From caf-talk Caf May 18 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad pos
Message-ID: <1992May18.031043.17990@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 18 May 92 08:10:43 GMT
In article <920512#119#074540_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>, nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
> In article bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>>
>>P.S. The argument about "You can say whatever you want but not on my
>>machine" not being censorship is also, imho, dubious. Most cases of
>>censorship involve denial of access to the means of expression; the cases
>>where someone is imprisoned or killed are much rarer (although, of course,
>>not rare enough). If you deny access because of the *content* of what
>>someone posts, as opposed to the quantity of postings for instance, then
>>you are certainly censoring. If the person can go post the articles
>>somewhere else, then your censorship is not total, not 100% effective,
>>but it *is* still censorship.
>
> Nonsense. Is it censorship when the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't print
> my letters to the editor? Is it censorship when the Antioch Review decides
> that my short stories aren't suited to publication? Is it censorship when
> Bantam Spectra decides that they don't want to publish my novel?
>
> Computer networks are not "speech" - they are publications. And the
> sysadmin is the editor, and therefore has both the right and the
> responsibility to decide what s/he will "publish" through his/her system.
> Now, if a system advertises itself as allowing open posting regardless
> of content there may be a breach of implied contract issue, but it still
> isn't censorship.
>
If the system in question is government-funded, then content-based
restrictions are indeed censorship. There's a difference between a
corporation or private bbs and a governmental institution; the
governmental institution is bound by freedom of the press/speech
(restriction of either is not permitted by the US Bill of Rights).
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf May 18 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad pos
Message-ID:
Date: 18 May 92 14:41:28 GMT
allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
> If the system in question is government-funded, then content-based
>restrictions are indeed censorship. There's a difference between a
>corporation or private bbs and a governmental institution; the
>governmental institution is bound by freedom of the press/speech
>(restriction of either is not permitted by the US Bill of Rights).
If the system in question is government-funded, then content-based
restrictions are (in the USA) *illegal* censorship. If the system in
question is privately owned, or not in the USA, then content-based
restrictions may perhaps be *legal* censorship. But the intent of the
censor is the same, and equally reprehensible, in either case.
I think it's misleading, though, to talk at this level of abstraction.
You have to look at the nature of the system. I think it's perfectly
fine if someone sets up a facility for some narrowly-defined purpose
and then enforces that narrow use. I think it's censorship if someone
sets up a facility for general communication on any topic, except for
a few forbidden topics.
Another example of needing to look at the specific nature of the system
is that I think it matters who has how much power in the situation.
To take a non-computer example, I've heard several cases here at Berkeley
recently in which student demonstrators heckle some invited speaker, and
the university administrators say that the demonstrators are violating
the speaker's First Amendment rights. I disagree with that; censorship
is something the powerful do to the weak. (The demonstrators may be
rude, may be afraid of a free exchange of ideas, may be harming their
cause, but they are not preventing the powerful, famous speakers from
presenting their ideas. Everybody already knows their ideas.) [I'm
probably going to get flamed about this, so let me repeat, I'm not
advocating the tactic of preventing someone from speaking. I'm just
saying that it's a distortion for the authorities to characterize this
as censorship.] The computer version of this point is that I think it
makes a difference whether we are talking about some individual person
running a BBS on his or her home computer, or a university that has a lot
of power over its students in many ways providing a computing service
for those students. This is totally separate from the *legal* obligations
of public universities.
From caf-talk Caf May 18 00:00:00 1992
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May18.191138.24691@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 18 May 92 19:11:38 GMT
nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>There are so many problems with this analogy that it's hard to know where to
>start. First of all, when a publisher refuses to publish a novel, it is not
>"deleted," it is merely sent back to its originator.
It is deleted from the publishers list of publications, is it not?
>definitions" [emphasis mine]) is irrelevent- we are talking about censorship
>in the sense of an act that violates one's First Amendment rights.
First amendment rights are different from censorship, and thank you
for clarifying.
>Lastly, consider for a moment the effects of your statement above. By your
>logic, every publishing company in the country (and by extension every radio
>and television station) would be obligated to publish every manuscript that
>is sent to them.
I didn't say that, did I? You merely took it that way. I'm not talking
about any obligation, I'm talking about what they do. It is censorship
not to print something because of whatever reason...it isn't against
first amendment rights not to print something.
>If refusing to do that is censorship, then the term is meaningless as you
>use it. And this is far too important an issue to be trivialized.
I'm actually trying to point out an important distinction that is applicable
here on USENET. USENET is not a "publisher" or a "news media organization".
USENET is a place where NO censorship (my definition) should be applied.
(Not that it isn't BTW)
We need a different word. No, I don't have a good substitute.
>of human rights. It keeps the arguments from getting too metaphysical.
Well we wouldn't want that now would we?
>I am not talking about what "should be." I feel that the situation *right
>now* "is" that a sysadmin may, unless previously constrained by contract,
>remove a user's access at will, and that such an action is not censorship.
I disagree. Such action IS censorship by my definition (and websters).
>of trouble. My point here is very simple: neither Macmillan nor my sysadmin
>*need* to "justify" their decisions, unless they are contracted to do so. It's
>their presses, and their computer, and for the sake of *my* computer, I
>wouldn't have it any other way.
However justified this sounds, what is to stop some SA who doesn't like
an opinion from drumming up some "justifiable" reason for removing access?
This case above is why I define censorship like websters does. That way,
let there be no mistake...justified or not there is censorship going on.
I think it should be different, but I don't see how to make it so. My internet
connected BBS is one way I can make the change. It's free and open to
anyone. I do not restrict postings, and I have never kicked anyone off.
THAT is true non-censorship to me.
>expect just that. But, if that offer was not explicitly made, then the
>final say as to who gets access to any individual machine belongs solely
>to that machine's owner(s), and it is not "censorship" when the owner(s)
>decide to exercise that option.
It is too. (Nyahh. 8) ) It may be "justified" censorship and there may not
be a damn thing you can do about it legally or otherwise, but it IS censorship.
>(BTW: the reason that I'm being so nit-picky about the definition of "censor-
>ship" here is that it's a prosecutable offense. Given that, we need to be
>very careful about what is therefore made illegal, lest we find our jails
>overflowing with submissions editors and newspapermen...)
I agree, so let's call your censorship "illegal censorship". I'm not arguing
from a legal standpoint as much as I am an idealistic standpoint. The
legal system has alredy gone to pot...why encourage it further?
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
Learn to behave from those who cannot.
From caf-talk Caf May 18 00:00:00 1992
From: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <920518#119#124104_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: 18 May 92 19:52:22 GMT
In article <1992May18.191138.24691@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>
>>There are so many problems with this analogy that it's hard to know where to
>>start. First of all, when a publisher refuses to publish a novel, it is not
>>"deleted," it is merely sent back to its originator.
>It is deleted from the publishers list of publications, is it not?
Not if it was never on the list of publications. (You *do* know what
a submission is, don't you?) And it doesn't prevent the work from being
resubmitted to another publisher, or self-published by the author, which
is what would be censorship.
BTW, I concede that from a dictionary definition, a sysadmin yanking
a user's account because s/he didn't like something that the user posted
is censorship, though not illegal (see below). I'm only arguing this
point right now because I think your analogy here is kind of fatally
flawed, and I believe in putting wounded analogies out of their misery. :)
>>Lastly, consider for a moment the effects of your statement above. By your
>>logic, every publishing company in the country (and by extension every radio
>>and television station) would be obligated to publish every manuscript that
>>is sent to them.
>I didn't say that, did I? You merely took it that way. I'm not talking
>about any obligation, I'm talking about what they do. It is censorship
>not to print something because of whatever reason...it isn't against
>first amendment rights not to print something.
Again, see below. I was going under the assumption that we were both
talking about what you termed "illegal censorship." If you are (as you
seem to be) taking the stance that these actions are objectionable but
not prosecutable, then I have no argument with you.
>>If refusing to do that is censorship, then the term is meaningless as you
>>use it. And this is far too important an issue to be trivialized.
>I'm actually trying to point out an important distinction that is applicable
>here on USENET. USENET is not a "publisher" or a "news media organization".
>USENET is a place where NO censorship (my definition) should be applied.
>(Not that it isn't BTW)
Well, I may agree with you from a moral standpoint, but I'm afraid that
the nature of the net makes that impossible as long as some sites are
privately owned and operated.
>>of human rights. It keeps the arguments from getting too metaphysical.
>Well we wouldn't want that now would we?
Possibly. Arguing issues of human rights from an abstractly moral sense
can be a dangerous game, since there are really no ground rules and anyone
can play... I suggest a brief perusal of the Marquis de Sade's "Philosophy
in the Bedroom" for some sterling examples of how a good metaphysicain can
argue away human rights in a stroke. The legal tradition, warped though
it may be, offers somewhat firmer ground to operate on...
>I think it should be different, but I don't see how to make it so. My internet
>connected BBS is one way I can make the change. It's free and open to
>anyone. I do not restrict postings, and I have never kicked anyone off.
>THAT is true non-censorship to me.
Bravo!
>>(BTW: the reason that I'm being so nit-picky about the definition of "censor-
>>ship" here is that it's a prosecutable offense. Given that, we need to be
>>very careful about what is therefore made illegal, lest we find our jails
>>overflowing with submissions editors and newspapermen...)
>
>I agree, so let's call your censorship "illegal censorship". I'm not arguing
>from a legal standpoint as much as I am an idealistic standpoint. The
>legal system has alredy gone to pot...why encourage it further?
This seems to be the end of this argument. I was assuming that you
were using the word censorship in it's legally enforcable sense, which
worried me. If, however, you're simply talking about a moral judgement,
then there is nothing to argue over, especially as it's an opinion that
I essentially share.
Wow. Who says nothing ever gets resolved on Usenet?
------------Nathan J. Mehl---------------(nmehl@pennsas.upenn.edu)------
It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf May 18 00:00:00 1992
From: marshall@marshall.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Marshall)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,bionet.general
Subject: From the Computing Research Association
Message-ID: <12215@borg.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 19 May 92 01:02:14 GMT
> Date: Mon, 18 May 92 10:33:55 -0400
> From: rweingar@cs.UMD.EDU (Rick Weingarten)
> Subject: Senate acting up.
In an attempt to embarrass the administration over its "pork barrel"
rhetoric, Senator Byrd, West Virginia, is sponsoring a bill to rescind a
bunch of peer reviewed NSF grants that have funny names. Though I don't
believe that any CS groants as such are in the bill, this should be of great
concern to us. It greatly undermines the peer review process and, I can say
from experience, adds to the bureacratic delays in grant processing. (Every
time Proxmire made another "golden fleece award" NSF added another layer of
reveiw.)
The following message was sent out by the American Psychological
Association, and I pass it along to you, with permission. The politicization
of research grants is something we all need to be sensitive to.
RickW
_____________________________________
> Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 15:13:40 EDT
> From: Cheri Fullerton
> Subject: Follow-up on Last Week's Action Alert
> Sender: APA Research Psychology Network
> To: Multiple recipients of list APASD-L
ACTION ALERT: MAY 15, 1992
THE BATTLE OVER RESCISSIONS CONTINUES: HELP IS STILL NEEDED
In last week's Action Alert, APA informed readers of the Research Funding
Bulletin about congressional efforts to rescind funding for ongoing,
peer-reviewed grants at the National Science Foundation and the National
Institute of Dental Research. These grants are only small parts of a big
political battle between President Bush and the Congress, led by Senator
Robert Byrd (D-WV), the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
President Bush tried to embarrass the Congress by asking that funding for a
number of projects (asparagus yield research, etc.) be rescinded (revoked).
In response, the Senate passed a bill containing, along with large defense
cuts, rescissions of 32 social and behavioral science grants at NSF and 3 at
the NIDR.
As we write this, there is good news and bad news. First the good news: the
message is beginning to get through. In the House- Senate conference
committee, the Senate agreed NOT to list the grants by name in the National
Institute of Dental Research rescission. In other words, NIDR will lose
some money, but the conference bill will not insist that the money come from
the 3 grants on dental pain and dental fear. We thank all the scientists
who made calls to their Senators: those actions certainly helped.
Now the bad news: Sen. Byrd is still insisting that funding be rescinded for
the 32 NSF grants named in the bill; apparently he believes that naming
"silly-sounding grants" strengthens Congress' case against President Bush.
As you know, Sen. Byrd has claimed that NSF grants are "administration
pork." This is one of the few points not yet resolved in the conference
committee. The conference will meet again on Tuesday, May 19, to settle
this and a few other sticking points. On the House side, Reps. Robert
Traxler (D-MI) and Bill Green (R-NY) have been staunch defenders of the NSF
merit review system, and have held firm opposing the naming of specific
grants in the final, conference bill. But they need support from members of
the Senate, who can convince Sen. Byrd that, money concerns aside, an
important principle is at stake, and that Congress should not revoke funding
for peer-reviewed research projects. It is important that an agreement be
reached within the conference; otherwise, the differences would have to be
resolved in a floor vote. Our chances of winning a floor vote are slim.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Call your Senator (again) and urge him or her to urge
Senator Byrd to respect the NSF merit review process and not revoke funding
for specific grants. Instead, your Senator should urge Sen. Byrd to allow
NSF to make whatever funding cuts are necessary. (NSF would not be likely
to take funding from ongoing research projects!) Calls are especially
needed from scientists in West Virginia (Sen. Byrd's constituents) and
Maryland (Senator Barbara Mikulski's constituents). Sen. Mikulski is key
because she is the chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that
funds the National Science Foundation. We understand she is very responsive
to constituent concerns.
HOW TO CALL: The Capitol switchboard number is (202/224-3121). Call and ask
for the office of your Senator. When you are connected to that office, ask
to speak to the Legislative Director, or the staff person who handles
research appropriations issues. Let the staff person know you are a
scientist, a constituent, and that you have grave concerns about a provision
in the Senate rescission bill that is now in a conference committee. There
is no time for you to send a letter unless you deliver it to your Senator's
office by fax. Your Senator must hear from you by May 19.
YOUR BEST ARGUMENTS: Explain to the staff person (who may not be familiar
with this portion of the rescission bill) that the Senate version of the
rescission bill listed, by name, 32 grants at NSF for which FY 92 funding
should be revoked. As far as we can determine, this is the first time that
the Senate has proposed revoking funding for ongoing research at the
National Science Foundation, and it is a precedent destructive to the
federal research enterprise. Explain that you don't know what the merits of
each individual grant are, but you don't HAVE to know...because there is a
stringent process in place that assures that only the best 2 or 3 grants out
of ten ever receive funding at NSF.
NSF funds basic research that can point the way to future applications, but
basic research is very important. For example, studies of stress in mice
established the contribution of stress to hypertension and its related
problems, such as stroke, heart attack, and kidney failure. Studies of
blindness in cows and rats led to the discovery of vitamin A and to
identification of its function. Anyone wishing to make these studies sound
silly can find a way to do so, because there is very little information in
the title of a grant that gives clues about its potential application.
That's why it is short-sighted to glance at the title of a grant and decide
it's not worthy of federal support (as we understand was done with the
identification of these 32 grants.) You get the idea.
A PITCH TO YOUR COLLEAGUES: Every scientist in your institution should also
be making these calls to Senators. It is not just a psychology issue. The
grants in today's rescission bill are social and behavioral, but tomorrow's
bill may hit your medical or engineering colleagues a little closer to home.
Please share this Action Alert with others in your department and
university.
From caf-talk Caf May 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.circplus] IFC Proposed Behavior Guidelines
Message-ID: <199205191900.AA05228@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 11:00:42 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.circplus
From: BENNETT@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU (Richard F. Bennett)
Subject: IFC Proposed Behavior Guidelines
Message-ID: <199205191804.AA04126@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 17:34:52 GMT
As chair of the LAMA Circulation Services Committee, I recently received
a copy of the revised proposed Guidelines Regarding Patron Behavior and
Library Usage which have been developed by a task force of the ALA
Intellectual Freedom Committee. A hearing on these guidelines is scheduled
for Saturday, June 27, from 8:00-10:00pm during the ALA Conference in San
Francisco. I thought I'd pass them along for anyone who might be interested
in an advance look. Any comments?
***************************************************************************
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES REGARDING PATRON BEHAVIOR
AND LIBRARY USAGE
INTRODUCTION
Many libraries are faced with problems of user behavior that must be
addressed to insure effective delivery of service and full access to
facilities. Issues may arise in relation to a variety of individual library
users who are eccentric, boisterous, disruptive, indigent, homeless, mentally
disturbed, belligerent, young, or old.
Libraries must approach the regulation of user behavior within the framework
of the law, including local and state statutes, constitutional standards under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments, due process, and equal treatment under
the law.
Publicly supported library service is based upon the First Amendment right
of free expression. Publicly supported libraries are recognized as limited
public forums for access to information and at least one federal court of
appeals has specifically recognized a First Amendment right to receive
information in a public library. Library policies and procedures that could
impinge upon such rights are subject to a higher standard of constitutional
review than may be required in the policies of other public services and
facilities.
There is also a significant government interest in maintining a library
environment that is conducive to all library users' exercise of their
constitutionally protected interest in receiving information. This significant
interest requires publicly supported libraries to maintain a safe and healthy
environment in which library users and staff can be free from harrassment,
intimidation, and threats to their safety and well-being. Libraries must
provide appropriate safeguards against lawless or illegal behavior and enforce
policies and procedures that address such behavior when it occurs.
In order to protect all library users' right of access to library
facilities, to insure the safety of patrons and staff, and to protect library
resources and facilities from damage, the library's governing authority may
impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of library access.
GUIDELINES
The American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee recommends
that publicly supported libraries use the following guidelines, based upon
constitutional principles, to develop policies and procedures governing the
use of library facilities:
o Libraries are advised to rely upon existing legislation and law enforcement
mechanisms as the primary means of controlling behavior that involves public
safety, criminal behavior, or other issues covered by existing local, state,
or federal statute. In many instances, this legal framework may be
sufficient to provide the library with the necessary tools to maintain
order.
o If the library's governing authority chooses to write its own policies and
procedures regarding patron behavior or access to library facilities and
resources, the policies should include citations of the statutory authority
and/or criminal justice statutes upon which those policies are based.
o Library policies and procedures governing the use of library facilities
should be carefully examined to insure that they are not in violation of
the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.
o Reasonable policies and procedures designed to prohibit interference with
use of facilities by others, or to prohibit activities inconsistent with
achievement of substantial library objectives, are acceptable.
o Such policies and the attendant implementing procedures should be regularly
reviewed by the library's legal counsel for compliance with federal and
state civil rights legislation, and applicable case law.
o Policies and regulations that impose restrictions on library access:
oo should apply only to those activities that directly and materially
interfere with the public's right of access to library facilities,
the safety of patrons and staff, and the protection of library
resources and facilities;
oo must provide a clear description of the behavior that is prohibited so
that a reasonable, intelligent person will have fair warning;
oo should not be based upon arbitrary distinctions between individuals or
classes of individuals and must not have the effect of, or be applied
in a manner which has the effect of restricting access by any
particular individual or groups of individuals based upon origin, age,
background, views, or any other inappropriate or arbitrary
classification of the individual or group of individuals;
oo should limit prohibitions or restrictions to those that are essential
to the furtherence of the public interests they are meant to serve;
oo should attempt to balance competing interests and avoid favoring the
majority at the expense of individual rights, or allowing individual
patron's rights to supersede those of the majority of library users;
oo should not restrict access to the library by persons by persons who
merely inspire the anger or annoyance of others. Policies based upon
appearance, state of mind, or other behavior that is merely annoying or
which merely generates negative subjective reactions from others do not
meet the necessary constitutional standard. Rather, such policies should
employ a reasonable, objective standard based on the behavior itself,
not the reaction to it;
oo must be enforced evenhandedly, and not in a manner intended to benefit
or disfavor any person or group in an arbitrary or capricious manner;
Every effort should be made to respond to potentially difficult circumstances
of patron behavior in a timely, direct, and open manner. Common sense, reason,
and sensitivity will go a long way to resolve issues in a constructive and
positive manner without escalation. If problems are not addressed in their
early stages, they may become compounded and lead the library into indefensible
positions, confrontation, and litigation.
Ongoing staff training, including training to develop empathy and
understanding of the social and economic conditions that contribute to the
behavior problems of some library users, increases the likelihood that staff
will be able to defuse difficult situations and achieve a satisfactory
resolution of actual and potential conflicts. Libraries should take advantage
of the training and expertise of local social service agencies, mental health
professionals, law enforcement officials, and other community resources in
developing and implementing staff training programs. Such community resources
can also assist the library in developing and implementing successful
strategies for serving a diverse population of library users.
Rich Bennett
Chair, Access Services Department
115 Library West
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
(904) 392-0345 FAX (904) 392-7251
**** NOTIS CIRCULATION USER ****
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 19 00:00:00 1992
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May19.190452.16761@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 19 May 92 19:04:52 GMT
nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>Again, see below. I was going under the assumption that we were both
>talking about what you termed "illegal censorship." If you are (as you
>seem to be) taking the stance that these actions are objectionable but
>not prosecutable, then I have no argument with you.
That ends that then.
>can play... I suggest a brief perusal of the Marquis de Sade's "Philosophy
>in the Bedroom" for some sterling examples of how a good metaphysicain can
>argue away human rights in a stroke.
Marquis de Sade??!? Hold it just a minute. My definition of a good
metaphysician is one who's desire is not to "take your power away".
Obviously the de Sade viewpoint differs. But this is off the topic.
>worried me. If, however, you're simply talking about a moral judgement,
>then there is nothing to argue over, especially as it's an opinion that
>I essentially share.
Great! We are agreed then.
>Wow. Who says nothing ever gets resolved on Usenet?
Who indeed?
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
When you have been your own teacher for a time, you may be ready
to find someone else who can teach you.
From caf-talk Caf May 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
From: gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..)
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May19.173413.3566@math.okstate.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 17:34:13 GMT
In article <1992May18.191138.24691@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>
>>There are so many problems with this analogy that it's hard to know where to
>>start. First of all, when a publisher refuses to publish a novel, it is not
>>"deleted," it is merely sent back to its originator.
>
>It is deleted from the publishers list of publications, is it not?
>
It was never on any list of publications. It had been proffered to the
editors of the publication for the purpose of determining feasability
(of whatever sort) for publication in the medium for which the editor
edits. Until it is originally published, it can't be removed from a
list of publications. AND, the original intent was not that a novel was
suddenly discontinued, but that it was refused for whatever grounds the
editor thought were appropriate for keeping his job.
>>logic, every publishing company in the country (and by extension every radio
>>and television station) would be obligated to publish every manuscript that
>>is sent to them.
>
>about any obligation, I'm talking about what they do. It is censorship
>not to print something because of whatever reason...it isn't against
>
By immediate extension, it is censorship for me to ignore any proffered
information. Do you really support such a proposal?
>I'm actually trying to point out an important distinction that is applicable
>here on USENET. USENET is not a "publisher" or a "news media organization".
>USENET is a place where NO censorship (my definition) should be applied.
>(Not that it isn't BTW)
>
>We need a different word. No, I don't have a good substitute.
>
It's called editing. Most good books and much else could use a bit of it.
>However justified this sounds, what is to stop some SA who doesn't like
>an opinion from drumming up some "justifiable" reason for removing access?
>This case above is why I define censorship like websters does. That way,
>let there be no mistake...justified or not there is censorship going on.
>
>I think it should be different, but I don't see how to make it so. My internet
>connected BBS is one way I can make the change. It's free and open to
>anyone. I do not restrict postings, and I have never kicked anyone off.
>THAT is true non-censorship to me.
>
And what DO you do with all the lint that such a policy implies?
>>expect just that. But, if that offer was not explicitly made, then the
>>final say as to who gets access to any individual machine belongs solely
>>to that machine's owner(s), and it is not "censorship" when the owner(s)
>>decide to exercise that option.
>
>It is too. (Nyahh. 8) ) It may be "justified" censorship and there may not
>be a damn thing you can do about it legally or otherwise, but it IS censorship.
>
If I accept your manuscript for publication and never release it, is that
censorship? (i.e. there's a big warehouse somewhere filled with copies of
your manuscript which for whatever reason were not distributed.) How about
if I only publish one copy and keep it on my bookshelf at home and read it
on occasional weekends. Is THAT censorship? If I published a newspaper
and ensured that no copy of it ever left the paper's premises, would I be
guilty of censorship? If I accepted some of these articles through
electronic means from various contributors, would it still be censorship?
If, in fact, I took the entire electronic feed and ran it straight to my
custom postscriptable newspress and then still refused to use all of those
papers for anything more useful than insulation, would I still be engaged
in censorship?
Be careful how you answer, since all I've really done is put an extra layer
between the net.poster and the net.reader.
-- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup@math.okstate.edu
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Restriction or not ?
Message-ID: <1992May20.001222.18130@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 20 May 92 05:12:22 GMT
In article <1992May12.151828.21744@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Kursat CAGILTAY writes:
>>
>>> Today, somebody sent me an e-mail from Germany about one of our users.
>>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>some folks seem to have nothing else to do than to insult German speaking
>>>people on relay.
>>
>>Roughly speaking, verbal harassment is continued unwanted
>>person-to-person communications. In my opinion, you would be justified
>>in telling your user to stop sending e-mail to the person who
>>complained on the grounds that further email would be harassment.
>>(Your user might also ask that email *from* the complainer stop.)
>
> Email isn't involved in this particular problem. BITNET RELAY is a real-time
> conferencing system, much like IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Users of BITNET
> systems send their messages/commands/requests to a server, which then broad-
> casts their messages to the other distributed users. You do not need any
> special software to access a RELAY server; you can just use the standard
> CMS TELL command to reach the server(s). In fact, the server you use might
> be located hundreds of miles away, at another university.
>
> This structure can put a different spin on these matters. For instance,
> the University of Kentucky's BITNET system (UKCC) is serviced by the RELAY
> server at the University of Southern California (USCVM). 'Problems' on
> RELAY could potentially involve three sites, namely UKCC, the home site(s) of
> the offended party(ies), and USCVM (which provides RELAY service to UKCC). I
> have been told of instances in which admins have received complaints from
> RELAY users at *dozens* of sites.
>
> In addition, RELAY 'problems' can inconvenience dozens of other users. If
> someone starts broadcasting obscenities on RELAY channels, that person will
> be interfering with people all over the world. How should that be handled?
> This situation diverges significantly from the "one-on-one" nature of email.
>
> I've always considered RELAY/IRC akin to ham radio. Since one person's
> traffic can afffect dozens/hundreds of users, those users can simply
> 'change the channel' and go elsewhere. If the radio enthusiast continues
> his behavior, the other hams can file complaints with the FCC. Should
> admins act as the "FCC" for teleconferencing systems such as RELAY and IRC?
>
> Some teleconferencing systems can be programmed to disable access from
> specified userids. I don't know if RELAY has that capability; more im-
> portantly, I'm not sure if/when that capability should be exercised. I
> seem to remember that IRC supports an /ignore command, but I believe that
> it only applies to personal messages (as opposed to messages sent to the
> entire channel). Perhaps an IRC buff could provide more information.
>
> I can easily picture a scenario in which a single user, hopping from channel
> to channel, could disrupt the teleconferencing of several hundred users. Where
> shall we draw the line?
>
> In conclusion, RELAY != email. I don't believe that email-based policies and
> procedures can be applied to teleconferencing systems.
>
If we're talking about the same RELAY here, it does indeed have an
/ignore command, which causes not to be transmitted to a user anything
from another specified user. This, in general, eliminates all real need to
remove access. Now, there may be problems with this (such as RELAY's lack
of anything approximating a KILL file, such that an ignore command for a
specified user would remain in place). But that isn't a reason to
institute censorship; that's a reason to improve the programs.
However, I can see your point about channel-hopping. Hmm.. any
suggestions from anyone else on handling this in a non-censoring way?
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.british] Possible censorship
Message-ID: <9205201603.AA01087@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 06:03:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
From: cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The Mistress)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Possible censorship
Message-ID:
Date: 18 May 92 19:28:09 GMT
Recently I had a friend who logged on to a machine in the states
with a rn access, he found lots of material that simply doesn't get
to the UK, the newsgroup in question was alt.hackers. I sent out
a request on the group asking for the ftp site of the archives
for this group.
I had a reply(via email) from someone at Uknet Backbone which I
believe supplys the newsfeed to the UK stating that the news
does get through but however where is this news? It is the same
with alt.drugs etc. and associated groups.
Is the news being censored or I am being paranoid? *:-)
Should we have access to these groups and who has the authority
to cancel such news...
BTW, this excludes pornographic/obscene material which I believe
BT will not allow to be transmitted over their land lines. Cab
someone correct me on this?
This may be totally incorrect, please correct me if I am
wrong.
--
| The /\/\istress of /\/\anipulation | cbj005@cch.cov.ac.uk |
| "Jungf pvivy nobhg ratvarrevat", Pbiragel Cbyl 27/10/91 |
| Ona gur obzo...fnir gur jbeyq sbe pbairagvbany jnesner...... |
| Cannot recover from virus....rm: remove /usrpk14h/*(y/n)? |
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.british] Re: Possible censorship
Message-ID: <9205201603.AA01096@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 06:03:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
From: Oor-Wullie@bucket.Glebe-Street
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Possible censorship
Message-ID: <1992May19.093108.25666@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 19 May 92 09:31:08 GMT
In article cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The
Mistress) writes:
>Is the news being censored or I am being paranoid? *:-)
Yes. There's an occasional posting to, I think, uk.net entitled
"Newsgroups we cannot carry" giving a list of the censored groups.
Some are obvious such as alt.sex.pictures which probably falls within
the Obscene Publications Act, others are weird such as alt.motss.
I've no idea why this last group is censored, nor have I seen any
explanation.
Dave
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.british] Re: Possible censorship
Message-ID: <9205201604.AA01107@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 06:04:06 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com (Ian Preece)
Subject: Re: Possible censorship
Message-ID: <1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 09:33:11 GMT
In article , cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The
Mistress) writes:
>>>I had a reply(via email) from someone at Uknet Backbone which I
>>>believe supplys the newsfeed to the UK stating that the news
>>>does get through but however where is this news? It is the same
>>>with alt.drugs etc. and associated groups.
>>>Is the news being censored or I am being paranoid? *:-)
'fraid so...
The thing about Usenet is that it exists on the goodwill of those who
run the servers. In the UK, the great majority of these systems are
operated by academic institutions, who seem to have decided not to
forward the "alt.*" hierarchy, in particular, and a number
of other groups which are either judged to be "unsuitable", or clearly
only relevant to, say, the US.
>>>Should we have access to these groups and who has the authority
>>>to cancel such news...
It's not a case of "authority", the server operators are doing us a
favour by forwarding anything at all, it's their choice.
I suspect, too, that there's no moral or legal judgements involved, they
just don't want to see headlines in the more sensational press like,
"University funds computer porn ring/ political underground / drugs net /
{insert your own} with taxpayers' money..."
>>>BTW, this excludes pornographic/obscene material which I believe
>>>BT will not allow to be transmitted over their land lines. Cab
>>>someone correct me on this?
Interesting one, this, since BT are not able to tell what's being transmitted
without tapping the lines, which requires a Home Office warrant, which requires
them to believe that a crime is being committed, which requires them to know
what's being transmitted, which.....;-)
Any server sysops able to comment ?
Ian
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ObDisclaimer:
"I wouldn't *work* for a company that held opinions like mine."
Ian Preece, Digital Equipment, UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.british] Re: Possible censorship
Message-ID: <9205201604.AA01117@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 06:04:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Possible censorship
Message-ID: <1992May19.144129.3357@pixel.kodak.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 14:41:29 GMT
In article <1992May19.093108.25666@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk writes:
>In article cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The
>Mistress) writes:
>
>>Is the news being censored or I am being paranoid? *:-)
>
>Yes. There's an occasional posting to, I think, uk.net entitled
>"Newsgroups we cannot carry" giving a list of the censored groups.
>Some are obvious such as alt.sex.pictures which probably falls within
>the Obscene Publications Act, others are weird such as alt.motss.
>I've no idea why this last group is censored, nor have I seen any
>explanation.
"motss" is "members of the same sex". Obviously coding the name didn't
fool any of the UK bluenoses. The main problem is lack of alternate
feeds for the UK, leading to this kind of central control.
--
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) ||-------------------------------|
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY 14653-7300|-------------------------------|
|| If Unix is a computer system ||-------------------------------|
|| then a pile of bricks is a house ||-------------------------------|
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.british] Re: Possible censorship
Message-ID: <9205201604.AA01128@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 06:04:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: Possible censorship
Message-ID: <1992May19.164553.11154@col.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 16:45:53 GMT
>
> >Is the news being censored or I am being paranoid? *:-)
>
> Yes. There's an occasional posting to, I think, uk.net entitled
> "Newsgroups we cannot carry" giving a list of the censored groups.
> Some are obvious such as alt.sex.pictures which probably falls within
> the Obscene Publications Act, others are weird such as alt.motss.
> I've no idea why this last group is censored, nor have I seen any
> explanation.
>
> Dave
I haven't read alt.motss but have seen references in other groups
to some alt.motss discussions, and suspect that many of these discussions
would be considered obscene.
I don't support censorship in any form, except for a site's
right to cut down the number of groups when they are running out of disk space:
they should use some objective standard to do this, like number of readers
of that group, not "moral standards." I do think some news-posting
programs around here default to "usa" distribution.
--
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Policy on malicious/bad posts to a newsgroup
Message-ID: <1992May20.174649.7605@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 20 May 92 17:46:49 GMT
gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
>>>logic, every publishing company in the country (and by extension every radio
>>>and television station) would be obligated to publish every manuscript that
>>>is sent to them.
>>about any obligation, I'm talking about what they do. It is censorship
>>not to print something because of whatever reason...it isn't against
>By immediate extension, it is censorship for me to ignore any proffered
>information. Do you really support such a proposal?
That's your decision not mine. I'm merely pointing out the definition
of censorship.
>>connected BBS is one way I can make the change. It's free and open to
>>anyone. I do not restrict postings, and I have never kicked anyone off.
>>THAT is true non-censorship to me.
>And what DO you do with all the lint that such a policy implies?
What lint? My users haven't caused any problems. Perhaps that's because
I don't make them conform to an external set of standards.
And, like with any lint, if I don't see it it doesn't bother me. If I
do see it, it still doesn't bother me. Does it bother you?
>If I accept your manuscript for publication and never release it, is that
>censorship? (i.e. there's a big warehouse somewhere filled with copies of
>your manuscript which for whatever reason were not distributed.)
>[etc.]
If the manuscript/article does not make it to the same distribution that
your previous manuscript/articles did, then that is censorship.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
To test that which has been tested is ignorance.
To try to test something without the means of testing is even worse
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [UPI] "Students sue over sex sign ban"
Message-ID: <1992May20.180644.28931@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 18:06:44 GMT
Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.news.law.civil, et al. For more
info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS."
>Newsgroups: clari.news.politics.people,clari.news.law.civil,
clari.news.interest.quirks,clari.news.interest.people
>Message-ID:
>Subject: Students sue over sex sign ban
>Date: Sat, 16 May 92 15:24:23 PDT
LUFKIN, Texas (UPI) -- A group of politically conservative students
are suing their university because it prohibited them from posting signs
using a quote by former Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., that was deemed
obscene.
The signs read, ``SEX and politics are a lot alike. You don't have to
be good at them to enjoy them.''
In the suit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Lufkin, the Young
Conservatives of Texas accuse officials at Stephen F. Austin State
University in Nacogdoches of violating the group's First Amendment
rights.
School officials declined comment.
The suit notes the Young Conservatives ``wish to post signs
expressing political ideas and opinions similar to the ones at issue.''
It says school officials in September told students they could not
post the fliers the school considered sexist and obscene and in
violation of campus policy. The policy also requires such postings to be
approved by the university.
But students Michael Bartlow and Guy Hatch posted about 500 signs
nonetheless. They were not disciplined but were warned they would be if
they continued hanging the fliers.
The suit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, asks a judge
to rule that the university's sign-posting policy is unconstitutional.
``Students do not leave their rights at the university gate,'' said
Joe Cook, an ACLU spokesman. ``Administrators have no business
interfering with the First Amendment rights of students except when such
expression ... disrupts school work, discipline or the rights of others.''
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [UPI] "Banner prompts fight at university"
Message-ID: <1992May20.180954.9736@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 18:09:54 GMT
Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.news.demostration, et al. For
more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone
1-800-USE-NETS.
>Newsgroups: clari.news.demonstration,clari.news.group.jews
>Message-id:
>Subject: Banner prompts fight at university
>Date: Wed, 13 May 92 6:43:32 PDT
MILWAUKEE (UPI) - A banner depicting a swastika evolving into a Star
of David prompted a spontaneous fight between two men at the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
University police said David A. Doolin, 37, and Bahjat M. Itayem, 31,
were ticketed at university police headquarters Tuesday for disorderly
conduct and released. The citations carry a $93 fine.
University officials said the 6-by-8 foot banner was torn down by
Doolin about 2:15 p.m. Tuesday, just before a Jewish student
organization was to hold a news conference by the banner in the Student
Union. The president of TAGAR/Masada-American Students for Israel said a
73-year-old Holocaust survivor was to speak at the news conference and
then tear down the banner.
Itayem saw Doolin rip the banner, and a fight ensued, university
officials said. Itayem is a former president of the General Union of
Palestinian Students.
Neither man is currently connected with the university in any way,
UWM officials said.
A spokesman for the Palestinian student group and the president of
the American Students for Israel both said Doolin let them know that he
was about to tear down the banner before he did it. After the banner was
down, TAGAR/Masada members tore at the pieces, said Brian Eglash,
TAGAR/Masada president.
Ihsan Atta, spokesman for the Palestinian student group, said he and
other Palestinian students gathered the pieces of their banner and taped
them together Tuesday night. He said he and others would meet with
university officials Wednesday to ask that the banner be put back in its
place.
Atta said the group had been given permission from the university to
hang the banner for an entire week.
Eglash responded to Atta's claim. He said, ``The banner cannot hang
in the union. We will take any legal means necessary. It has to be
removed.''
William Mayrl, assistant chancellor for student affairs, said the
Palestinian student's right to display the banner is protected under the
First Amendment. He is expected to meet with representatives of each
student group to discuss issues raised by the banner.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.british] Re: Possible censorship
Message-ID: <9205201829.AA02171@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 08:29:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Possible censorship
Message-ID:
Date: 20 May 92 11:12:04 GMT
In article <1992May19.164553.11154@col.hp.com>, Laura Johnson (lj) writes:
lj> I haven't read alt.motss but have seen references in other groups
lj> to some alt.motss discussions, and suspect that many of these discussions
lj> would be considered obscene.
I have never seen anything on any net group which meets any definition
of obscene in use by anyone outside the lunatic fringe. The Uknet
people, however, operate a policy of extreme paranoia.
My working definition of `outside the lunatic fringe' is that anything
that would be unsuprising on Channel 4 after 9:00 is ok.
--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: Status of UDel's Responsible Computing Policy
Message-ID: <199205201831.AA21705@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 10:31:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: richard@RAVEL.UDEL.EDU (Richard Gordon)
Subject: Re: Status of UDel's Responsible Computing Policy
Message-ID: <199205201436.AA16818@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 04:45:48 GMT
On May 11, 1992, after nearly 61 months of work, our Policy for
Responsible Computing was approved by the full faculty senate.
Herewith the posting I made to some of our local bbs to announce this
event. The student newspaper did not report this event; the "official"
UD newspaper gave it a small paragraph--changes to the Greek system
were also on the Senate's agenda that day. :)
Cheers,
Richard
p.s. we are revising the guidelines right now. Will announce the
availability of the revisions when they are available (hopefully early
summer).
----
>Article 1404 of udel.general:
>Path: brahms.udel.edu!richard
>From: richard@ravel.udel.edu (Richard Gordon)
>Newsgroups:
udel.general,udel.student-info,cns.staff,cns.news,cns.sites,cns.consult,udel.bu
ll
>Subject: Faculty Senate Passed the Responsible Computing Policy
>Keywords: what'll I do with the next five years of my life?
>Message-ID: <19144@ravel.udel.edu>
>Date: 12 May 92 13:52:09 GMT
>Followup-To: udel.general
>Distribution: udel
>Organization: University of Delaware
>Lines: 120
>Xref: brahms.udel.edu udel.general:1404 udel.student-info:56 cns.staff:492
cns.news:53 cns.sites:48 cns.consult:1347 udel.bull:870
On Monday, May 11, 1992, The full Faculty Senate of the
University of Delaware approved the following document:
-----
Policy for Responsible Computing at the University of Delaware
Preamble
In support of its mission of teaching, research, and public service,
the University of Delaware provides access to computing and information
resources for students, faculty, and staff, within institutional
priorities and financial capabilities.
The Policy for Responsible Computing at the University of Delaware
contains the governing philosophy for regulating faculty, student, and
staff use of the University's computing resources. It spells out the
general principles regarding appropriate use of equipment, software,
and networks. By adopting this policy, the Faculty Senate recognizes
that all members of the University are also bound by local, state, and
federal laws relating to copyrights, security, and other statutes
regarding electronic media. The policy also recognizes the
responsibility of faculty and system administrators to take a
leadership role in implementing the policy and assuring that the
University community honors the policy.
Policy
All members of the University community who use the University's
computing and information resources must act responsibly. Every user
is responsible for the integrity of these resources. All users of
University-owned or University-leased computing systems must respect
the rights of other computing users, respect the integrity of the
physical facilities and controls, and respect all pertinent license and
contractual agreements. It is the policy of the University of Delaware
that all members of its community act in accordance with these
responsibilities, relevant laws and contractual obligations, and the
highest standard of ethics.
Access to the University's computing facilities is a privilege granted
to University students, faculty, and staff. Access to University
information resources may be granted by the owners of that information
based on the owner's judgement of the following factors: relevant laws
and contractual obligations, the requestor's need to know, the
information's sensitivity, and the risk of damage to or loss by the
University.
The University reserves the right to limit, restrict, or extend
computing privileges and access to its information resources. Data
owners--whether departments, units, faculty, students, or staff--may
allow individuals other than University faculty, staff, and students
access to information for which they are responsible, so long as such
access does not violate any license or contractual agreement;
University policy; or any federal, state, county, or local law or
ordinance.
University computing facilities and accounts are to be used for the
University-related activities for which they are assigned. University
computing resources are not to be used for commercial purposes or
non-University-related activities without written authorization from
the University. In these cases, the University will require payment
of appropriate fees. This policy applies equally to all University-
owned or University-leased computers.
Users and system administrators must all guard against abuses that
disrupt or threaten the viability of all systems, including those at
the University and those on networks to which the University's systems
are connected. Access to information resources without proper
authorization from the data owner, unauthorized use of University
computing facilities, and intentional corruption or misuse of
information resources are direct violations of the University's
standards for conduct as outlined in the University of Delaware Policy
Manual, the Personnel Policies and Procedures for Professional and
Salaried Staff, the Faculty Handbook, University collective bargaining
agreements, and the Official Student Handbook and may also be
considered civil or criminal offenses.
Implementation
Appropriate University administrators should adopt guidelines for the
implementation of this policy within each unit and regularly revise
these guidelines as circumstances, including--but not limited
to--changes in technology, warrant. The Associate Vice President for
Computing and Network Services shall, from time to time, issue
recommended guidelines to assist departments and units with this
effort.
Enforcement
Alleged violations of this policy shall be processed according to the
judicial processes outlined in the University of Delaware Policy
Manual, the Personnel Policies and Procedures for Professional and
Salaried Staff, the Faculty Handbook, University collective bargaining
agreements, and the Official Student Handbook. The University of
Delaware treats access and use violations of computing facilities,
equipment, software, information resources, networks, or privileges
seriously and may also prosecute abuse under Title 11, $931-$939 of the
Delaware Code, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, or other
appropriate laws.
drafted: March 5, 1992
adopted: May 11, 1992
------
Faculty Senate's approval completes the process whereby drafts of
this document have been circulated to the Dean's Council,
Faculty Senate, the President, the President's Committee on
Information Resource Planning and Management, DUSC, and Senior
University administrators. CNS thanks all those who have
assisted us in developing this document, particularly those
Faculty Senators and Faculty Senate Committee Members who have
worked diligently on this project for the past three years.
A DRAFT of the recommended guidelines that this document refers to is
available via anonymous ftp from zebra.cns.udel.edu in the file
pub/udel.guidelines_draft. They are also available on the composers in
the file ~richard/udel.guidelines_draft. We welcome comments on the
guidelines; in fact, we plan to incorporate several people's
suggestions in the current draft later this month.
--
Richard Gordon richard@chopin.udel.edu
CNS User Services, Smith Hall or gordon@udel.edu
University of Delaware or acs02244@udelvm.bitnet
Newark, DE 19716 USA (302-831-1717) or richard.gordon@mvs.udel.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 20 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 02.13
Message-ID: <1992May21.025719.29177@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 02:57:19 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/cafv02n13".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n13
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending March 15, 1992
[With this issue March is done. The guest editor for this issue is
David Swanlund (david@swan.vm.iastate.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 censorship and SWITCH (in Switzerland -cmk).
1. The majority does not have the right to restrict or censor
information desired by the minority, even if that material is
offensive. In this regard, "Switch is like a library, worse than that
switch is not only censoring their library, they also put up
roadblocks and refuse people access to their libraries." Would-be
censors should have to "_PROVE_ beyond reasonable doubt in a just
court that something is harming others (and arguably that they don't
wish to be harmed)" before that something is restricted or censored.
<16825.9203091724@pyr.swan.ac.uk>
Note 2 is a forwarded message about a proposed bill to allow easy
wire tapping by the FBI.
2. The Bush administration is a proponent of a bill to ensure that
all commercial and private telephone exchanges allow easy wire
tapping by the FBI. Non-compliants would be fined up to $10k/day. "At
best, the FCC's easy-wiretapping requirements would be a hinderance
to commerce", and "At worst, roving wiretaps could become easier."
<199203101029.AA06819@eff.org>
Note 3 is about commercial use restriction on the net.
3. "We've built this highway, but imposed these restrictions on who
can use the highways, only automotive engineers, so the car doesn't
look awfully useful. Imagine if federal highways were 'no commercial
use' and you were in the trucking industry...?"
<9203130452.AA05819@world.std.com>
Notes 4-7 are about logging ftp usage
4. Creating logs of ftp usage is unneeded. Such logging done without
the user's knowledge infringes on the user's right to privacy.
<1992Mar11.172359.1124@math.okstate.edu>
5. A point on the side of making logs. "The system log at the
Stanford site was the primary link which allowed the traceback of the
Macintosh MBDF-A virus to the students who released it (who
are now involved in criminal proceedings)."
<9203111808.AA23181@hibiscus.cit.cornell.edu>
6. Anonymous ftp does not necessarily mean that the process is
anonymous. ftp.uu.net is one such system that requires a domain style
email address for a password. All file transfers are logged, but the
initial login message informs the user of this.
<1992Mar12.213307.11252@uunet.uu.net>
7. In response to note 4, (Jim Lick, who runs his own service)
"Having guest ftp does not mean you can dump anything you want
there." ... "And I am free to refuse service if you don't provide the
information I want. If you don't want to, you don't have to use the
service."
Notes 8-11 continue the discussion of collecting information about
system users.
8. Computers make it very easy to collect information about people
and their use of a system. This should make people more concerned
about the results of such collection.
9. Default login names are supplied by the client side of ftp,
allowing the user to enter what he/she desires. The internet in
general will remain insecure "until authentication becomes part of
the standard suite of protocols, including application-level
protocols, used on the Internet"
<1992Mar10.175513.1600@mtholyoke.edu>
10. There may be good reasons to log system access, "But maybe you
could live without it, and we'd have a slightly friendlier society."
11. There are laws regulating credit bureaus or the use of the Social
Security Number by different entities. An example of a sysop selling
a user's e-mail address to some company for marketing purposes "may
be legal but it's not the kind of world I want to live in."
- David]
--- 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 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: Status of UDel's Responsible Computing Policy
Message-ID: <1992May21.024811.13506@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 02:48:11 GMT
}Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
}From: richard@RAVEL.UDEL.EDU (Richard Gordon)
}Subject: Re: Status of UDel's Responsible Computing Policy
}On May 11, 1992, after nearly 61 months of work, our Policy for
}Responsible Computing was approved by the full faculty senate.
FIVE YEARS! And, does it really say anything?
}Policy for Responsible Computing at the University of Delaware
}Preamble ...
}Policy
}All ... must act responsibly.
}All ... must respect ... rights ... integrity ... agreements.
}Access ... is a privilege ...
}based on owner's judgement [of factors]
}... reserves the right to limit, restrict, or extend ... privileges and access
}[Commercial use requires authorization and payment]
}... all [must] guard against abuses
}Access ... without ... authorization ... violation of ... policy
}may also be considered civil or criminal offenses.
}Implementation
}Appropriate University administrators should adopt guidelines ...
}Enforcement
}[according to various other policies & handbooks]
Even though I picked some nits with it, I think the policy Wes Morgan
(from U KY) put up for pot-shots was a lot more useful (better than ours,
for that matter). Other than the part which says enforcement is carried
out under existing university policy, this one doesn't see to say anything
not completely obvious (I guess you need to say the obvious, but I think
more specifics are needed.)
John
From caf-talk Caf May 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [bit.listserv.pacs-l] Libraries vs. Computer Centers
Message-ID: <199205211837.AA08442@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 10:37:46 GMT
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 10:10:14 CDT
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
Subject: Libraries vs. Computer Centers
2 Messages, 44 Lines
*-----
From: "Thomas C. Wilson"
Subject: Re: Subject Guides to Internet Resources
Bill Strickland and others have commented on the notion of in whose territory
technical issues belong. I believe we risk something dangerous when we
classify knowledge and responsibilities so tightly that individual flexibility
is removed. I remember growing up (perhaps I still am in the process of that)
thinking that all members of certain professions possessed a given set of
experiences/expertises. I have since learned that that idea is based on my
own perceptions and stereotypes. When I look at individuals, I see much
greater variance. With so much at stake in the building of an electronic
community, I believe it is important for us to recognize that there is
plenty of work to be done, and the expertise of many individuals, regardless
of their professional affiliation, is needed. This is not a time to deny
the contributions that can be made by librarians to this effort; neither is
it the time to mount professional high-horses in an attempt to defend
imaginary fiefdoms. Please do not interpret this message as an attack on
anyone in particular; it is intended as a gentle reminder of the need for
wide participation.
| Tom Wilson, Head of Systems LIB4@jetson.uh.edu |
| University of Houston Libraries 713-743-9673 |
*-----
From: Howard Pasternack
Subject: Libraries Vs. Computing Centers
I am dismayed at reading once again the postings on who should be
responsible for teaching users how to access internet resources.
It concerns me that large numbers of librarians are still propounding
the "library versus computing center" mentality and that "we" must protect
our turf or "they" will take it over.
It is not our turf to begin with. It is an uncharted territory in which
we are working together in organizations such as the CNI to map the
terrain. And the territory is expanding so rapidly and that both of us
working together are finding it difficult to get the road maps straight.
And in many cases there are no maps.
Howard Pasternack
Brown University
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberty] Free Speech in Berkeley? (press release)
Message-ID: <9205211844.AA08506@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 08:44:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 21 00:00:00 1992
From: mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Free Speech in Berkeley? (press release)
Date: 21 May 1992 15:17:25 GMT
Message-ID:
The following is not endorsed by my employer.
The following is not endorsed by the University of California, Berkeley.
Opinions expressed below are mine alone.
mitja@hera.berkeley.edu
---------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 5/21/92
BERKELEY - People's Park activist Mitja Baumhackl filed suit
today against four Berkeley Police Department officers and the
City of Berkeley for allegedly violating his rights under the First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution. He is asking for damages in the amount of $25,000.
Mr. Baumhackl is represented by Berkeley attorney David
Beauvais.
On August 1, 1991, Mr. Baumhackl, a Berkeley resident, was
detained by Officers Kent Brezee, John Lewis, Cynthia Harris, and
Stuart Nakamura as he and a friend carried a protest banner at
Dana and Channing Streets.
Written on the fabric banner were the words "Fuck UC/No
Park=No Peace."
"Although not particularly eloquent," says Mr. Baumhackl,
"my banner accurately conveyed the sentiments of many Berkeley
residents regarding the development of People's Park."
The police officers declared the sign inflammatory and cited
Mr. Baumhackl and his friend for Penal Code 415, Disturbing the
Peace and confiscated the banner. Mr. Baumhackl says he was also told
that he was inciting a riot, even though the area was nearly deserted.
The charges were later dropped by the District Attorney, but the
banner was not released from police custody.
Mr. Baumhackl filed a complaint with the Berkeley Police
Review Commission and on December 12, 1991, the Commission
sustained 3-0 the allegations of Improper Police Procedure and
Improper Confiscation of Property.
"It was quite obvious to the Board that . . . this was a
clear First Amendment issue," wrote Commissioner Eric Scheie in
the PRC's findings. Mr. Baumhackl "stated [his] views
forcefully, dramatically, maybe even offensively, in his sign.
That is his absolute right." City Manager Michael Brown upheld,
without comment, the PRC findings.
Mr. Baumhackl seeks damages of $25,000 plus attorney's fees.
"Recently in San Francisco's Mission District, the police
used the excuse of crime prevention to trample on civil liberties.
I was saddened to learn that in Berkeley, the heart of the Free
Speech Movement, our police willingly violated the Constitution
as well."
# # #
For serious inquiries: Mitja Baumhackl may be contacted at (510) 649-1461.
mitja@hera.berkeley.edu
From caf-talk Caf May 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.security.misc] Re: NARCS ON THE NET!
Message-ID: <9205212118.AA10921@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 11:18:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 21 00:00:00 1992
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: NARCS ON THE NET!
Message-ID: <1992May21.180911.10850@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: 21 May 92 18:09:11 GMT
> the subpoenaing of computer files
Hmmmmm. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if this were done in
Georgia, a number of laws would have to be disregarded, including the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Educational Records
Privacy Act (not sure I've not the name quite right).
The latter law is very important to us here. A student's computer files,
if not normally available for others to read, are considered confidential
educational records. In fact we have cited this law as one of the reasons
why "cracking" accounts is prosecutable.
--
==========================================================================
Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A.
==========================================================================
From caf-talk Caf May 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.19
Message-ID: <1992May21.214719.12430@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 21:47:19 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/cafv02n19".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n19
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending April 26, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 discusses the removal of the alt groups at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln.
1. (A user:) On March 2nd, the alt groups were eliminated by UNL's
Computing Resource Center (CRC). Although the reason given was lack
of resources, the content of the groups played a major part. The
chairman of the UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and
Facilities Committee felt in hindsight that the committee did not have
all the facts when they recommended a limited set of news feeds. On
April 6th the UNL Academic Senate Executive Committee voted to request
restoration of the majority of the alt.* groups.
Note 2 discusses a little known campaign law which may chill political
discourse on public networks
2. (A user:) Federal (US) and state regulations governing political
campaign contributions require that "contributions-in-kind" for or
against a candidate or issue be accounted for just like cash
donations. "Is *personal* electronic political speech, press and
assembly protected at work or school -- or is it a corporate or
institutional political donation?" Such speech would be permitted if
written using a company owned pen, or over a company owned phone. "Why
should *electronic* speech and *electronic* assembly be different?"
Note 3 reports a set of news groups banned in Germany because of content.
3. A story in the German paper "EMMA" resulted in the banning of the
"sex" news groups at several universities. Among the groups banned
was "alt.sexual.abuse.recovery."
<199204201927.AA07124@eff.org>
Note 4 summarizes a long thread on posting "hate" speech and the first
amendment.
4. (Administrator:) What recourse do we have if a student posts hate
news items? (A user:) You are legally bound by your student code.
What does it say about free expression? "The Student Code for many
(most?) universities prohibits censorship even in university-owned
media." References from the CAF archives are attached.
<1992Apr23.175248.28395@eff.org>
Note 5 discusses an article from Scientific American. Does email
correspondence from the White House belong in the National Archive?
5. The Archive collects paper letters and memos and claim that email
backup tapes are also official records. The Federal Records Act
prohibits the destruction of official records. What status should an
easily tampered source of information such as this be given?
Notes 6 and 7 list recent changes FTP archives concerning Computers
and Academic Freedom.
6. A list of recent changes to the CAF Archive at ftp.eff.org is
attached.
<1992Apr20.180322.4646@eff.org>
7. An archive containing the computing policies of 30+ universities
has been established at ariel.unm.edu in the directory /ethics. A list
of those policies is attached.
<199204221825.AA10087@eff.org>
Note 8 discusses whether it is ethical to log users who access an FTP
archive "anonymously".
8. (An administrator:) I have been logging for months. It was done in
response to people abusing privileges by uploading files to bypass
local quotas, or to share with friends. After discussion in the
picture discussion groups, I decided to post a notice about the
logging and upload restrictions at login. Others argued that
"anonymous" implied that no logging would be done. Login as anonymous
now gives a message warning that that is not so. A sample warning is
provided.
Note 9 is a UPI story about a parody in the Harvard Law Revue which
some found offensive.
9. Law professor David Kennedy claims charges should be brought
against the authors of a parody of an article by slain law professor
Mary Joe Frug, and the editors of the Harvard Law Revue, which
published the parody. Three other professors have asked that
Kennedy's motion be dismissed, as the parody is protected by the First
Amendment.
<1992Apr23.235407.3663@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 10 recounts the attempts by an Auburn University Gay and Lesbian
student group to gain university recognition.
10. (A student:) The debate started when the Auburn Gay and Lesbian
Alliance requested recognition from the Auburn student government
association, and therefore access to student fees. The government
refused on biblical grounds. When the university administration
overruled the decision, the state legislature passed a law banning gay
and lesbian student unions from state schools statewide. The governor
of Alabama will sign the bill. "The government of Alabama is
attempting to rescind free speech and assembly rights of a group under
the guise of public morality." I encourage other student unions to
pass a resolution condemning this action.
<199204250421.AA28481@eff.org>
Note 11 discusses the University of Illinois's National Center for
Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) email policy.
11. The policy permits searches and punishment of facility users who
criticize the NCSA or University in email. The policy was created to
justify (after the fact) a search of the computer files of a student
employee. In reaction to the criticism, the NCSA asked a campus wide
committee to review the policy. The committee recommended a policy
closer to the University's general privacy policy. The campus legal
counsel apparently objected to the new policy, since it might increase
the University's liability. It appears counsel is waiting for the
courts to establish law in this area.
<1992Apr26.204032.20854@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Paul]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, or Carl
M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses
and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 21 00:00:00 1992
From: fxjwk@acad3.alaska.edu (Jo Knox)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: [comp.security.misc] Re: NARCS ON THE NET!
Message-ID: <1992May21.142229.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: 21 May 92 22:22:29 GMT
> From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
> Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
> Subject: Re: NARCS ON THE NET!
> Message-ID: <1992May21.180911.10850@athena.cs.uga.edu>
> Date: 21 May 92 18:09:11 GMT
>
>> the subpoenaing of computer files
>
> Hmmmmm. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if this were done in
> Georgia, a number of laws would have to be disregarded, including the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Educational Records
> Privacy Act (not sure I've not the name quite right).
>
> The latter law is very important to us here. A student's computer files,
> if not normally available for others to read, are considered confidential
> educational records. In fact we have cited this law as one of the reasons
> why "cracking" accounts is prosecutable.
> --
To the first point: obtaining a subpoena means you can convince a judge to
grant you an exception to the law, to access or obtain something which would
normally be illegal to access or obtain. It requires the subpoenaed item(s)
to be handed over (usually to the court).
To the second point: I doubt if the Educational Records act can be applied
to individuals' accounts, because it has to do with University records, which
are not usually on individuals' accounts. (If University records are
accessible from an account which is cracked, this might be different.)
Easier is to use the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; this act protects
electronic mail on any account. Any person who "cracks" an account has
illegally gained access to private mail, whether or not they read it!
But then again, I may be entirely off base!
jo
From caf-talk Caf May 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: warnold@eff.org (William W. Arnold)
Subject: Re: help
Message-ID: <199205220110.AA17058@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 01:10:42 GMT
Your note got sent to "listmaster@eff.org" rather than "listserv@eff.org".
Please resend to listserv@eff.org
Thanks,
William W Arnold, Listmaster@eff.org
comp-academic-freedom-talk writes:
>
>help
>
You can subscribe or unsubscribe to mailing list by sending
email to "listserv@eff.org". The commands understood by the listserv
program are:
HELP
lists this file. This is also sent whenever a message to
listserv is received from which no valid command could be
parsed.
HELP groupname
lists a brief description of the group requested.
INDEX
lists all the groups available for subscription.
LONGINDEX
lists all the groups and their descriptions.
ADD listname
DELETE listname
ADD address listname
DELETE address listname
adds or deletes the given address to or from the list
specified. Mail is sent to the address given to confirm
the add or delete operation. If you omit the 'address'
the command will assume the mailbox that is in the From:
line of the message. Note that SUBSCRIBE is a synonym for
ADD; UNSUBSCRIBE for DELETE.
A command must be the first word on each line in the message. Lines
which do not start with a command word are ignored. If no commands were
found in the entire message, this help file will be returned to the
user. A single message may contain multiple commands; a separate
response will be sent for each.
Please note that is IS possible to add or delete someone else's
subscription to a mailing list. This facility is provided so that
subscribers may alter their own subscriptions from a new or different
computer account. There is therefore some potential for abuse; we
have chosen to limit this by mailing a confirmation notification
of any addition or deletion to the address added or deleted including
a copy of the message which requested the operation. At least you
can find out who's doing it to you.
Examples:
add comp-academic-freedom-talk
add ewombat@anywhere.edu comp-academic-freedom-talk
delete ewombat@anywhere.edu comp-academic-freedom-talk
help comp-academic-freedom-talk
Note that although you would mail submissions to a mailing list by
addressing mail to e.g., comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org, in a
subscription request you specify the name of the list simply (without
the @eff.org part) as in the first example above.
From caf-talk Caf May 21 00:00:00 1992
From: parghi@cs.uiuc.edu (Amit Parghi)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: [comp.security.misc] Re: NARCS ON THE NET!
Message-ID: <1992May22.023613.9864@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 22 May 92 02:36:13 GMT
fxjwk@acad3.alaska.edu (Jo Knox) writes:
>To the second point: I doubt if the Educational Records act can be applied
>to individuals' accounts, because it has to do with University records, which
>are not usually on individuals' accounts. (If University records are
>accessible from an account which is cracked, this might be different.)
Actually, there was a recent civil suit at UC Berkeley which involved
exactly this issue. Though I don't remember all the details, the University
was required to turn over all "university records" pertaining to a student
who had been discipilined for (I believe) a computer security offence. If
I recall correctly, the University claimed that any file on any of their
machines that mentioned the student would constitute a "university record"
and, since there were so many files involved, actually searching for and
examining relevant files would constitute an undue burden.
I don't know what ever came of the suit in the end.
Amit
From caf-talk Caf May 21 00:00:00 1992
From: rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: [comp.security.misc] Re: NARCS ON THE NET!
Message-ID:
Date: 22 May 92 03:08:11 GMT
In article <1992May22.023613.9864@m.cs.uiuc.edu> parghi@cs.uiuc.edu (Amit Parghi) writes:
>Actually, there was a recent civil suit at UC Berkeley which involved
>exactly this issue. Though I don't remember all the details, the University
>was required to turn over all "university records" pertaining to a student
>who had been discipilined for (I believe) a computer security offence. If
>I recall correctly, the University claimed that any file on any of their
>machines that mentioned the student would constitute a "university record"
>and, since there were so many files involved, actually searching for and
>examining relevant files would constitute an undue burden.
>
>I don't know what ever came of the suit in the end.
I wasn't directly involved in the 'thing,' but I talked with some of the
hackers helping the university...
This user, call him Joe, was being a bad person. He cracked into various
accounts, and tried (and I believe managed) to crack into someone's company
account in a *.com cluster. This person, who also happened to be a UC
student, was not particularly pleased by this, and went to some people in UC
Berkeley, trying to get Joe prosecuted. This also involved a professor...
this professor was Joe's professor, and Joe was using his class account to
do at least part of the cracking. This professor believes very strongly
that crackers should be squished... It didn't help that when asked about the
incident, Joe lied.
Anyway, they went to Student Conduct, and after some procedure, they decided
to punish him by disallowing him access to any computer resources in Cal...
something that, for an intended CS person (he may have already been
declared, but I'm not sure) is a *bad* thing...
He and his parents decided to sue the university... the whole thing cost
something on the order of $100,000 for each side, at the end of which, I
believe, he won...
It's very hard to prove that he was actually doing it, of course... who
knows, maybe his account was cracked... (I doubt it, but it's just my
personal opinion, and I wasn't privy to all the information).
The university *did* search through at least 3 big clusters that I know of.
The only reason they didn't search ours was because we do not perform
backups, and the university lawyers were able to persuade the guys that
shutting us down for a week or so and doing a recursive 'grep' (ouch) would
be undue burden for the 3800 users... thank God...
The other systems all, I believe, had backup tapes.
--
Roy S. Rapoport
rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu
Open Computing Facility
Site Manager
From caf-talk Caf May 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: BADGER@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (George Badger)
Subject: help
Message-ID: <199205221527.AA05300@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 15:27:03 GMT
With what?
This NOTE is a reply to:
------------------------
>Received: from UIUCVMD by VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8273;
> Thu, 21 May 92 20:15:58 CDT
>Received: from eff.org by vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
> Thu, 21 May 92 20:15:57 CDT
>Received: by eff.org id AA16895
> (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4/pen-ident for cafn-list@eff.org); Thu, 21 May 1992 20:59:35
> -0400
>Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
>From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
>Precedence: bulk
>To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
>Errors-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
>Date: Thu, 21 May 92 20:57:36 EDT
>X-Digest-Sender: Mitch Silverman (SAR)
>Message-Id: <9205220057.AA22218@sunstroke.ec.usf.edu>
>Subject: help
>
>help
From caf-talk Caf May 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "Students sue over sex sign ban"
Message-ID: <1992May21.120436.6375@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 May 92 12:04:36 EDT
In article <1992May20.180644.28931@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> The signs read, ``SEX and politics are a lot alike. You don't have to
>be good at them to enjoy them.''
> In the suit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Lufkin, the Young
>Conservatives of Texas accuse officials at Stephen F. Austin State
>University in Nacogdoches of violating the group's First Amendment
>rights.
> School officials declined comment.
> The suit notes the Young Conservatives ``wish to post signs
>expressing political ideas and opinions similar to the ones at issue.''
> It says school officials in September told students they could not
>post the fliers the school considered sexist and obscene and in
>violation of campus policy. The policy also requires such postings to be
>approved by the university.
This is just unbelievable. Obscene??!!! Come on. Sexist??!! What are they
talking about. I don't see any mention of either *gender*. Not even
*implicitly*!!!
Somehow I don't think this lawsuit will go too far. Even *these* school
officials can't be so dumb as to ignore their lawyers' advice. And since
they are a state school, I'm sure their lawyers will immediately tell them
that they aren't standing on solid ground--that, in fact, they've sunken
into the middle of the ocean.
These guys need their heads examined!
--
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 May 22 00:00:00 1992
From: pklauren@nmsu.edu (Patrick M Klaurens)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: [comp.security.misc] Re: NARCS ON THE NET!
Message-ID:
Date: 22 May 92 17:39:09 GMT
I'm sure that everyone knows how it is illeagal to tamper with mail,
buy drugs, or sell NFA weapons, but if you can convince a judge that
it is imperitive to prevent a crime or that the action in question can
give information for an ongoing case, than the judge can issue a
warrant for the recovery of anything. the judge interprets the laws
as he sees fit, and during a trial can determine the legality of the
evedence presented. Encripting files is a poor move, because the
government can try to crack them or the court can order you to decode
them. failure to do so can result in a contemt charge, which usually
equals jail time. During a grand jury indictment, you have no fifth
amendment rights, there is no right to remain silent. If your
testamony is selfincriminating, then the jury must offer you immunity,
yet you can still be tried on the testamony of others. Also the grand
jury also hears only the prosecutor's side of the story, and in many
states you are not allowed cousel.
my facts my be incorrect, but I will stand by them untill proven
otherwise.
doc
From caf-talk Caf May 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: 9999AH02@dt3.dt.uh.edu (ROBERT G. HEARN)
Subject: unsub
Message-ID: <01GKB96QG9OW94E2RW@dt3.dt.uh.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 18:37:00 GMT
UNSUB Comp-academic-freedom-talk
From caf-talk Caf May 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [bit.listserv.pacs-l] Libraries and Computer Centers
Message-ID: <199205221856.AA18619@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 10:56:30 GMT
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 08:42:32 CDT
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
Subject: Libraries and Computer Centers
2 Messages, 44 Lines
*-----
From: edhillard@ualr.edu
Subject: Libraries AND Computing Services
I am dismayed at the subject titled "Libraries vs. Computer Centers".
I would like for all of us to consider "Libraries AND Computing Services"
as being much more progressive and rewarding both in terms of subject and
of substance. I think in terms of partners rather than opposing entities.
I believe that the Director of the Ottenheimer Library and the Director of
the UALR Law Library share my perception that a high degree of cooperation
exists between our respective organizations and that we plan for it to
continue for a very, very long time.
Please note my substitution for "Computer Centers". On my campus,
we want others to know us as Computing (not Computer) Services (not Center).
We are much more than a computer center (besides, we do not manage all of the
computers on campus). We provide an enormous amount of service in the form
of advice, assistance, training, lab operations, programming support,
network services, repair of PC's, etc. in addition to the important function of
operating a computer "center". Further, the word services as a part of our
organizational name reminds us of our mission
Earl Hillard, Director INTERNET: edhillard@ualr.edu
UALR Computing Services (SU205) BITNET: EDHILLARD@UALR
University of Arkansas - Little Rock Phone: 501-569-3344
2801 S. University Avenue FAX: 501-569-8538
Little Rock, AR 72204
*-----
From: CGOODSON@UGA
Subject: Re: Libraries vs. Computer Centers
***"protecting our turf" is a very value-loaded expression which nevertheless
conveys a legitimate (in my mind) concern: that many librarians may be only
too happy to opt out of guiding internet users, because it's something they
have never done before. I still maintain that we, as information professionals
need to be sure we don't eliminate ourselves from the future by leaving all
that messy and confusing network stuff to the Computer Center. Among other
things, being sophisticated computer users themselves, they may not be as
sensitive to the needs of helpless novices--like we are...
Carol Goodson/West Georgia College
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
From: rp@iscp.bellcore.com (Robert Pearlman)
Subject: Re: [comp.security.misc] Re: NARCS ON THE NET!
Date: Fri, 22 May 92 20:06:56 GMT
Message-ID: <1992May22.200656.5532@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
There seems to be a missing term in this argument:
most people don't encrypt their files to keep them from the
government but to keep them from non-government people and
organizations - competitiors, thieves, nasty guys generally.
If you think all the nasty guys are in the government you've
been leading a wierd, secure life. Most
of the wrongs done to all of us are done by the rest of
us. Husbands and wives read each other's mail, kids maneuver to scoop
the inheritance, partners cheat each other, heads of charitable
organizations fly to the moon, and big guys beat up little guys
in a thousand alleys every day.
I'm much more concerned with keeping my data secure against people who have no
shred of right to it, but a lot to gain from it, than I am with keeping it
from a government which isn't likely to do me much harm with it.
ON THE OTHER HAND -- there's this truly rotten proposal for a LAW
to make communications tappable. The constitution says we're supposed
to be --secure in our persons, possessions and papers -- but there
are those who want us to be insecure. This is
to protect us against drugs and crime -- a protection racket
we don't just need.
"He shall peer and mutter and the night shall bring,
watchers 'neath our windows, lest we mock the king."
Write to your congressman -- tell him maybe you'll re-elect him
if he votes against this one.
From caf-talk Caf May 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: streeter@cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "Students sue over sex sign ban"
Message-ID: <1992May22.200119.779@cs.unca.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 20:01:19 GMT
In article <1992May21.120436.6375@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <1992May20.180644.28931@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>> The signs read, ``SEX and politics are a lot alike. You don't have to
>>be good at them to enjoy them.''
>> In the suit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Lufkin, the Young
>>Conservatives of Texas accuse officials at Stephen F. Austin State
>>University in Nacogdoches of violating the group's First Amendment
>>rights.
>> School officials declined comment.
>> The suit notes the Young Conservatives ``wish to post signs
>>expressing political ideas and opinions similar to the ones at issue.''
>> It says school officials in September told students they could not
>>post the fliers the school considered sexist and obscene and in
>>violation of campus policy. The policy also requires such postings to be
>>approved by the university.
>
>This is just unbelievable. Obscene??!!! Come on. Sexist??!! What are they
>talking about. I don't see any mention of either *gender*. Not even
>*implicitly*!!!
>
>Somehow I don't think this lawsuit will go too far. Even *these* school
>officials can't be so dumb as to ignore their lawyers' advice. And since
>they are a state school, I'm sure their lawyers will immediately tell them
>that they aren't standing on solid ground--that, in fact, they've sunken
>into the middle of the ocean.
>
>These guys need their heads examined!
>
>--
>J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
I don't want to go into details, but I've had dealings with this
school's lawyers. Don't make any bets on them..........
--
Tom Streeter | streeter@cs.unca.edu
Dept. of Mass Communication | 704-251-6227
University of North Carolina at Asheville | Opinions expressed here are
Asheville, NC 28804 | mine alone.
From caf-talk Caf May 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: edwards@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU
Subject: RE: [partial re-resend] Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.13
Message-ID: <0095AF87.B4E8F720.18738@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 22:41:31 GMT
please remove my name from your list. Thanks
From caf-talk Caf May 22 00:00:00 1992
From: lfoard@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: OCA library censorship
Message-ID: <1992May22.230825.21383@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 22 May 92 23:08:25 GMT
The following is paraphrased from two Oregon newspaper articles, all
spelling and grammar errors are mine :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposal forbidding the town of Springfield Oregon from "facilitating,
encouraging, or promoting homosexuality,sadism, masochism, and pedophilia"
recently passed. The proposals sponsors OCA claim that the bill "would
only prohibit special rights for homosexuals". However a City Councilor
has already requested a list of books the library has ordered in the last
six months. He indicated that he had heard that a book in the childrens
library was about a child with homosexual parents.
City Council member Ralf Walters was quoted as saying:
"What we want to make sure of is that the head librarian is complying with
the law and community values,"
A similar bill was defeated in Corvallis Oregon, the OCA is currently
attempting to put a stronger version of the bill on the state ballet in
November that in addition to the current provisions would require teachers
in Oregon to teach that homosexuality is wrong.
References:
The Oregonian, May 20, 1992 (page C4)
The Oregonian, May 21, 1992 (Page G8)
From caf-talk Caf May 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: NARCS ON THE NET!
Message-ID: <1992May23.162904.25110@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 16:29:04 GMT
fxjwk@acad3.alaska.edu (Jo Knox) writes:
>To the second point: I doubt if the Educational Records act can be applied
>to individuals' accounts, because it has to do with University records, which
>are not usually on individuals' accounts. (If University records are
>accessible from an account which is cracked, this might be different.)
parghi@cs.uiuc.edu (Amit Parghi) writes:
>Actually, there was a recent civil suit at UC Berkeley which involved
>exactly this issue. Though I don't remember all the details, the University
>was required to turn over all "university records" pertaining to a student
>who had been discipilined for (I believe) a computer security offence. If
>I recall correctly, the University claimed that any file on any of their
>machines that mentioned the student would constitute a "university record"
>and, since there were so many files involved, actually searching for and
>examining relevant files would constitute an undue burden.
[...]
There was no civil suit. The student's lawyer only wanted copies of
the admin email that related to the student (for a disciplinary
hearing.) In my opinion, this was the student's right under the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). In my opinion, UC
Berkeley's claim (that student-controlled files are University
records) was just a legal trick to try to get out of turning over
*any* material.
The FERPA is very, very unclear on what is and is not a university
"maintained record". But if the claim of the Berkeley lawyer is true,
it is illegal for me to read my own email archive at the U. of
Illinois. Why? Because my email contains tons of personally
identifiable information about fellow students and I am not a
university employee with a need to know.
I'm enclosing references and a correction. First the correction:
- Carl
>From caf-talk Caf Jan 22 00:00:00 1992
>Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 14:45:45 -0800
>From: dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu (Dean Pentcheff)
>Message-Id: <9201222245.AA21751@garnet.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: UC Searches Summary 4.
Wednesday January 22, 1992
UC computer search summary number 4.
- Dean Pentcheff (dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu)
====================================================
One final detail for clarification.
In my previous summary I said:
> The key question here is the interpretation of "university maintained
> records." The simple interpretation of the California State Buckley
> Amendment is that a student is entitled access to conventional
> administrative or faculty records of their university progress. In
> this case, the student's lawyers chose to push an interpretation that
> made university maintained records encompass any record about the
> student that exists on university maintained systems.
This turns out not to be quite the case. It was the University itself
that chose to interpret the Buckley amendment in this manner. In the
University lawyers' opinion, the Buckley amendment forces an
interpretation that any file with the student's name in it constitutes
a university-maintained record on a student. This interpretation was
_not_ pushed by the student's lawyers, but rather by the University
itself.
-Dean
--
Dean Pentcheff (Internet: dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu)
Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
Work Phone: (510) 643-9048 Home Phone: (510) 839-1790 Fax: (510) 643-6264
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/january_1992
=================
Includes summary #3 of the UC Berkeley case.
=================
books/van_tol,_joan_e.records
=================
College and university student records : a legal compendium /
edited by Joan E. Van Tol. Washington, D.C. : National Association of
College and University Attorneys, c1989.
iii, 257 p. ; 28 x 22 cm.
1. Universities and colleges--Law and legislation--United States.
2. Personnel records in education--Law and legislation--United
States. I. Van Tol, Joan E. II. National Association of College and
University Attorneys (U.S.)
ocm20-290250
Review: Everything that is known about student records and the law,
especially the Family Educational Rights and Privcy Act (FERPA,
Buckley Amendment). The only stuff that it is missing is stuff that
hasn't been decided yet.
Score: 10 of 10
Excerpts cover provisions on directory information.
=================
=================
These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/news/january_1992
pub/academic/books/van_tol,_joan_e.records
To get the files my email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/news january_1992
send acad-freedom/books van_tol,_joan_e.records
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf May 24 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Harvard Law School uproar update
Message-ID: <9205242145.AA21782@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 11:45:16 GMT
From caf-talk Caf May 24 00:00:00 1992
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Harvard Law School uproar update
Message-ID: <1992May24.124726.3824@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 24 May 92 12:47:26 GMT
Just thought I'd update people on the latest developments in that
tempest at that little law school up the river from Northeastern...
On May 21st, the Harvard Law School disciplinary board announced
that it would _not_ take action against the authors of the
now-infamous parody article "Manifesto of Post-Mortem Legal
Feminism."
The board basically held that if there was to be any disciplinary
action taken on the grounds that the publication of the parody of
the late Prof. Mary Jo Frug's article, such action should be
initiated by the dean of the law school:
"[T]he board is not the proper forum for further action at this
time... As individuals, we all join those members of the community
who believe the parody was offensive, and we deplore the pain it has
caused many persons. However, with regard to the publication, the
board notes that at the present time, neither the statement of
rights and responsibilities nor any other law school rule imposes
limits on the content of publications by students that would be
applicable here."
The board announced its decision in a public letter to Prof. David
Kennedy -- legal scholars take note, that's *David* Kennedy, not
Duncan Kennedy, who's also a professor at Harvard Law -- who on
April 19th had written an open letter to the board calling for
disciplinary action on the grounds that the article was
"incompatible with an open academic environment." Kennedy had also
been one of the "Group of 15" law professors who had condemned the
parody and had called for the law school to investigate issues of
sexual harassment and conditions for women on the campus, but he was
alone in his call for disciplinary action against the parody
authors.
This is not necessarily the end of the issue, by the way. The dean
of the law school, Robert Clark, is currently out of the country; he
might take some action on his own when he returns (probably next
week).
-- William December Starr
