fortunately the
justice system as well as society does not.
The same is true with recording outgoing Telnet sessions. No one could
care less where you are telneting to, and the logs are usally so large
that *no* sysadmin reads them. They are there for cases of hacking.
Hank Nussbacher
Bar-Ilan University
Israel
---
In Finland it's not legal for the police to get access to the phone
company records, though it's being suggested to be made a power grant
to the police right now. The police _have_ been getting records from
bank cash dispensers, for suspected crimes unconnected with bank
crimes - my opinion from this is that it's a violation of privacy and
there probably is a law against it in Finland (haven't done closer
research). In USA, there's been at least one case publizized with
something like a whole town's phone records searched for one suspected
crime.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr28.120334.24043@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 28 Apr 92 12:03:34 GMT
In article <1992Apr23.153142.8735@pcsbst.pcs.com>, billp@pcsbst (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.
Rights are not given. Rights are fighted for.
>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.
Another example is that it is against the Finnish law to encourage
people to practice homosexuality. I think sex between consenting
adults when both are of the same sexes is a pleasurable thing and I
suggest people practice it more. So there, this article most probably
is breaking the Finnish law.
The question is, "so what?".
>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 disagree, though it'd be nice to have 'US' in the subject line or
something like that to point out which postings are regional in
nature. Though it in most cases is evident from other information.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: SGANet--what is it?
Message-ID: <1992Apr28.142057.27754@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 14:20:57 GMT
SGANet is a set of mailing lists for student governments.
Here is the flyer.
==============================================
SGANet Instructions
===================
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Welcome to the Student Government Global Mail Network (SGANet). SGANet is
a global electronic mail conferencing system for student governments and
university unions at universities worldwide. As of this writing, SGANet
reaches student leaders in 34 countries and is growing everyday.
SGANet puts student leaders around the world in the same room. Over the next
12 to 18 months, we are confident that we will reach our goal of linking
student leaders at a large number of the world's universities. For the first
time ever, student leaders around the world will be able to talk to each
other as if they were in the same office.
SGANet provides the following services. This tutorial provides detailed
information on how to use each of them.
- Global electronic mail discussion groups
- Interactive conferencing facilities
- Global directory of SGANet users
- Global automatic file libraries
- Technical support
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Global Electronic Mail Discussion Groups
The most widely used feature of SGANet is the electronic mail discussion
group. Electronic mail discussion groups are easy to use, and are a very
effective way of communicating with hundreds of people around the world.
SGANet has several discussion groups. They are:
SGANet :Global discussion group
SGANet-N :North American universities
SGANet-S :Latin American universities
SGANet-A :Asian/Australian universities
SGANet-E :European universities
SGAN-SAV :Student Association of Virginia, United States
USGA-L :Illinois Universities, United States
SGANet-T :Technical Discussion Group
Participating in a discussion group is easy. When you subscribe to SGANet,
you are automatically added to the global discussion group and to the
discussion group for your region. You may subscribe, at any time, to any
SGANet discussion group by sending the following message to:
LISTSERV@VTVM1.BITNET or LISTSERV@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
SUBscribe (Name of Discussion Group) (Your name, organization, university)
Once you subscribe to a discussion group, you will automatically receive
mail sent by other users on the network. You may send a message at anytime
which will be automatically sent to every participant of that discussion
group.
To send a message for distribution, send your message to one of the following
e-mail addresses. Once you send your messages, you will receive a notice
confirming that your message has been distributed to everyone.
SGANet@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (For global distribution)
SGANet-N@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (For North American distribution)
SGANet-S@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (For Latin American distribution)
SGANet-A@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (For Asian/Australian distribution)
SGANet-E@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (For European distribution)
SGAN-SAV@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (Student Association of Virginia)
USGA-L@SIUCVMB.BITNET (For Illinois universities)
SGANet-T@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (Technical discussion group, suggestions, questions)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interactive Conferencing Facilities - IRC
All SGANet subscribers who have access to the Internet academic research
network can reach a service called IRC. IRC is an interactive conferencing
facility which allows users to participate in a conversation even though
participants may be located in several countries.
IRC is easy to reach and easy to use.
We will be holding weekly meetings on IRC where users can log in and chat
with each other, send suggestions to network moderators, and get to know
other users on the network. We will announce the times of all meetings
held on IRC.
Contact your computing center about how to reach IRC, or send a message to
SGANet-T@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU and we will help you reach the service.
Once you log into IRC, you will want to join the channel +sganet on IRC.
We will use this channel for all SGANet meetings and conferencing sessions.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Global Directory of Users
SGANet provides users with an automated, global directory of all subscribers
to SGANet. This directory provides users with the name, university and
e-mail address of all unconcealed SGANet subscribers. We highly recommend
that subscribers use this facility to find people at other universities and
to start private conversations with other users.
To use the directory, send the following command to LISTSERV@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
REV SGANET
You will then receive a copy of the SGANet directory.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Global File Libraries
SGANet provides it users with access to a global file library. The file library
provides information about SGANet instructions, documents, databases of
information on various subjects, and much more.
Now, instead of keeping information locally, student leaders can share
information globally. Using the file library is easy.
First, you need to get a list of files available for retrieval.
Send the following message to LISTSERV@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
IND SGANET
You will automatically receive a listing of all files available for retrieval.
Then, select the files you would like to retrieve, and send the following
message to LISTSERV@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
GET (filename) (filetype)
GET (filename) (filetype)
.
.
The file server will automatically send the files to you.
Please note that you may use this facility as often as you like. In fact,
you are encourage to do so because information will be updated frequently
and new files will be added. Also, you may use this facility to retrieve
help on using Listserv by sending the following message to
Listserv@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
Help
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Technical Support
If you have difficulty reaching SGANet, sending messages or any other service,
please send a message to SGANet-T@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
One of our moderators will contact you, and help you solve any problems you
are having with the discussion group. SGANet-T is our technical discussion
group. Our moderators discuss technical problems, future plans for the
network, etc. This list is also open to anyone who wishes to subscribe to
it.
Our moderators are:
Brian McConnell Abhik Biswas
SGANet System Moderator SGANet System Co-Moderator
bmcconne@vtssi.vt.edu jutbaaa@oak.grove.iup.edu
Shawn Landres Kurt Jaeger
Public Relations SGANet Europe (Germany)
jsl7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu zrzr0111@rusux1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de
Simone Botti Minna Harjuniemi
SGANet Europe (Italy) SGANet Europe (Finland)
botti@vaxrma.infn.it hyy_tiedotus@cc.helsinki.fi
Atif Yardimici Gene Hong
SGANet Europe (Turkey) SGANet Asia (Taiwan)
yardim@trboun.bitnet 7831030@twnctu01.bitnet
Theodore Hope Daniel Greenberg
Network Liasion to Latin Amer. SGANet North America (US)
hope@huracan.cr dmg4449@ritvax.bitnet
Dale Hemmerling Bill Hall
SGANet North America (Canada) SGANet North America (US)
suexec@ucs.ualberta.ca {}
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.ai.philosophy, et al.] Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased
Message-ID: <9204281515.AA17061@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 05:15:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
From: trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased
Message-ID: <1992Apr28.090935.21502@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 09:09:35 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
>> ...who have considered suing [Zeleny] and Harvard for
>>attacks on them (posted from a Harvard address using Harvard's computer...
>Insults and verbal attacks are generally Constitutionally protected
>speech ... unlikely to have any grounds for a lawsuit.
>In addition,... Harvard is unlikely to be found liable.
I cannot second-guess what real life is or is not capable of producing. You
cite good examples later, but those supporting the opposite view no doubt
exist. Even you are careful to include the word "generally"! The whole legal
process (including appeals and what not) exists BECAUSE lawyers and judges can
and do disagree among themselves.
BTW, I am NOT giving legal advice to anyone.
My point was that Mr Zeleny has been known to offend people.
[On academic freedom etc.]:
>[Harvard] knows that freedom of expression is central to academic freedom
>and that student and staff, in their public expressions and demonstrations,
>speak only for themselves.
Are you not tilting and exaggerating the truth just a little? :-)
Universities also know the need for *rules*, for they sure have lots
of them.
Academic freedom, like the freedom of the press, is largely a self-serving
myth (though a good one for my taste): legally, academics have no special
freedoms that ordinary persons do not have.
Constitution prevents the GOVERNMENT from BANNING speech. It does NOT
unconditionally protect us from CONSEQUENCES: paying damages; going to
jail for revealing a secret; etc. It does NOT guarantee us free speech
on/from someone else's property, using their resources: be it a university,
department store, or a friend.
Universities, like ALL corporations, CAN be held indirectly responsible
for all sorts of things. All corporations know this, and all, commercial
or educational, regulate the individual behavior accordingly.
****************************
BTW, all of above is only in the best/worst tradition of academic
discussion.
I personally do not think that Mr Zeleny, for all of his many faults,
should be denied ACCESS to the computers.
It may come as a shock to many, and I suspect I am about to become
wildly unpopular, but I am thinking about writing his advisor urging
his reinstatement.
That will be only a REQUEST, although a well-reasoned one.
I cannot tell an institution that they have no right to regulate
what happens on their grounds. Nor can I tell a professor that his
student's professional conduct is none of his business---far from it!
But I will make a good-faith request that he REINSTATE, MONITOR, and
try/struggle to EDUCATE Mr Zeleny.
****************************
-----
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 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: <199204281759.AA01212@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 09:59:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: U94_SKOSCIOL@STEVENS.bitnet (Steve Kosciolek, Gamma 1115)
Subject: RE: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204281616.AA29603@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 16:13:00 GMT
To throw in my own two cents, I belive I also would have denied them
recognigion. However, I am basing my judgement on what it means on my
campus to gain recognition from the Student Council. Their may well be a
major difference, but from the limited information available, I can't judge
what I would do at Auburn.
In order to explain my decision, I would like to bring up an example that
actually happened on my campus. Currently, we have an orginization called
the Black Student Union. Earlier this year, some students attempted to
form the White Student Union, to serve the same purpose to the campus as
the BSU, except for white students. This is listed in their constution as
"to unite white students on the campus...".
Well, a lot of administrators, staff, and students became very upset at
this, since the group was "odviously racist", in calling itself that. The
people trying to start it were "talked to" by administrators, and convinced
that it would be a bad idea to start such a group. Later, I found out that
it is a violation of federal law to have a "White student group" on a
federal funded college campus. However, the administrators that stoped the
group didn't actually realize this.
An other example from my college is the European Student Association. This
group managed to survive for almost a semester before the Ethnic Student
Council's constant harasment forced the club out of existence. It seems
that everyone believes it is OK to have an Indian Association, and a
Chinese association, and a Vietnamese association, and so forth, but when
students attempt to form a European Students Association, everyone gets
scared that it will turn into the KKK.
The actual purpose of ethnic orginizations is to "prompote student
awareness of the XXXXXXXXXX culture and customs", and membership is open to
all students, but looking at the ethnic associations on my campus, they've
turned into groups of that particular ethnic origion. The Chinese Student
Associaton is a group of Chinese students, not a group of students
interested in Chinese culture.
Hypothetically, let me create an orginization called the Heterosexual
Student Union. For the time being, it would have the same goals and
purposes as the Gay group we've been discussing, however, it would be
heterosexuals only. Funding such a group would really be frowned upon by
any college, more or less for the same reasons as not allowing a white
group. Even with the best of motives for starting such a group, the
potential is there for it to turn into the KKK within a few years.
Let me explain the requirements of a group that wishes to be recognized.
The group must serve a purpose for the entire college community, and group
must have a certain number of active members, I think 15.
The gay group serves no purpose that a recognized orginization should serve
that I can think of. The constution of the group may prove me wrong, but I
havn't seen it, so I can only judge by what information has been given
here.
At Stevens, I believe that this group would also be denied recognition.
However, this does not deny them access to meeting rooms, or deny them the
right to get together. What it does do is deny them access to funding from
the Student Council, and give them second priority (first priority being
given to recoginized orignizations) access to meeting rooms.
Steve Kosciolek
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: An apology to Mr. Krishnaprased
Message-ID: <1992Apr28.175752.25826@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 17:57:52 GMT
trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
[...]
>BTW, I am NOT giving legal advice to anyone.
>My point was that Mr Zeleny has been known to offend people.
AND you mentioned lawsuits. Merely offending people is not grounds for
a lawsuit:
======================
... we have at the same time consistently stressed that 'we are often
"captives" outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to
objectionable speech.' ... The ability of government, consistent with
the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from
hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon the showing that
substantial privacy interest are being invaded in an essentially
intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would
effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a
matter of personal predilections." ...
-- From the Supreme Court's decision in _Cohen v. California_, 1971.
=======================
I wrote:
>[Harvard] knows that freedom of expression is central to academic freedom
>and that student and staff, in their public expressions and demonstrations,
>speak only for themselves.
trivedi@rabi.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:
>Are you not tilting and exaggerating the truth just a little? :-)
>Universities also know the need for *rules*, for they sure have lots
>of them.
The principle that students speak have freedom of expression and that
they speak for themselves are part of the rules at many schools. Here
are some of the *rules* at my school:
"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."
"Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the
University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order."
"The campus press and media are to be free of censorship."
"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."
-- from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students
Harvard has also shown that it thinks free expression is important.
Just last week there was a report that a Harvard Law School professor
wanted students punished for parody in the Harvard Law Revue that he
felt was sexist. Three other professors countered that although the
parody "failed to show respect for the dignity of others," that
"failing cannot ... be the occasion for disciplining the authors ..."
One of the professors, Alan Dershowitz, said "my hope is not only that
they dismiss it, but that they reprimand the professor who filed it."
Last I heard, the Harvard has declined to charge the student.
[batch/apr_26_1992]
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.'"
>Academic freedom, like the freedom of the press, is largely a self-serving
>myth (though a good one for my taste): legally, academics have no special
>freedoms that ordinary persons do not have.
By academic freedom, I meant rights of students and faculty have
within the context of their institution, for example, freedom of
expression, privacy, due process, and participation.
[student.freedoms]
The Supreme Court takes freedom of expression a unviersities very
seriously. Here is an excerpt from the recent _Rust v. Sullivan_
decision: "Similarly, we have recognized that the university is a
traditional sphere of free expression so fundamental to the
functioning of our society that the Government's ability to control
speech within that sphere by means of conditions attached to the
expenditure of Government funds is restricted by the vagueness and
overbreadth doctrines of the First Amendment, Keyishian v. Board of
Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 603, 605-606 (1967)."
>Constitution prevents the GOVERNMENT from BANNING speech.
True. (But the word in the First Amendment is "abridging" not
"banning".)
> It does NOT
>unconditionally protect us from CONSEQUENCES: paying damages;
I've never heard of anyone "paying damages" for speech merely because
it offended. Have you? Such a lawsuit would be prohibited by the
Constitution.
> going to
>jail for revealing a secret; etc.
Only if you are in the armed forces, etc.
> It does NOT guarantee us free speech
>on/from someone else's property, using their resources: be it a university,
>department store, or a friend.
Depends. If it is a state university, then it does exactly that.
I'm appending a FAQ that details this.
If it is a private universities, it mostly has rules in its student
code (like the ones above from a public university). These give it an
contractual obligation to protect free speech. (Also, in my opinion, a
moral obligation.)
Here is what A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers says about contractual obligations:
==============================================
"Today, courts recognize that when a student pays tuition for a
college education, a legal contract comes into being. The student has
contracted for an education as advertised by the institution in its
catalog and by its representatives. Some like to think of the student
as a consumer of education, and an institution as a supplier of a
product called education. The consumers is entitled to receive what
was paid for. The old days of in loco parentis have been replaced by
the law of contracts and the concepts of consumerism. This contractual
relationship implies a property interest which also triggers
constitutional guarantees at public institutions."
...
=================================================
>Universities, like ALL corporations, CAN be held indirectly responsible
>for all sorts of things.
Merely offensive speech by students isn't one of them.
> All corporations know this, and all, commercial
>or educational, regulate the individual behavior accordingly.
What regulation? As far as I know, at all public and most private
universities free expression, not speech regulation, is the rule.
Regulation can *increase* liability. 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."
>****************************
>BTW, all of above is only in the best/worst tradition of academic
>discussion.
I agree.
>I personally do not think that Mr Zeleny, for all of his many faults,
>should be denied ACCESS to the computers.
>It may come as a shock to many, and I suspect I am about to become
>wildly unpopular, but I am thinking about writing his advisor urging
>his reinstatement.
>That will be only a REQUEST, although a well-reasoned one.
[...]
Please do.
- Carl
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/media.control ===============
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
a: Like any organization, the government must work within its charter
(the Constitution). The Supreme Court has said that this limits the
Government's authority to control the media that owns and controls.
The rational is that it would be dangerous for a Government that is
elected by the people to have too much control on what the people
can say and read.
The Supreme Court calls created forums, like a student newspaper or
campus mail systems, limited public forums. It says that the
government can limited who may access these forums and/or what topics
may be discussed. But otherwise, "it is bound by the same standards as
apply in a traditional public forum"; "content-based prohibition must
be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." For
example, viewpoint-based discrimination is forbidden.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471
(1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme
Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
law/stanley-v-magrath
=================
Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd
Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in
1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school
boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given
publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of
financial or other school board support can be construed as an
unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school
authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply
because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a
school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student
expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored
paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student
publications.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
law/perry-v-perry
=================
Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says
that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited
public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system.
It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.)
Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It
says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by
the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is
sharp.
Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a
(public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same
limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a
condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.]
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send acad-freedom/law stanley-v-magrath
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan
send acad-freedom/law keyishian-v-board-of-regents
send acad-freedom/law perry-v-perry
send acad-freedom/law constitution.us
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry
pub/academic/law/constitution.us
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.
=================
batch/apr_26_1992
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
=================
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 student.freedoms
send acad-freedom/batch apr_26_1992
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/batch/apr_26_1992
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: djburche@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV (David J. Burchell)
Subject: Alternate ways of managing resources at UNL
Message-ID: <9204281832.AA00992@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 18:32:00 GMT
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell mentioned better management of
resources at UNL as a solution to the alt group problem.
Raul, that is a great idea! I wish you were at UNL computer
administrator.
But the real reason that the alts were removed was not due to
resources. Rather, that issue has served as a justification
for the decision.
First, the computer responsible for taking care of news has
been running at well under capacity (41% when we checked).
Second, the alt.* groups as well as everything else on news
is still being fed to UNL's computers. It is stored breifly
in a temp directory and then "dies" without having the alt.*s
spooled.
Third, CRC (our Computing Resouce Center) sees _this_ resource
issue: They don't have the manpower to monitor all the alt.
groups.
Let that sink in a sec.
Dave Spanel said on April 16 that the alts were unmoderated and
unregulated, and that CRC did not have time to approve of
the material, specificly the new groups, that the alts
are always generating. I asked him why not just let the alts
alone, would that not solve the resource problem? I asked him
why CRC was _interested_ in reviewing the alt material.
If I remember right, at that point Dave said he was not in a
position to continue and we had better hear from his boss,
Doug Gale, for CRC's offical position.
You see, it seems CRC realizes they cannot censor all of the
alts, they don't have the manpower (resources) to excise the
undesireable parts. So they nixed the whole thing.
But in answer to Raul's question; we ARE suggesting, of course,
that alts be carried and everything be expired sooner.
One more point: The CRC has maintained that nothing has been
censored; the material is still available via anonymous ftp.
--
Dave Burchell | Do who you like.
burchell@cse.unl.edu | If you don't do who you like,
ianr056@unlvm.bitnet | you won't like who you do.
djburche@dnelnc.cr.usgs.gov | - Rex A. Turnbull
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 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: <199204281833.AA02027@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 10:33:42 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.sganet
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Auburn University
Message-ID: <199204281827.AA01784@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 18:25:26 GMT
U94_SKOSCIOL@STEVENS.bitnet (Steve Kosciolek, Gamma 1115) writes:
[...]
> Earlier this year, some students attempted to
>form the White Student Union, to serve the same purpose to the campus as
>the BSU, except for white students. This is listed in their constution as
>"to unite white students on the campus...".
> Later, I found out that
>it is a violation of federal law to have a "White student group" on a
>federal funded college campus.
[...]
This is not quite right. Groups should not be excluded based on their
statement of purpose. Such an exclusion would violate the First
Amendment (at least a state schools) and their academic freedom. They
can be excluded based on their membership practice. But as long as the
white/black/gay/straight/female/male students group is open to all
students without regard to race, sex, etc, they should be OK.
Ironically, a gay and lesbian group *could* exclude straights at a
school such as Auburn that allows discrimination based on sexual
preference.
Here is the recommended policy from the "Joint Statement". I think
most school policies are similar to this.
============================================
[From AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 1977 Edition]
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
In June, 1967, a joint committee, comprised of representatives from
the American Association of University Professors, U. S. National
Student Association, Association of American College, National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and National
Association of Woman Deans and Counselors, met in Washington, D.C.,
and drafted the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
published below.
Since its formulation, the Joint Statement has been endorsed by each
of its five national sponsors, as well as by a number of other
professional bodies. The Association's Council approved the Statement
in October, 1967, and the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting endorsed it as
Association policy.
[...]
IV. Student Affairs
In student affairs, certain standards must be maintained if the
freedom of students is to be preserved.
A. Freedom of Association
Students bring to the campus a variety of interests previously
acquired and develop many new interests as members of the academic
community. They should be free to organize and join associations to
promote their common interests.
1. The membership, policies, and actions of a student organization
usually will be determined by vote of only those persons who hold bona
fide membership in the college or university community.
2. Affiliation with an extramural organization should not of itself
disqualify a student organization from institutional recognition.
3. If campus advisers are required, each organization should be free
to choose its own adviser, and institutional recognition should not be
withheld or withdrawn solely because of the inability of a student
organization to secure an advisor. Campus advisers may advise
organizations in the exercise of responsibility, but they should not
have the authority to control the policy of such organizations.
4. Student organizations may be required to submit a statement of
purpose, criteria for membership, rules of procedures, and a current
list of officers. They should not be required to submit a membership
list as a condition of institutional recognition.
5. Campus organizations, including those affiliated with an
extramural organization, should be open to all students without
respect to race, creed, or national origin, except for religious
qualifications which may be required by organizations whose aims are
primarily sectarian.
[...]
====================================
- 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.
=================
uiuc.code.excerpts
=================
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
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 student.freedoms
send acad-freedom uiuc.code.excerpts
send acad-freedom caf
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/uiuc.code.excerpts
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 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kcubd@HUJIVM1.bitnet (Brenda Danet)
Subject: cancel subscription
Message-ID: <199204282006.AA04248@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 20:06:24 GMT
Unsubscribe Brenda Danet
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
From: joslin@hp802.ae.ge.COM
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Apr 92 14:47:12 GMT
In <1992Apr23.153142.8735@pcsbst.pcs.com> billp@pcsbst.pcs.com (Bill Potter) writes:
>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.
If such distribution is limited to the US, how will we, the insular
amurikkins, ever learn about other countries' laws, habits and customs?
Ignorance is curable; stupidity is not.
--
Paul R. Joslin +1 513 552 5233
GE Aircraft Engines Fax: +1 513 552 5300
joslin@hp802.ae.ge.com Dial Comm: 8*892 5233
"It is never to late to have a happy childhood."
--
Paul R. Joslin +1 513 552 5233
GE Aircraft Engines Fax: +1 513 552 5300
joslin@hp802.ae.ge.com Dial Comm: 8*892 5233
"It is never to late to have a happy childhood."
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
From: michael@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Michael of Nebadon)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr28.200554.4001@afterlife.ncsc.mil>
Date: 28 Apr 92 20:05:54 GMT
In article <1992Apr28.120334.24043@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Apr23.153142.8735@pcsbst.pcs.com>, billp@pcsbst (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.
>
>Rights are not given. Rights are fighted for.
I would say that rights are not given because they are yours by
default. You fight the people who take these rights from you.
(Of course, the fighting isn't a given. We voluntarily give up a lot
of freedom in order to allow "authorities" to prevent others from
abusing those freedoms at our expense. This can be a slippery
slope, at times, but I haven't heard of any cultures which get
by without surrendering *any* personal freedoms).
Ugh! Sorry for the semantic quibbling...
michael@afterlife.ncsc.mil
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <9204282124.AA19062@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 11:24:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <18573@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 28 Apr 92 15:39:18 GMT
In article <1992Apr26.012819.4201@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>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? [J. S. Greenfield]
I second that. I'd like to see what the fuss is all about.
>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.) [J. S. Greenfield]
There is. Mary Joe Frug, the New England law school professor who was
slain last year, was a feminist. The article she had published in
the Harvard Law Review was a feminist article.
According the the AP story that I read, the title of the parody made fun
of feminism, so it is reasonable to assume that the parody itself did
likewise. A girl student was quoted as not being surprised that such
a parody was published, given the "sexism" in the atmosphere at Harvard
Law School. And as if parodying feminism were not awful enough, the
parody insinuated (with a footnote: "What's a girl got to do to get
published in the Harvard Law Review?") that the only reason the
Harvard Law Review published Prof. Frug's original article was
that she was married to a Harvard Law professor.
One of the exigencies of decency and civility is, _de mortuis nil
nisi bonum_, "[Speak] nothing but good about the dead." The students
involved disregarded this injunction. Decency and civility are at
the heart of what my .sig calls, "IVY." That means that this parody
was un-Ivy: unworthy of students *anywhere* in the Ivy League, let alone
Harvard University, the Iviest of the Ivy, founded a bare sixteen years
after the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock:
"Thy shades are more soothing, thy sunlight more dear,
Than descend on less privileged earth.
For the good and the great, . . ."
Four out of the nine Justices on today's Supreme Court?
". . . in their beautiful prime,
Through thy precincts have musingly trod,
As they girded their spirits and deepened the streams
That make glad the fair City of G-d."
Still, un-Ivy behavior is normally not grounds for all Hell breaking loose
and the roof falling in on one, even at Harvard. When Adolfo Calero
tried to speak there a few years ago, a student named Josh charged the
rostrum, jumped over the speaker's table, and assaulted Mr. Calero,
after which University officials hustled Mr. Calero out of the room
and would not allow him to continue his speech. That's pretty un-Ivy,
and violent to boot, but it didn't upset the faculty as much as this
parody has.
This un-Ivy behavior was different. Just like Wayne Dick's "Bestiality
Awareness Day" posters at "the other place" a few years ago, this parody
attacked a sacred cow.
-- Matt Rosenblatt
(matt@amsaa.brl.mil)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH JUSTICE FREEDOM YIDDISHKEIT IVY THE AMERICAN WAY
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ncsa.general
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: One year later: NCSA email and University computer privacy policies
Message-ID: <1992Apr28.221406.4438@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 22:14:06 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>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.
[...]
I have noticed that personality can have a lot to do with policy
formulation. So does anyone know anything about University Counsel
Byron Higgins? Should his recommendations with respect to academic
freedom and civil liberities be considered the last word?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Today's Boston Globe...
Message-ID: <9204282240.AA19501@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 12:40:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Today's Boston Globe...
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 22:48:41 GMT
[In an article about Boston University denying a dance company the
opportunity to rent a theater they own until BU could approve
content...]
``Alliger [head of the dance company] said BU officials expressed
concern that there might be nudity in the performance "They told us
'Unless you can guarantee that there won't be a single nipple onstage,
then we don't have a contract'" '' [4/28/92, pp 6.]
Also, on the "numbers don't lie" front...
[An article about illegal trade in horsemeat]
"In 1991, the United Sates exported 1.06 million pounds of horsemeat
valued at $141.4 million ..."
Hmm, my calculator tells me that's over $130/pound! No wonder people
are stealing it...(must be the same guy who calculates street values
of drugs.)
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr29.055012.28994@trl.oz.au>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 05:50:12 GMT
There used to be a saying: "Sticks and stones will break my bones;
words never will."
From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992
From: billy@anasaz (Bill Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.activism.d,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: "Hate Speech" distinguished from "Panic-Inducing Speech"
Message-ID: <1992Apr28.201912.4907@anasaz>
Date: 28 Apr 92 20:19:12 GMT
In article <1992Apr27.144916.2873@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
->In article <1992Apr27.143505.9602@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
->>greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
-0>>
->>[...]
->>>I believe that this description of "fighting words" is not quite accurate.
->>>In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), Justice Murphy wrote for the SC:
->>>
->>>"...insulting or 'fighting' words--those which their very utterance inflict
>>>injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
->>[...]
->>
->>I believe the current definition is 1) the language must be delivered
->>one-to-one, and 2) must be such as to evoke an immediate breach of
->>peace (as opposed to simply offending the listener). _Chaplinsky vs.
->>New Hampshire_ is (thankfully) out of date.
->
->Certainly, in order to be considered unprotected speech, these days, the
-0>"fighting words" must be delivered face-to-face, as you say.
->
Then what? I haven't followed this thread from the beginning. Does someone
argue that words CAN (legally) precipitate a battery?
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Moore billy%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (602) 395-1732
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr29.135703.15037@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 13:57:03 GMT
jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>There used to be a saying: "Sticks and stones will break my bones;
>words never will."
The way I've heard it is "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but
words will never hurt me."
The version I heard isn't true. Word can and often do hurt. Putting up
the the pain of offensive expression is part of the price of freedom.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr27.115623.17254@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 27 Apr 92 16:56:23 GMT
In article <279.29f32f2a@cookman.edu>, 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. Thanks.
>
> Richard Copeland, Professor and Postmaster
> Bethune-Cookman College
I've cross-posted this from news.sysadmin to
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, which is set up to handle this sort of discussion.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992
From: jarvis@psych.toronto.edu (Brian Jarvis)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr29.143233.21760@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: 29 Apr 92 14:32:33 GMT
In article <1992Apr29.055012.28994@trl.oz.au> jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>
>There used to be a saying: "Sticks and stones will break my bones;
>words never will."
I recall one that goes "The pen is mightier than the sword."
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 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: meckler@tigger.jvnc.net (Nancy Nelson)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <199204291924.AA20340@tigger.jvnc.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 11:24:43 GMT
Unsubscribe Nancy Nelson
From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Excerpts from Princeton's "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities"
Message-ID: <199204292104.AA23545@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 13:04:32 GMT
[Princeton is, of course, a private university in the U.S.
It restricts some student speech. - Carl]
The central purposes of a University are the pursuit of
truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and
research, the teaching and general development of students,
and the transmission of knowledge and learning to society at
large. Free inquiry and free expression within the academic
community are indispensable to the achievement of these
goals. The freedom to teach and to learn depends upon the
creation of appropriate conditions and opportunities on the
campus as a whole as well as in classrooms and lecture halls.
All members of the academic community share the
responsibility for securing and sustaining the general
conditions conducive to this freedom.
======================
PERSONAL SAFETY.
Actions that threaten or endanger in any way the personal
safety or security of others will be regarded as serious
offenses. The following offenses will be regarded as extremely
serious:
[...]
2. Intimidation by violence, by a threat of violence, or by
property damage, which seeks to interfere with the free
expression of ideas, or attempts to punish such free expression.
=================
DISTRIBUTION OF WRITTEN MATERIAL BY MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY
The University requires that the identity and telephone
number of the sponsoring organization or individual be
included in any written material (e.g., petitions, posters, and
leaflets) distributed on campus by a member of the University.
STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Student publications and broadcasting organizations are a
valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of
free and responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration
on the campus. They are a means of bringing student concerns
to the attention of the faculty and administration and of
formulating student opinion on various issues on the campus
and in the world at large. In pursuit of these goals, student
publications enjoy the freedom of the press. At the same time,
the editorial freedom of student editors and managers entails a
corollary obligation to be governed by the canons of
responsible journalism.
======================
University recognition will not be withheld from any group
pursuing lawful objectives merely because its aims may seem
unorthodox. Student organizations may invite outside speakers
of their choice, and are free to hold meetings and in other ways
to express their views, subject only to prudent conditions
regarding the protection of people and property and to
reasonable regulations concerning time, place, and notice of
meetings and other public exercises.
Demonstrations and the distribution of leaflets, statements,
or petitions are permitted on the campus unless, or until, they
disrupt the regular and essential operations of the University
or significantly infringe upon the rights of others. If it becomes
necessary to prevent a demonstration from exceeding these
guidelines, the University will first attempt to use persuasion;
the University will then, if necessary, use its own security
personnel, and will call in outside law enforcement officials
only as a last resort.
These policies are intended to safeguard the rights of
students and student organizations to freedom of association.
At the same time, candor and openness must be recognized as
fundamental in an academic community, and the University
does not look with favor on clandestine organizations.
Furthermore, the activities of student organizations inevitably
involve the University, which has, on occasion, been called
upon to help to ensure that they meet financial and other
obligations. For these several reasons, the University must ask
student organizations which expect recognition by the
University, identification through the use of the name of the
University, and normal use of University facilities, to register
the names of their officers and their basic objectives or
purposes.
============================
SEARCH OF DORMITORY ROOMS.
Any search of dormitory rooms (as distinguished from a
safety inspection) will be carried out only with adequate cause,
and with the explicit authorization of the Dean of Students, the
Dean of the Graduate School, or some other senior
administrative officer. Should such a search be necessary,
every effort will be made to have the resident present at the
time of the search. If it is impossible to arrange to have the
resident present, he or she will be informed of the action as
soon as possible following the search.
======================
RANGE OF PENALTIES.
For violations of University-wide rules of conduct, members
of the community are subject to several kinds of penalties. The
applicability and exact nature of each penalty vary for faculty,
students, professional staff, and employees; but in general the
penalties, in ascending order of severity, are:
1. Warning. A formal admonition that does not become
part of an individual's permanent record, but that may be
taken into account in judging the seriousness of any future
violation.
2. Disciplinary Probation. A more serious admonition
assigned for a definite amount of time, up to two years. It
implies that any future violation, of whatever kind, during
that time, may be grounds for suspension, required
withdrawal, or in especially serious cases, for expulsion, from
the University.
Disciplinary probation appears on an individual's permanent
record at the University (but not on the transcript) and may be
disclosed by the Office of the Dean of Students in response to
requests for which the student has given permission.
Campus Service. Campus Service up to 10 hours per week
may be added to disciplinary probation for a portion of or the
duration of the probationary period. This penalty may be
particularly appropriate in cases involving vandalism,
disorderly conduct and alcohol-related infractions.
Relocation Within or Removal from University Housing.
When appropriate to the infraction, particularly in instances
involving anti-social behavior having a serious impact on the
residential community, removal from University housing or
relocation within University housing may be added to
disciplinary probation for a period of or the duration of the
probationary period. In the case of a freshman or a sophomore,
this penalty will be imposed only after consultation with the
master of the student's residential college. The dining contract
will not necessarily be revoked.
3. Withholding of Degree. In cases involving seniors, the
University may withhold a student's Princeton degree for a
specified period of time. Often, this penalty is imposed instead
of suspension. In such a case, the student may be permitted to
remain on campus to complete his or her academic
requirements for the degree.
4. Suspension. Removal from membership in, or
employment by, the University for a specified period of time.
5. Required Withdrawal. Removal from membership in, or
employment by, the University for at least the period of time
specified by the suspension, with the suspension to continue
until certain conditions, stipulated by the appropriate body
applying this sanction, have been fulfilled. These conditions
may include restitution of damages or formal apology.
6. Expulsion. Permanent removal from membership in, or
employment by, the University, without hope of readmission to
the community. For members of the faculty, expulsion may
involve revocation of tenure.
7. Censure. University censure can be added to any of the
other penalties listed above, except warning. Censure indicates
the University's desire to underscore the seriousness of the
violation and the absence of mitigating circumstances and to
convey that seriousness in response to future authorized
inquiries about the given individual's conduct or character.
In circumstances seriously affecting the health or well-being
of any person, or where physical safety is seriously threatened,
or where the ability of the University to carry out its essential
operations is seriously threatened, or impaired, the President
or his representative, a senior officer of the University
authorized by him, may summarily suspend, dismiss or bar any
person from the University. In all such cases, actions taken are
subject to reasonably prompt subsequent review by regular
University processes or authorities. If a review process is not
otherwise specified, the Provost will act in this capacity if
requested to do so.
===============================
UNIVERSITY-WIDE CONDUCT REGULATIONS
RESPECT FOR OTHERS.
Respect for the rights, privileges, and sensibilities of each
other is essential in preserving the spirit of community at
Princeton. Actions which make the atmosphere intimidating,
threatening, or hostile to individuals are therefore regarded as
serious offenses. Abusive or harassing behavior, verbal or
physical, which demeans, intimidates, threatens, or injures
another because of his or her personal characteristics or beliefs
is subject to University disciplinary sanctions as described
above. Examples of personal characteristics or beliefs include
but are not limited to sex, sexual orientation, race, national
origin, religion, and handicap. Making tolerance of such
behavior or submission to it a condition of employment,
evaluation, compensation, or advancement is an especially
serious offense. Procedures for resolving complaints or
grievances on such matters are discussed on pp. 74 _ 75.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Excerpts from Princeton's "Guidelines ... Computing Resources"
Message-ID: <199204292110.AA23705@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 13:10:30 GMT
[Excerpts from "Guidelines for the use of Campus and Network Computing
Resources]
Those who avail themselves of the campus and network computing
resources are required to behave in their use of the technology
in a manner consistent with the University's code of conduct. As
stated in Princeton University Rights, Rules, Responsibilities:
"Respect for the rights, privileges, and sensibilities of each
other is essential in preserving the spirit of community at
Princeton. Actions which make the atmosphere intimidating,
threatening, or hostile to individuals are therefore regarded as
serious offenses. Abusive or harassing behavior, verbal or
physical, which demeans, intimidates, threatens, or injures
another because of his or her personal characteristics or beliefs
is subject to University disciplinary sanctions...."
==========================
9. Messages, sentiments, and declarations sent as electronic mail
or sent as electronic postings must meet the same standards for
distribution or display as if they were tangible documents or
instruments. You are free to publish your opinions, but they
must be clearly and accurately identified as coming from you, or,
if you are acting as the authorized agent of a group recognized
by the University, as coming from the group you are authorized to
represent. Attempts to alter the "From" line or other
attribution of origin in electronic mail, messages, or postings,
will be considered transgressions of University rules.
[...]
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Excerpts from Princeton's "Guidelines ... Computing Resources"
Message-ID: <1992Apr29.213206.24214@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 21:32:06 GMT
So the bad news (from my point of view) is that Princeton bans speech
that is protected by the Constitution at state universities.
The good news is that they explicitly treat computer speech like
traditional speech.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr30.005327.3107@clarinet.com>
Date: 30 Apr 92 00:53:27 GMT
In article <1992Apr29.143233.21760@psych.toronto.edu> jarvis@psych.toronto.edu (Brian Jarvis) writes:
>In article <1992Apr29.055012.28994@trl.oz.au> jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>>
>>There used to be a saying: "Sticks and stones will break my bones;
>>words never will."
>
>I recall one that goes "The pen is mightier than the sword."
No, Bulwer-Lytton is often misquoted. He was boasting of his
sexual prowess and called it: "The penis mightier than the sword."
Somehow a space got added.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans (male 23 Libra))
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <1992Apr29.202519.5003@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Apr 92 20:25:19 GMT
jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
:
: There used to be a saying: "Sticks and stones will break my bones;
: words never will."
Maybe became defunct when it was discovered not to be the case, and is
becoming even less true as communications develop.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Apr 30 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: <9204301320.AA01916@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 03:20:57 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: Marc VanHeyningen
Subject: Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <1992Apr30.015521.1034@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:55:15 -0500
In article brendan@cs.widener.edu writes:
>mvanheyn@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Marc VanHeyningen) writes:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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."
>
>I think a more accurate analogy would be going to a bank with a
>notepad, and writing down the manufacturer and details about all of
>the security information in the bank, as well as noting for a week the
>behavior patterns of all security guards and tellers. Unless you have
>a really bizarre fixation, it'd probably be safe to bet you were
>casing the place for a later breakin.
Not sure I'd buy this, but OK. Maybe I am planning to put something of
great value in the bank, and I'm trying to figure out just how secure
this place really is. Maybe I'm an expert in bank security, or I'm a
student studying bank security trying to gather research data. In any
case, although it might seem "suspicious", it tangibly harms nobody and
is not a crime.
--
_ _ Marc VanHeyningen mvanheyn@indiana.edu mvanheyn@iubacs.BITNET
/ / \ mputer-\
| | | oky Science So, what *is* sufficient evicence of assault
\_ \_/ gnitive/ to convict?
From caf-talk Caf Apr 30 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Apr 92 14:40:32 GMT
[Several people's arguments comparing password snooping to casing the bank
omitted...]
I believe that in most places (at least in most states of the US) it is
illegal to possess lockpicks unless you're an official locksmith. Mere
possession is enough -- they don't have to prove that you intended to
break into anything.
[Side note: It's not all that hard to become an official locksmith.
When I was an undergraduate a lot of my peers used to do it through
those magazine-ad mail-order schools.]
Sounds to me like possessing a password-cracking program is pretty
closely analogous. Regulations against such programs may be harsher
than necessary, arguably, but I don't see it as a free-speech issue.
As with the "official locksmith" provision, I think it'd be sensible
to have some procedure in the rule whereby someone with a legitimate
need for password-cracking programs could register with the authorities
ahead of time. (It's not obvious to me what the legitimate need would
be, but I'm willing to allow that there might be one.)
From caf-talk Caf Apr 30 00:00:00 1992
From: fxjwk@acad3.alaska.edu (Jo Knox)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject:
Message-ID: <1992Apr30.105440.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: 30 Apr 92 19:54:40 GMT
In article , bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
> [Several people's arguments comparing password snooping to casing the bank
> omitted...]
>
> I believe that in most places (at least in most states of the US) it is
> illegal to possess lockpicks unless you're an official locksmith. Mere
> possession is enough -- they don't have to prove that you intended to
> break into anything.
>
It's not exactly encouraged, but there are few states where carrying picks
is illegal.... As with cracker programs, those found in possession are
likely to receive very close scrutiny, possibly for quite some time, but
there should be nothing wrong with owning or carrying the tools per se.
It could even be argued that using the tools under certain circumstances
is quite legal; just for your own education, trying to pick the lock on
your front door (or running crack against your own account's password).
An even finer line, which I have heard argued: user claims they were running
a cracker program on the password file just to collect those accounts with
poorly chosen passwords, so he could let the administrators know there was
a big problem....
Where the issue becomes very black and white is once someone signs onto an
account they've cracked---those you can discipline/abuse/expel/arrest
(your preference).
jo
From caf-talk Caf Apr 30 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re:
Date: 30 Apr 1992 21:37:32 GMT
Message-ID:
fxjwk@acad3.alaska.edu (Jo Knox) writes:
>An even finer line, which I have heard argued: user claims they were running
>a cracker program on the password file just to collect those accounts with
>poorly chosen passwords, so he could let the administrators know there was
>a big problem....
When I was an undergraduate, people like this were dealt with by being
thrown into cold showers, with their clothes on, by the angry hordes.
Personally I find such officious busybodies more disruptive, and more resistant
to improvement through education and increased maturity, than out-and-out
malicious users.
Even if you take these people at face value (dubious) they are comparable
to the people who drive at exactly 55mph in the left lane [sorry, non-USA
readers, but you probably get the idea] to help out the traffic police.
Sorry, this is getting a little far afield from acad-freedom, but you
pushed one of my glowing red buttons.
From caf-talk Caf Apr 30 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: brian@opac.osl.or.gov (BRIAN MCBEE)
Subject: Re:
Message-ID: <00959E2E.4CBE1E60.6367@OPAC.OSL.OR.GOV>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 23:48:41 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Apr 30 00:00:00 1992
Path: opac.osl.or.gov!brian
From: brian@opac.osl.or.gov
Newsgroups: academic.freedom.talk
Subject: Re:
Message-ID: <1992Apr30.164835.1816@opac.osl.or.gov>
Date: 30 Apr 92 16:48:35 PST
References: <9204301320.AA01916@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>, <1992Apr30.105440.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Organization: Oregon State Library, Salem OR
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to academic.freedom.talk
Lines: 29
In article <1992Apr30.105440.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, writes:
> It's not exactly encouraged, but there are few states where carrying picks
> is illegal.... As with cracker programs, those found in possession are
> likely to receive very close scrutiny, possibly for quite some time, but
> there should be nothing wrong with owning or carrying the tools per se.
> It could even be argued that using the tools under certain circumstances
> is quite legal; just for your own education, trying to pick the lock on
> your front door (or running crack against your own account's password).
> An even finer line, which I have heard argued: user claims they were running
> a cracker program on the password file just to collect those accounts with
> poorly chosen passwords, so he could let the administrators know there was
> a big problem....
> Where the issue becomes very black and white is once someone signs onto an
> account they've cracked---those you can discipline/abuse/expel/arrest
> (your preference).
> jo
I have a problem with outlawing cracking programs:
Would they make it illegal to discuss methods of cracking?
Would it be illegal to possess a paper on access security that contained the
source code for a cracking program?
Where do they draw the line between intellectual discourse and intent to break
into someones account?
--
----- Brian McBee ----- (503)378-4276 ----- brian@opac.osl.or.gov -----
----- Oregon State Library, State Library Building, Salem, OR 97310 -----
Above opinions are mine only. You can have them if you like.
From caf-talk Caf May 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <9205010710.AA10229@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 21:10:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 1 00:00:00 1992
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <18583@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 30 Apr 92 19:47:40 GMT
In article <18573@smoke.brl.mil>, I wrote:
>In article <1992Apr26.012819.4201@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
>(J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>>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.) [J. S. Greenfield]
>There is. [Matt Rosenblatt]
The AP story carried in the April 23 issue of the _Baltimore Sun_ gives
more details. In the first place, the episode took place in a climate
where "a debate over hiring has simmered for a while." The Law School
is being sued for having "a lack of minorities and women on the faculty."
Again and again, the AP story comes back to this issue:
"Two years ago, Derrick Bell, the law school's first tenured
black professor, took an unpaid leave of absence to protest its
hiring policy."
". . . students put their legal training to work and filed
a discrimination suit accusing the school of failing to hire
enough minorities."
^^^^^^
There's that "Affirmative Action" quota-mongering at work, folks!
How long can Harvard stay the top school in the nation if it abandons
its commitment to excellence in order to satify some "quota"?
"The issue boiled over this month when some members of the
prestigious _Harvard Law Review_ parodied the view of Mary Joe
Frug, a New England School of Law professor who was stabbed
to death in April 1991.
"An essay Professor Frug wrote on violence against women
was published in the _Review_ in March under the title "A
Postmodernist Feminist Legal Manifesto." The parody in the
'Law Revue,' a spoof published by members of the review staff,
. . .
It was a spoof, folks. That's all, only a spoof!
". . . was called the 'He-Manifesto of Post-Mortem Legal
Feminism' and signed, 'Mary Doe, Rigor-Mortis Professor
of Law.
"The parody asserts that Professor Frug's work was published
in the _Review_ only because she was married to a Harvard law
professor.
"One footnote refers to a fictitious article titled, 'What's
a Gal Got to do to Appear in the _Harvard Law Review_?'"
And then it's back to the ever-present pressure of the quota-mongers:
"For many, the parody, published on the anniversary of
Professor Frug's death, was the last straw. It was seen
not just as a tasteless prank, but as a symptom of the same
sexist attitudes responsible for hiring decisions."
"'The parody didn't come out of nowhere,' said Michelle
Benecke, a third-year law student. 'It came from an
environment created at the school. I wasn't surprised
by it.'"
In other words, tasteless disrespect for the dead is not so bad
as what, in this case, it is seen to be a symptom of, viz., "sexist
attitudes." Harvard, a University that is supposed to be turning
out ladies and gentlemen; Harvard, where the President tells each
year's graduating class at Commencement, "I now confer upon you
the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and welcome you into the fellowship
of educated men and women -- Harvard deems a "sexist attitude,"
which often means nothing more than plain common sense, to be
worse than un-Ivy disrespect for the dead.
In article <1992Apr30.000025.18614@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com
(Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <18573@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew
>Rosenblatt) writes:
>> Decency and civility are at
>>the heart of what my .sig calls, "IVY." That means that this parody
>>was un-Ivy: unworthy of students *anywhere* in the Ivy League, let alone
>>Harvard University, the Iviest of the Ivy, [Matt Rosenblatt]
>This leads me to believe that you have had very little contact with
>Ivy League students, especially Harvard freshmen. Rudeness and
>obnoxiousness are much more common traits. (I speak from personal
>experience, and I do not except myself.) [Seth Breidbart]
O Tempora! O mores! Until 1964, Radio Station WHRB had a strict rule
that banned the broadcast of rock music. Now, as Seth Breidbart informs
us, "rudeness and obnoxiousness are much more common traits" among
Harvard freshman than "decency and civility." This is what happens
when the rock mentality takes over. It is the inexorable logic of
_post hoc, ergo propter hoc_.
-- Matt Rosenblatt
(matt@amsaa.brl.mil)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH JUSTICE FREEDOM YIDDISHKEIT IVY THE AMERICAN WAY
From caf-talk Caf May 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <9205010711.AA10244@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 21:11:54 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 1 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty
Message-ID: <1992May1.020738.27674@fid.morgan.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 02:07:38 GMT
>>> Decency and civility are at
>>>the heart of what my .sig calls, "IVY." That means that this parody
>>>was un-Ivy: unworthy of students *anywhere* in the Ivy League, let alone
>>>Harvard University, the Iviest of the Ivy, [Matt Rosenblatt]
>>This leads me to believe that you have had very little contact with
>>Ivy League students, especially Harvard freshmen. Rudeness and
>>obnoxiousness are much more common traits. (I speak from personal
>>experience, and I do not except myself.) [Seth Breidbart]
>O Tempora! O mores! Until 1964, Radio Station WHRB had a strict rule
>that banned the broadcast of rock music. Now, as Seth Breidbart informs
>us, "rudeness and obnoxiousness are much more common traits" among
>Harvard freshman than "decency and civility." This is what happens
>when the rock mentality takes over. It is the inexorable logic of
>_post hoc, ergo propter hoc_.
Wow! Rock music causes rudeness. I guess that's what is proven by
_post hoc, ergo propter hoc_; after all, I never said anything about
that.
Actually, I mentioned freshmen for a reason. Back when I was one, all
of the Harvard freshmen lived in Harvard Yard (or 3 dorms nearby); the
upperclassmen lived in the Houses. The reason for this was so that
the rough edges of freshmen (to which I alluded above) would rub off
against each other; after a year, they'd be fit for human company.
So, college was a civilizing influence.
On the other hand, nobody thinks lawyers are civilized. And parodies,
whether in good taste or otherwise (and the otherwise ones are
generally the funniest), are an old tradition at Harvard.
Seth sethb@fid.morgan.com
From caf-talk Caf May 1 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 02.17
Message-ID: <1992May1.145004.22784@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 14:50:04 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 cafv02n17
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending April 12, 1992
[Issues #13 and #14 are still in production. This week's
guest editor is Fred Nixon, fnixon@sol.utc.edu. - 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 about email privacy.
1. This is a summary of opinions on email privacy, gleaned from a
questionnaire distributed to comp.admin.policy, comp.risks, and
comp.society.
Note 2 is about the FCC and the Net.
2. Broadcasting regulations do not apply to the net, as FCC
regulations are an exception to the general rule of government control
of expression. Three books discussing the limits of free speech are
mentioned.
<1992Mar25.195314.6998@eff.org>
Notes 3-7 are about high school teachers secretly monitoring student
local-area network use.
3. Privacy issues arising from the use of LANs are presented. Faculty
members are using net management tools to observe high school students
working on the net. Comments are requested on the legality of, and
ethical basis for, such activity when it is known to the students, and
when it is not known to the students.
<1992Apr9.125538.5968@bsu-ucs.uucp>
4. Faculty use of such network management tools may have a legitimate
use; but casual monitoring should not be allowed. System
administrators have broader scope for monitoring, extending to
occasional monitoring. Information gleaned from such sessions should
remain undisclosed.
<1992Apr10.170023.7720@ms.uky.edu>
5. If the lack of privacy is clear from the start, there is no
violation of any law when monitoring students. A situation where all
mail is monitored is described. It is a lab which can be used ONLY for
class work.
<6682@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
6. Results of a Supreme Court decision regarding searching grade or
high school students. Public School officials can search a grade/high
school student when "reasonable grounds" exist for finding evidence
that rules have been broken. States can set stricter standards. An
annotated reference is included, including quotations from the ACLU
Handbook, _The Rights of Students_.
<1992Apr11.000627.23277@eff.org>
7. The draft of the unofficial Statement on Computers and Academic
Freedom does not deal specifically with high school students. Private
communications should be treated the same regardless of communications
medium.
<1992Apr11.154521.768@eff.org>
Notes 8-9 are about a draft U. of Kentucky policy.
8. The University of Kentucky Student Access and Use Policy is
submitted for comments. This is not official policy, and is in draft
form.
<1992Apr9.160725.7355@ms.uky.edu>
9. Review of the UK policy, from the point of view of a academic
computer center employee and graduate student. Several questions are
raised, including the restriction of access before the guilt of the
student is determined.
<1992Apr11.150009.6432@news.iastate.edu>
Note 10 is about academic cheating and privacy.
10. A summary of published material regarding academic cheating;
backup tapes were examined to determine if collusion had occurred
between students exchanging email. The students unsuccessfully argued
they had been set up by an unnamed third party. A summary of risks
posed by computer systems in an academic setting is included.
Note 11 is about library confidentially.
11. In a followup to questions about the tracking of library
materials to patrons, Mr. Hart states that he has never encountered a
library system which retains the patron/book association after the
book is returned. "Most libraries will vehemently protect the privacy
of their patrons."
[ guest editor's note: has anyone considered the problem of library
system backups? If these are kept for any length of time, the
link between the borrower and the book remains traceable as long
as the backups are kept around. This could be for years... ]
Note 12 is about the responsibilities that come with free speech.
12. A quick reminder that free speech carries with it tremendous
responsibility, and may easily be abused by the majority in pursuit of
a noble goal. A confrontation with a Klan march, a counter
demonstration, was planned to shout-down the Klan marchers. "I just
hate to see well meaning people attempting... to destroy the 1st
amendment rights of whoever they happen to disagree with".
<1992Apr10.184852.26771@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Note 13 is about proposed anti-pornography legislation in
Massachusetts.
13. Information regarding the Massachusetts' anti-pornography
legislation. This bill would make trafficking in pornographic
materials a sex discrimination violation (subject to triple damages).
An explicit :-) exemption is granted public, university, and college
libraries.
<1992Apr12.055744.3899@wpi.WPI.EDU>
- Fred]
--- 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 May 1 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: <9205020304.AA15439@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 17:04:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 1 00:00:00 1992
From: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <3879@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 1 May 92 14:12:56 GMT
In article <1992Apr30.015521.1034@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> mvanheyn@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Marc VanHeyningen) writes:
>
>Not sure I'd buy this, but OK. Maybe I am planning to put something of
>great value in the bank, and I'm trying to figure out just how secure
>this place really is. Maybe I'm an expert in bank security, or I'm a
>student studying bank security trying to gather research data. In any
>case, although it might seem "suspicious", it tangibly harms nobody and
>is not a crime.
Well, I think such actions would NOT be deemed suspicious IF you contact
the sysadmin FIRST and present a well thought out plan for studying the
"bank security". The whole point is COMMUNICATION between the sysadmins
and the user community. If I spot someone "snooping" around and I don't
know IN ADVANCE of any "snooping", I think I'd be remiss in my job
duties to NOT treat it as an intrusion. If, on the other hand, I am
aware of the "research" effort, then I know WHO is "researching" my
system and I can check with them to see how things are going.
It amazes me that both sysadmins and users miss this critical point.
Even so-called "tiger teams" have the permission of the management to
determine site security BEFORE they attempt any penetrations. If you're
so inclined to try something like that, get the machine owner's
permission FIRST. IF they say NO, then forget it. If they say YES, then
have at it.
Get permission FIRST! Presenting a well thought out plan tells the owner
that you have approached this from a serious standpoint and also let's
them know exactly WHAT you will attempt to do. The plan also gives the
owner an idea of your technical competence.
Anyway, just my .02 worth.....
-Randy Marchany
VA Tech Computing Center
Blacksburg, VA 24060
From caf-talk Caf May 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: College policies on hate messages needed
Message-ID: <68.2A01D822@qopus.uucp>
From: ctw@qopus.uucp (ctw)
Date: 30 Apr 92 13:48:18 GMT
Brian Jarvis writes:
> In article <1992Apr29.055012.28994@trl.oz.au> jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques
> Guy) writes:
>>
>> There used to be a saying: "Sticks and stones will break my bones;
>> words never will."
> I recall one that goes "The pen is mightier than the sword."
Napoleon Bonaparte (I think) said "I am more afraid of three newspapers
than three thousand swords." Nice related notable quotable...
--
Christopher A. Tweney / Email: ctw%qopus@gantz.bowlgreen.oh.us
USNAIL: 622 Morton, Bowling Green, Ohio 43402
{$}
I will not be held responsible for the opinions of my computer.
From caf-talk Caf May 2 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 02.14
Message-ID: <1992May2.143049.5745@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 14:30:49 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 anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n14".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n14
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending March 22, 1992
[Issue #13 is still in production. This week's guest editor is Terry
Rooker, trooker@bombe.nswc.navy.mil. - Carl.]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are about the UNL restricting alt.* access.
1. For anyone who has been following the alt.* controversy at UNL,
the following article appeared on page one of _The Daily Nebraskan_,
the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, on
Tuesday, March 17, 1992. _UNL loses `alt' computer files_ by Mike
Lewis staff reporter. Used with permission of the Daily Nebraskan
<9203212232.AA24018@cse.unl.edu>
2. (Carl Kadie:) The UNL policy is equivalent to book burning, and
could be applied to traditional libraries. The university should
clarify its intellectual freedom policy and apply it equally to
electronic and traditional media. (includes references)
<1992Mar21.225125.9543@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 3 is about the EFF Pioneer award winners.
3. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today announced the five
winners of the first annual EFF Pioneer Awards for substantial
contributions to the field of computer based communications. The
winners are: Douglas C. Engelbart of Fremont; Robert Kahn; Jim
Warren; Tom Jennings; and Andrzej Smereczynski. The award is
described as are the achievements of the winners.
Notes 4-5 are about a stringent penalty for computer misuse.
4. Enclosed is the _Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources_.
<199203181655.AA03311@eff.org>
5. (Carl Kadie:) The _Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing
Resources_ is a detailed list of infractions and penalties. This
article is a critique of this policy. The infraction descriptions
are vague, and the penalties are severe. In general, the stated
policy would allow system adminstration to enforce any arbitrary
policy and still be in accordance with this policy.
<1992Mar18.191830.5134@eff.org>
Note 6 is about a regional networks solution to commercial use of
Internet.
6. The growth of the Internet is staggering. As the Internet
increases in size there is more demand for it to become the single
network used by all computer users. NSF policy prevents commercial
use of the Internet. There are several alternatives to this
restriction. NEARnet is a regional network that already supports
commercial use which would preclude its connection to the Internet.
A solution is proposed to use a combination of the NSF backbone and
commercial services to support the existing NEARnet members.
<9203190129.AA18713@psi.com>
Note 7 is about one system's attempt to protect user privacy.
7. (Wes Morgan:) In response to concerns about email privacy I try
to protect my users by not archiving electronic mail during backups.
By using cpio(1) it is easy to exclude the mailboxes from the backup.
Only user mail in the user's system mailbox is liable to search. The
analogy is to postal mail sevrvice; once a letter is delivered the
postal service no longer has jurisdiction. Even this analogy is
incomplete as some systems keep mail in a comman mail directory.
<1992Mar19.94600.15681@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about bibliographies concerning libraries and
censorship.
8. Enclosed is a short biblography of bibliographies on library
intellectual freedom, pornography, censorship, privacy etc.
<9203191716.AA05219@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
9. Enclosed are selected excerpts from the bibliographies. The focus
seems to be on high school libraries, so maybe the problem is more
common there than in universities.
<9203191809.AA05485@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 10 is about a service to provide back copies of USENET groups.
10. Because of the volume of USENET traffic few site can maintain
more than a few weeks worth of articles. Because of the volume there
is much information available from USENET. NetNews/CD is a product
that will provide a copy of the USENET groups on a subscription
basis. Also included in the subscription is NetGems which includes
the X11R5 sources, the GNU software, as well as the comp.sources.*
archives.
<94605@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com>
Note 11 is about email privacy notification.
11. Enclosed is a sample account request form. It specifies under
what conditions the user can and cannot expect privacy for their
email.
Note 12 is about a legal decision concerning email privacy.
12. Enclosed is an excerpt from a legal decision. An analogy is
drawn that basically implies that simply because the opportunity
exists, access can still be considered a violation if the perpetrator
is unauthorized. It is not clear what lasting affect this decision
will have. [notice this is an australian posting]
<920322151214.21203539@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
- Terry]
--- 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 May 2 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: <9205021430.AA16922@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 04:30:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 2 00:00:00 1992
From: mark@loki.une.edu.au (Mark Garrett)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review
Message-ID: <2723@loki.une.edu.au>
Date: 1 May 1992 23:27:36 GMT
From article <1992Apr30.015521.1034@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, by mvanheyn@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Marc VanHeyningen):
> Not sure I'd buy this, but OK. Maybe I am planning to put something of
> great value in the bank, and I'm trying to figure out just how secure
> this place really is. Maybe I'm an expert in bank security, or I'm a
> student studying bank security trying to gather research data. In any
> case, although it might seem "suspicious", it tangibly harms nobody and
> is not a crime.
IMHO I don't think your really thinking on this, just play endlessly
boring mind games, on the net. You try going to the bank next and because
you've noticed that you can slip between the view of the camera and the
guard etc has turned away, and approach the vault. You get away with,
fine so do a few students trying to do the same on a system. You get caught
you will receive guess what from both!
Cheers
Mark :)
--
Mark Garrett Internet: mark@loki.une.edu.au Phone: +61 66 20 3859
University of New England, Northern Rivers, Lismore NSW Australia.
From caf-talk Caf May 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.turkish, et al.] Threats directed against this site and AT&T
Message-ID: <9205021613.AA17297@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 06:13:04 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,soc.culture.greek,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Threats directed against this site and AT&T
Message-ID: <1992May1.165944.24101@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 16:59:44 GMT
During the last two or three weeks I have been the recipient of several
threats directed against this site due to the postings of Hasan Mutlu from
here (hbm@ddsw1.MCS.COM).
This posting is to clarify a few points and make a few statements about this
kind of thing:
1) Mr. Mutlu is a subscriber to a public-access system. He is not
an employee or associated with the "MCS.COM" domain in any other
capacity. To ask me to "watch my employee or else" causes me to
roll on the floor with laughter, as he is not my employee.
2) Mr. Mutlu is exercising First Amendment rights, as do we all when we
post NetNews. Since we are in the United States (even though some of
our articles reach beyond there) these rights are valid and apply.
If your site is not in the US then I suggest you make arrangements
to not receive that from the US which you find objectionable. In
the United States political speech is fully protected under the
First Amendment to our Constitution. Ddsw1 upholds those First
Amendment rights.
2.5) The Turko-Armenian conflict is centuries old and the parties on both
sides are historically known for being rather, uh, vehement in their
statements and beliefs. The citing of historical sources and
stating of opinions is not actionable. Furthermore, the postings
that are being made are confined to the proper groups
(soc.culture.{greek|turkish|etc}) and are not spilling over to
other portions of the net.
3) This machine and its owners are not, and never have been associated
with AT&T.
4) If I were to take any action at all over this it would be a
"rmgroup" of the affected groups from our system. This would be
unfortunate. If I'm going to silence one opinion on the topic at
this site, I'm going to silence them all. We pay the phone bills
and we'll decide what to allocate for storage.
5) These threats seem to be coordinated by a small number of users,
and they have been so gracious to identify themselves in their
postings. Most of them come from educational institutions. The
posting or mailing of threatening material >is< a violation of many,
if not most system policies. I have a continuing file of these
activities.
6) Those who threaten or take action against this system or its owners
can expect that I will post their threats or actions, names and site
affiliations to Netnews from this point forward, that I will contact
the postmasters and system administrators involved, and that I will
take any legal action necessary to redress this nonsense. You are
on notice folks. I do not want to end anyone's educational career or
cause trouble in the workplace for you but I will not stand for this
kind of activity any longer. I will post email from this point
forward which arrives on this site with any kind of threatening
content.
What you do privately between our users and yourselves is your own
business providing that it does not in any way involve the site or
its owners.
'Nuff said. I am quite tired of responding privately to email about this
topic. Censorship is not going to be practiced here until someone can
show a violation of US federal or Illinois state law or violations of our
system policy. So far that has not happened.
My suggestion to the combatents in this disagreement is to chill out or
take it to private email. I'm frankly tired of hearing it from both sides.
--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
From caf-talk Caf May 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.lists] Re: USENET Readership report for Apr 92
Message-ID: <1992May2.193223.27720@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 19:32:23 GMT
[An excerpt. - Carl]
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes:
>This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Apr 92.
>Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
>
> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
> | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
> | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
> | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
> | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
> | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
> | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
> | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
> | | | | | | | | who read this group.
> V V V V V V V V
> 1 280000 5574 68% 3094 7999.7 19% 0.04 12.0% alt.sex
> 2 250000 4894 83% 891 1768.8 19% 0.01 10.6% misc.jobs.offered
> 3 220000 4358 82% 1477 1820.9 32% 0.01 9.4% misc.forsale
> 4 150000 2989 89% 1827 3549.0 18% 0.04 6.5% news.groups
> 5 140000 2828 63% 1136 3442.1 1% 0.03 6.1% alt.sex.bondage
> 6 140000 2809 86% 1008 1679.8 21% 0.02 6.1% comp.lang.c
[...]
> 254 38000 751 78% 160 389.6 31% 0.02 1.6% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
> 429 24000 477 56% 229 771.0 11% 0.04 1.0% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
[...]
> 450 23000 453 73% 4 99.6 100% 0.01 1.0% comp.org.eff.news
[...]
> 824 8700 173 47% 8 405.2 0% 0.05 0.4% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
>1527 50 1 2% 10 6.5 0% 0.01 0.0% cu.cs.srl
>1528 50 1 0% 47 632.8 0% 0.22 0.0% ar.info-unix
>1529 50 1 0% 32 343.1 0% 0.14 0.0% ar.unix-wizards
>1530 50 1 0% 15 19.7 0% 0.00 0.0% nyu.sunmanagers
>1531 50 1 0% 4 149.0 100% 0.02 0.0% slac.news.stats
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 2 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod)
Subject: Re: Excuses for cracking (was: )
Message-ID: <1992May02.170652.23055@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de>
Date: Sat, 02 May 1992 17:06:52 GMT
In article <1992Apr30.105440.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fxjwk@acad3.alaska.edu (Jo Knox) writes:
> An even finer line, which I have heard argued: user claims they were running
> a cracker program on the password file just to collect those accounts with
> poorly chosen passwords, so he could let the administrators know there was
> a big problem....
As a sysadmin I would never buy this. If he really wants to do this,
and if he wants to be serious, he would have to inform me in advance.
Oh yes, my users know this. No crack program without my knowledge,
otherwise they will be in trouble. If somebody really wants to study
such programs, I'll give him an old passwd file. In fact, we have
regular seminars on computer security. There we discuss also
different cracking strategies -- not only the brute-force dictionary
attack.
IMO CS students should have a solid background on such themes,
they will be even more important in the future.
[Btw, crack programs are nearly unusable here: Our shadow password
files are only readable for root... ;-) It's more a point of a social
contract: If somebody is interested he will have the opportunity as
long as he makes it in public. If he needs to hide his activities
he's not welcome at our faculty. ]
--
Joachim
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joachim Schrod Email: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de
Computer Science Department
Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany
From caf-talk Caf May 3 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: djburche@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV (David J. Burchell)
Subject: no subject (file transmission)
Message-ID: <9205040344.AA03439@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 03:44:17 GMT
From mail Sun May 3 22:35 CDT 1992
Received: from cse.unl.edu by jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV (4.30/1.34)
id AA03413; Sun, 3 May 92 22:35:02 cdt
Received: by cse.unl.edu (911016.SGI/911001.SGI)
for djburche@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.gov id AA04565; Sun, 3 May 92 22:34:50 -0500
From: burchell@cse.unl.edu (David Burchell)
Message-Id: <9205040334.AA04565@cse.unl.edu>
Subject: DN article
To: djburche@jwendnelnc
Date: Sun, 3 May 92 22:34:49 CDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Status: RO
The following article appeared on page six of _The Daily Nebraskan_,
the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, on
Friday, May 1, 1992.
Official says messages contained pornography
by Mike Lewis
Staff Reporter
Pornography was a factor in the UNL Computing Resource Center's
decision to stop supplying and entire hierarchy of USENET news groups
to UNL computers, the CRC director said Thursday.
Doug Gale said during an Academic Senate Computational
Services and Facilities Committee meeting that the material in some
of the alternative, or alt, groups was so bad, not even the adult
bookstores would carry it.
Some of the groups contained detailed information on how to
torture and mutilate people, Gale said, and neither CRC nor the
computational committee wanted to supply that information.
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln gets the USENET news
service through Internet, a worldwide computer network. If UNL had
continued to supply the alt groups, Gale said, it would have risked
losing access to Internet.
UNL is one of 13 universities that have access to NSFNET, a
computer service provided by the National Science Foundation, Gale said.
The NSFNET backbone service, which connects to Internet, is funded by
the federal government. If UNL had continued to supply the alt groups,
and someone had complained to the federal government, UNL would have
been required to prove that the groups met the criteria of the NSFNET
backbone service's acceptable use policy, Gale said. UNL must have
then provided proof immediately, or the Internet service would have
been turned off, he said.
By removing the alt groups now, Gale said, UNL forestalled such
a confrontation with the federal government.
Other universities that have had such confrontations "have
decided supporting pornography is not worth losing their Internet access,"
Gale said.
Dave Burchell, a junior computer science major and the newly
appointed student representative to the computational committee, said
UNL was obligated as a public institution to promote freedom of expression
and to refrain from censoring ideas.
"Gale has produced no evidence that the alt group removal was
forced upon UNL," said Burchell, a member of the Nebraska University
Students for Electronic Freedom.
Paul Kenyon, a graduate student in computer science and NUSEF
member, said neither the National Science Foundation nor the federal
government had contacted UNL about the alt groups.
--
burchell@cse.unl.edu | Dave Burchell
ianr056@unlvm.bitnet | Review your options.
djburche@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV | Amiga.
