From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 03:05:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Monopolies
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.064945.14326@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 06:49:45 GMT
:By JACOB G. HORNBERGER
:The judge, through the assistance of the marshal,
:will slam him into jail until he acknowledges the error of his
:ways. And what if he resists the incarceration? He will be
:shot for "resisting arrest."
Hornberger was doing okay until he engaged in this Heraldo-like
sensationalism. "Slammed" into jail. "Shot" for resisting arrest.
Sorry, the penalty for resisting arrest is not death by firearms. In
the vast majority of the cases, it is to be piled upon and subdued by
policemen, followed by extra charges when you're booked. In some
horrifying cases, people are beaten, but Americans are trying to
change that.
Surely, the American government needs to be rid of some legal
monopolies. However, the way the system is changed is myriad
(including writing sensationalistic essays), not only by breaking the
law and seeing if one falls through the cracks, or if one doesn't,
complaining because the law is enforced.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 10:28:41 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Newsgroup and packet bans at Duke?
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.95807.8525@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 92 13:58:07 GMT
In article <1992Jun6.152045.9977@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> To further add fire to the situation, I heard that the network
>services folk have active plans to squelch other network traffic that is
>deemed "less valuable" as well. For example, they have plans to squelch
>"xtrek" packets, and telnet connections to IRC servers! With options
>to squelch telnet connections to other "frivolous" types of activities
>as well. For this activity, they don't plan to make exceptions,
>aparently - all that traffic would be squelched.
Well, you can't fault them if they're applying the same restrictions to
all users. Your description of the netnews situation is arguably a prob-
lem, but the network restriction, *when levied against everyone equally*,
is not a censorship issue.
It's easily conceivable that these "frivolous" connections/services are
placing a significant load on your network. Have you asked the network
folks at Duke what their packet counts look like? If IRC/Xtrek/Netrek
and the like are flooding the network, they may very well be justified
in restricting their use. I'd ask for justification, though......
While we're at it, it might be a good idea to mention that "frivolous"
services such as IRC and Netnews can take a pretty large chunk out of
one's network resources. After reading this posting, I pulled down the
latest backbone statistics from nic.merit.edu (anonymous ftp, 35.1.1.48,
in directory /statistics/nsfnet).
Here are the "Top 10" services which traversed the NSFNet backbone in April 92:
Service Name Port Packet Count % Pkts Byte Count % Byts
============ ==== ============ ====== =============== ======
1) ftp-data 20 1,777,942,050 27.267 629,501,781,250 51.324
2) (other ports) ---- 1,360,689,950 20.868 128,494,133,550 10.476
3) telnet 23 764,610,050 11.726 51,502,555,850 4.199
4) nntp 119 604,296,900 9.268 118,870,235,800 9.692
5) smtp 25 517,377,650 7.935 79,041,573,550 6.444
6) nameserver 53 460,741,850 7.066 43,511,326,900 3.547
7) ftp 21 159,225,750 2.442 12,604,876,150 1.028
8) irc 6667 123,975,050 1.901 11,595,136,400 0.945
9) (other protocols) ---- 121,799,250 1.868 9,302,792,750 0.758
10) vmnet 175 111,123,500 1.704 39,249,040,700 3.200
NSFNet does not track all ports; according to the header of this file, they
only track ports 0-1023, 2049, 6000-6003, and 6667. According to the server
lists on rec.games.netrek, most servers run on port 2592; therefore, their
traffic is included in item #2, "(other ports)".
{ ++off_subject_flag; }
However, we can see that NNTP (Network News Transfer Protocol) comes in at
#4 on our list. We could make the assumption that a certain portion of
SMTP (email) and FTP traffic is generated by netnews, so the "Usenet portion"
of the backbone traffic is actually greater than the 9.2% given for nntp alone.
{ --off_subject_flag; }
We can also see that IRC shows up in the "Top 10", but its 1.9% contribution
appears negligible.
I also pulled down the list of networks generating traffic over the NSFNet
backbone during the same period.
Here are the "Top 20" networks, in terms of traffic sent across the NSFNet
backbone in April 1992:
Packets Packets Percentages
In To Out From In Out
AS IP Number Network Name Backbone Backbone
==== ============ ==================== =========== =========== ===== =====
1) 93 128.252 WASHINGTON-U 363,398,850 166,088,700 5.57 2.55
2) 73 128.95 WASHINGTON 204,290,400 204,560,450 3.13 3.14
3) 702 137.39 UUNET-WAN 130,540,050 84,524,350 2.00 1.30
4) 194 128.117 UCAR 120,650,300 116,736,500 1.85 1.79
5) 209 128.138 COLORADO 108,226,150 89,392,900 1.66 1.37
6) 209 129.24 UNM-CDCN 97,897,800 70,796,500 1.50 1.09
7) 267 129.79 INDIANA-NET 95,326,850 65,549,650 1.46 1.01
8) 38 128.174 UIUC-CAMPUS-B 87,522,950 79,819,350 1.34 1.22
9) 200 36 SU-NET-TEMP 86,676,850 56,509,450 1.33 0.87
10) 204 128.2 CMU-NET 86,274,400 78,488,000 1.32 1.20
11) 280 128.83 UTAUSTIN 84,499,000 66,616,300 1.30 1.02
12) 200 128.32 UCB-ETHER 84,269,900 75,667,700 1.29 1.16
13) 291 128.55 NERSC 73,103,750 35,656,650 1.12 0.55
14) 601 128.100 TORONTO 59,789,850 44,765,250 0.92 0.69
15) 267 128.255 UIOWA 57,848,350 44,890,900 0.89 0.69
16) 209 132.194 CUDENVER 49,269,100 43,465,100 0.76 0.67
17) 685 128.193 ORST 46,179,450 41,766,500 0.71 0.64
18) 1225 128.104 WISC-HERD 43,350,400 40,819,350 0.66 0.63
19) 195 132.249 SDSCLAN 43,349,550 21,833,250 0.66 0.33
20) 685 134.129 NODAK 41,711,300 33,752,050 0.64 0.52
Now, let's find Duke. Duke routes a large portion of its traffic through
CONCERT, so we'll include their entries....
99) 81 128.109 CONCERT 14,397,800 29,718,400 0.22 0.46
492) 81 192.101.21 CONCERT-B 1,817,200 3,139,850 0.03 0.05
2200) 81 152.3 DUKE-NET 34,900 145,150 0.00 0.00
4054) 81 192.101.24 CONCERT-E 0 50 0.00 0.00
Since Duke/CONCERT are responsible for less than 1% of the total traffic over
the NSFNet backbone (during April 1992, at least), I think we can rule out
any "outside pressure", such as the infamous-yet-nonexistent NSF net.police.
> I thought Duke was doing pretty good, and then I took a look
>beyond the end of my nose.
Well, I've given you a bit of ammunition; it would appear that the traffic
generated by IRC has actually declined somewhat in recent months (I'd have
to pull down the statistics for the last 12 months or so to be sure). If
their argument is based on "backbone load", NSF's own statistics refute that
point. If their argument is based on LOCAL network load, you should ask for
their statistics.
As I said earlier, you may not be able to argue against the restriction on
xtrek/netrek/IRC, IF THE RESTRICTION IS APPLIED TO EVERYONE EQUALLY.
I'm sure that Carl (and other readers) will provide numerous citiations to
help you with your netnews problem.
--Wes
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| MORGAN@UKCC
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 11:25:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206081522.AA04138@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 05:22:29 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 11:25:05 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <3676@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: 8 Jun 92 03:20:54 GMT
In <1992Jun07.183019.15970@pavnet.pcn.org>, Phil Pavarini Jr.
writes:
[suggesting that feed sites to Canada prevent the `illegal' newsgroups
from being fed in; later suggest putting a usa ditribution on postings
as well]
[...]
> Therefor, it opens you up to a charge: since you
> sent material somewhere that you KNOWINGLY knew was illegal.
[...]
Since it is `illegal' only at the receiving site, I'd say it was the
duty of the receiving site to ask for it to be stopped; I don't think
that feed sites can be *expected* to know the full details of the law
of country they are feeding to. Unlike, of course, the sites in those
countries who both know the law and have to obey it. The Canadian
police are going to chase after the receiving sites in the first
instance, and I don't think that they will chase the feed site if the
receivers admit that they didn't ask for it to be stopped. As you say,
somebody will have to get prosecuted, but the buck will stop with the
receiver (sort of appropriate, really).
As for limiting articles to distribution `usa' -- this hits those
people in non-USA countries who don't have such restrictive laws and
would seem to be over-reacting a little.
Personally, I think the whole of this censorship issue stinks, but
that's beside the point, I guess. That's what comes of being from a
country who thinks that it is perfectly alright to see films of people
being murdered with chainsaws, but not making love. Ho hum. I wonder
which of those 99% of the (adult) population does...
pihl "just going out to quickly chainsaw a passing cyclist"
--
phil richards -- pgr@prg.ox.ac.uk -- programming research group -- oxford -- uk
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 11:52:40 1992
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Monopolies
Date: 8 Jun 1992 15:26:45 GMT
Message-ID: <10vu7lINNnc0@agate.berkeley.edu>
1. What does this have to do with academic freedom? Shouldn't this
discussion be on alt.flame or something?
2. I vote no on competitive postal service. I am about to go away
on vacation and have to file a change-of-address form with the post
office. This is complicated enough (and they screw things up enough);
God forbid I should have to notify a dozen competing postal services
about my forwarding. (I want the Bell System back!)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 12:26:53 1992
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex.bondage,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <3677@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: 8 Jun 92 16:13:07 GMT
The only method I have thought of for providing truly anonymous 2-way
postings is with public keys (eg., RSA). Each participant could have his
own public key. There would be a number of machines in the role of wizvax
-- with two or more selected at random by the posting originator: call them
w1 and w2.
1. I compose a posting -- include my public key in it but not my name.
2. I encrypt it with w2's key and prefix that encrypted block with a note
to forward this to w2.
3. I encrypt that package with w1's key and send the result to w1.
4. w1 waits a random length of time (different for each message) before
releasing my decrypted package to the mailer. Once there, another
random period is waited, gathering a batch of messages to mail
or post.
5. w2 receives my mail, decrypts it and waits a random length of time
before posting it.
6. people wishing to reply do so by posting the reply (through their own
indirection mechanism). These replies might be in the clear when
posted or might be encrypted in my personal key. They might give
e-mail addresses for me to write to or might not.
================
The drawback is that there's a lot of net traffic here, just to preserve
privacy -- and I'm not sure how private this ends up. I know how to
analyze an encryption algorithm for security. What I'm trying to do here
is "encrypt" the delivery process so that traffic analysis is thwarted.
Does anyone know how to analyze this process? Is there a reasonable
extension to Shannon's work, for example, for when the traffic is the
message?
--Carl
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 12:57:15 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,alt.censorhship
From: nolan@tssi.com (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.160443.25212@tssi.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 16:04:43 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Most Netnews transfers are initiated by the information requester, not
>by the provider. In other words, it is mostly Canadians who transfer
>Netnews articles into their nation.
If by this you mean that when A feeds B, B generally calls A, then I would
agree with you, although I know of many feeds in which both parties call the
other periodically.
However, if by this you mean that B controls what newsgroups are sent, this
demonstrates an abysmal lack of knowledge in how either bnews or cnews
sys files work.
In fact, A has *complete* control over what newsgroups are sent to B.
Likewise, B has control over what newsgroups are received. (Unwanted
newsgroups fall to the floor; this is rather wasteful of network resources,
though.) In most cases, however, the news administrator on A doesn't want
to be bothered with sending subsets of groups, and so has a sys file entry
like this:
foo:comp,news,sci,misc,rec,soc,talk,alt,biz,gnu,to.foo/all:f:
If A and B have agreed to exchange news, I think it is less important who
initiates the call than who decides what information is sent/received.
---
Michael Nolan, nolan@tssi.com "Freedom of the press is still alive in
Tailored Software Services, Inc. America, at the U. S. Mint" (Gallagher)
Lincoln, Nebraska (402) 423-1490
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 14:13:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <9206081811.AA05337@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 08:11:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 14:13:31 1992
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: would this be censorship?
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 14:41:49 GMT
Thinking about the problem caused by some over-prolific individuals
in certain newsgroups I came up with the following idea:
Implement in the news software some kind of site default kill files,
maintained by the news admin, that selects articles like regular kill
files but instead of simply junking them just marks them "censored".
Then newsreaders would hide such articles, unless the user explicitly
requests to see them, either globally or on a group-by-group basis.
Properly implemented this should be faster than regular kill files
(indeed, fast enough to be transparent to the user), and new readers
of such groups wouldn't have to start by figuring out how to use
kill files.
Would there be any technical difficulties in implementing such a scheme?
Would it actually help solve the problem?
Would it be morally acceptable, or just another form of censorship?
(Would it be better if it were off by default?)
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 14:30:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206081827.AA05449@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 08:27:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 14:30:23 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
Date: 8 Jun 92 16:54:34 GMT
This is a *little* old now, but you get the idea ...
-------------------From ukc --------------------------------------
Here is an up to date list of the newsgroups that we cannot carry:
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless
alt.drugs
alt.evil
alt.personals
alt.personals.bondage
alt.personals.misc
alt.psychoactives
alt.sex
alt.sex.bestiality
alt.sex.bondage
alt.sex.masturbation
alt.sex.motss
alt.sex.movies
alt.sex.pictures.female
alt.sex.pictures.male
alt.tasteless
rec.arts.erotica
Ian.
--
Ian Harding
UKnet Backbone
+++
Simple. J.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 14:41:38 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.182728.24522@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 18:27:28 GMT
[A follow up from news.admin and alt.censorship. - Carl]
tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>Thinking about the problem caused by some over-prolific individuals
>in certain newsgroups I came up with the following idea:
>
>Implement in the news software some kind of site default kill files,
>maintained by the news admin, that selects articles like regular kill
>files but instead of simply junking them just marks them "censored".
[...]
(Especially in the university environment) I don't like the idea of
the universities agents (e.g. news admins) getting into the business
of deciding what shouldn't be read. I don't think it would be much fun
for the news admin either; just imagine all the complaints about what
you should or shouldn't have "censored".
On the other hand, I think it would be neat if users could share
kill/select files among themselves. Cooperating users of "nn" could do
this pretty easily just by setting a symbolic link from one user's
.nn/kill to another's. Does anyone do this now?
However of even more importance is making kill/select mechanisms
available (no Mac and PC newsreader that I know of even has them) and
easier to use.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 16:56:33 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: talk.politics.usenet?
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.201020.3233@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 20:10:20 GMT
Is there interest for talk.politics.usenet, to discuss the politics of
Usenet access and the politics inside Usenet? There is a discussion
on creation of new talk.politics groups in progress on new groups for
which I posted the RFD - if you think talk.politics.usenet would be a
good or a bad idea you might want to participate in the discussion on
news.groups or email me.
A more generic possibility would be talk.politics.cyberspace,
talk.politics.web, perhaps also talk.politics.internet.
Followups directed to news.groups.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 18:13:12 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <3516@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 8 Jun 92 17:38:43 GMT
Moderately long. The short of it is that American sites and individuals
have nothing to worry about Canadian porn charges unless they physically
carry it in. The only thing that they have to worry about is *US* charges
on pornography. Such as they exist.
I was expecting something like this every since alt.sex got created
back in 1986 (or thereabouts).
My advice:
- American sites: don't sweat it. But remind any Canadian
feeds that you set up of this potentiality - especially
of the likely newsgroups.
- Canadian sites: be aware of these laws. It would probably
be smart to take some steps to avoid carrying the worst
of this bilge (Ie: child porn, or snuff (or snuff-like) porn),
otherwise the cops or your bosses may be a little more violent
in restricting your feed. Like seizing your computers or
completely removing net access.
Canadian authorities would like to know where this stuff is coming from,
but unless it's someone in Canada, there ain't a lot they can do to them.
In article <1992Jun8.033130.14724@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> Therefor, it opens you up to a charge: since you
>>sent material somewhere that you KNOWINGLY knew was illegal.
It would be really hard to prove intent to ship it into Canada on the
part of the *poster*. As far as they know, they just drop it into
a transport vehicle. They have relatively little control over where
it goes - expecially since a distribution of "usa" doesn't really work
worth a damn. (We just had a discussion in the Ottawa area, and
we're intentionally allowing "usa" in, but no other US regional
distributions)
But this doesn't matter in the case of stuff that's legal in the
US anyways.
>Most Netnews transfers are initiated by the information requester, not
>by the provider. In other words, it is mostly Canadians who transfer
>Netnews articles into their nation.
Well, no and yes. Transfers are initiated by the information *sender*
(except, technically, in the case of ihave/sendme). But you're right,
the only people who legitimately be charged are those Canadian sites
that import the stuff (and also probably Canadian sites that distribute
it further within the country), once that they know that the possibility of
such stuff being present exists. As they *now* do (or would be deemed
to "should have known") if they didn't already.
>What court? Canadian courts have jurisdiction here.
Say what? This must be a typo. *No* jurisdiction in the US. They only
have jurisdiction over offences committed on Canadian soil. The only
time a Canadian court would have jurisdiction is if an American carried
the stuff across the border. Then Canada could, perhaps, start
extradition proceedings, but that wouldn't work unless the offence was
an offence in the US as well.
Canadian jurisdiction on US-originated pornography extends only to people
possessing or distributing the stuff *in* Canada. They certainly
can't charge an American originator. Otherwise, Hefner and Guccione
or the publishers of Hustler etc. would have been in jail years ago
when the laws were considerably stricter.
Canada has something in the extradition laws that forbid extradition to
other countries on offences that aren't illegal in Canada (there
are probably a few specific exceptions. Porn ain't one of them).
I'm sure that the US does too.
From my understanding, US laws on "pornography" are somewhat more
"liberal" than ours. That most of the materials subject to the
law here would be legal in the States, but not all. American sites
only have to be worried about stuff that's illegal in the States, and
that only to American courts. Which I suspect is only "child porn",
or that that involves other offences (ie: rape, assault, murder,
cross-state-borders, underage, lack of consent).
The laws on pornography in this country are a trifle confused at the
moment. It's officially no child-porn, or stuff that violates "community
standards".
Many police are interpreting "community standards" by the old line -
no penetration and the like. The courts and the provincial
review boards (at least Ontario's that is) are drawing the line at
unduly "degrading" or "exploitive" or "violent" (violence towards
women mainly). Which means in practise that the review board is
approving some pretty hard stuff with "XXX" ratings, but the police in many
areas will still lay charges. The latter will probably change
fairly soon once they finally realize out that they're wasting their
time making arrests in most cases, and the end result will be pretty
close to the US situation.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 18:21:59 1992
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,alt.censorhship
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.213007.5262@rice.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 92 21:30:07 GMT
In article <1992Jun8.160443.25212@tssi.com> nolan@tssi.com writes:
>If A and B have agreed to exchange news, I think it is less important who
>initiates the call than who decides what information is sent/received.
Yeah -- *decides.* Although the upstream site has physical control
over what's sent, it's usually configured according to the request of
the downstream end. If the downstream end has asked for group x.y to
be removed and upstream either has refused or not gotten around to it
yet, then perhaps you could blame them. If they haven't been asked,
then I'd think the people receiving the news would be at fault.
Not that I think anything's going on that ought to be anybody's
"fault," whatever the Canadian police think.
I wonder how the law applies to printed pornography? If some magazine
is printed in the US, but illegal in Canada, and some guy subscribes,
who gets in trouble? The publisher, the subscriber, or both?
Cathy
--
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
Users get the OS they deserve. -- Chip Salzenberg
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 19:52:43 1992
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex.bondage,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Jun 92 15:29:55 GMT
Ok, here's a published discussion of the subject, which appeared in an
experimental moderated-and-anonymous discussion group on moral philosophy:
----------
(Message continuing/ethick:11)
Return-Path: unixg.ubc.ca!ethick
Received: from chilko.ucs.ubc.ca ([137.82.27.2]) by nexus.yorku.ca with SMTP id <9229>; Sun, 19 Apr 1992 23:58:11 -0400
Received: by chilko.ucs.ubc.ca (4.1/1.14)
id AA18680; Sun, 19 Apr 92 20:57:55 PDT
From: Ethick
Message-Id: <9204200357.AA18680@chilko.ucs.ubc.ca>
Subject: The Joy of Handles
To: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 23:57:54 -0400
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL6]
Subject: The Joy of Handles
[Warning: this is long (about 5500 words). It is also reposted
(several times) so you may have seen it. (Notice how the fact of
widespread reposting is relevant to the author's point.) It was submitted
by a member of the thin group but I am posting it to both groups. PAD]
Here is a long (and interesting) article advocating the
use of pseudonyms in posting. As a 'thin', I don't agree with it, but it
might be fun to discuss. But how? do you mail it to everyone? I wasn't sure
what to do with it, hence the forward to you.
[Mail to ethick-list or ethin-list, depending on your membership. PAD]
=================================================================
From: SOCICOM@auvm.american.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jun 8 19:52:43 1992
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Anonymity and privacy on the network
Message-ID: <92083.072152SOCICOM@auvm.american.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 92 12:21:52 GMT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Lines: 759
Approved: SOCICOM@AUVM
Moderator's note: The following article is a lengthy excerpt from a
recent issue of FIDONEWS concerning individual privacy and the use of
aliases or handles in computer-based communications. It was submitted by
a comp.society reader who used a handle; because the excerpt is a cross-
post from another electronic publication, I have taken the liberty of
viewing the use of a handle by sender as a request for privacy and
anonymity similar to the request a newspaper editor might receive in a
letter to the editor. Thus, while reprinting the submission, the name
and address of the sender are "withheld upon request." The article
raises a number of good points; the submission by a reader using a handle
to preserve anonymity makes a point; and the editorial action of
submitting the reader's posting anonymously makes the question current.
What are the implications of using aliases on the net?
Greg Welsh, moderator, comp.society
Internet: Socicom@american.edu
Bitnet: Socicom@auvm.bitnet
[begin excerpt]
F I D O N E W S -- | Vol. 9 No. 9 (2 March 1992)
The newsletter of the |
FidoNet BBS community | Published by:
_ |
/ \ | "FidoNews" BBS
/|oo \ | (415)-863-2739
(_| /_) | FidoNet 1:1/1
_`@/_ \ _ | Internet:
| | \ \\ | fidonews@fidonews.fidonet.org
| (*) | \ )) |
|__U__| / \// | Editors:
_//|| _\ / | Tom Jennings
(_/(_|(____/ | Tim Pozar
(jm) |
----------------------------+---------------------------------------
Published weekly by and for the Members of the FidoNet international
amateur network. Copyright 1992, Fido Software. All rights reserved.
Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes
only. For use in other circumstances, please contact FidoNews.
Paper price: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.00US
Electronic Price: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . free!
For more information about FidoNews refer to the end of this file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[...some editing...]
======================================================================
ARTICLES
======================================================================
The Joy of Handles
Mahatma Kane Jeeves
101/138.8
David Lescohier
101/138.0
THE JOY OF HANDLES
------------------
or:
EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT ME
(but have no right to ask)
--------------------------
* * * * *
We should never so entirely avoid danger as to appear
irresolute and cowardly. But, at the same time, we should
avoid unnecessarily exposing ourselves to danger, than
which nothing can be more foolish. [Cicero]
* * * * *
Do you trust me?
If you participate in computer conferencing, and you use
your real name, then you'd better.
"Why?", you ask. "What can you do with my name?" To start
with, given that and your origin line, I can probably look
you up in your local phone book, and find out where you
live. Even if you are unlisted, there are ways to locate
you based on your name. If you own any property, or pay any
utility bills, your address is a matter of public record.
Do you have children in the public schools? It would be
easy to find out. But that's just the beginning.
Former Chairman of the U.S. Privacy Protection Commission
David F. Linowes, in his book "Privacy in America" (1989),
writes of New York private investigator Irwin Blye:
"Challenged to prove his contention that, given a little
time and his usual fee, he could learn all about an
individual without even speaking with him, Blye was
presented with a subject -- a New Jersey
newspaperman.... The result was a five-page, single-
spaced, typed report which documented, though not always
accurately, a wide sweep of the journalist's past, and
was detailed to the point of disclosing his father's
income before his retirement."
Who am I? If I don't post, you might not even know I exist.
I could be on your local Police Department, or an agent
working with the IRS, or some federal law-enforcement
agency. I could be a member of some fanatical hate group,
or criminal organization. I might even be a former Nixon
White-House staffer!
I could be that pyromaniacal teenager you flamed last
weekend, for posting a step-by-step description of how he
made plastic explosive in his high-school chem lab. He
seemed kind of mad.
But you're an upstanding citizen; you have nothing to hide.
So why not use your name on the nets? Trust me. There's
nothing to worry about.
Is there?
* * * * *
WHAT'S ALL THIS BROUHAHA?
-------------------------
Stupidity is evil waiting to happen. [Clay Bond]
Not long ago in Fidonet's BCSNET echo (the Boston Computer
Society's national conference), the following was posted by
the conference moderator to a user calling himself "Captain
Kirk":
"May we ask dear Captain Kirk that it would be very
polite if you could use your real name in an echomail
conference? This particular message area is shared
with BBS's all across the country and everyone else is
using their real name. It is only common courtesy to
do so in an echomail conference."
One of us (mkj) responded with a post questioning that
policy. Soon the conference had erupted into a heated
debate! Although mkj had worried that the subject might be
dismissed as trivial, it apparently touched a nerve. It
brought forth debate over issues and perceptions central to
computer communications in general, and it revealed profound
disparities in fundamental values and assumptions among
participants.
This article is a response to that debate, and to the
prevailing negative attitudes regarding the use of handles.
Handles seem to have a bad reputation. Their use is
strangely unpopular, and frequently forbidden by network
authorities. Many people seem to feel that handles are rude
or dishonest, or that anyone wishing to conceal his or her
identity must be up to no good. It is the primary purpose
of this article to dispel such prejudices.
Let us make one thing perfectly clear here at the outset: We
do NOT challenge the need or the right of sysops to know the
identities of their users! But we do believe that a sysop
who collects user names has a serious responsibility to
protect that information. This means making sure that no
one has access to the data without a legal warrant, and it
certainly means not pressuring users to broadcast their real
names in widespread public forums such as conferences.
* * * * *
SO YOU WANT TO BE A STAR?
-------------------------
John Lennon died for our sins. [anonymous]
Andy Warhol said that "In the future, everyone will be
famous for fifteen minutes". The computer nets, more than
any other medium, lend credibility to this prediction. A
network conference may span the globe more completely than
even satellite TV, yet be open to anyone who can afford the
simplest computer and modem. Through our participation in
conferencing, each of us becomes, if only briefly, a public
figure of sorts -- often without realizing it, and without
any contemplation of the implications and possible
consequences.
Brian Reid (reid@decwrl.DEC.COM) conducts and distributes
periodic surveys of Usenet conference readership. His
statistical results for the end of 1991 show that of the
1,459 conferences which currently make up Usenet, more than
fifty percent have over 20,000 readers apiece; the most
popular conferences are each seen by about 200,000 readers!
Mr. Reid's estimate of total Usenet readership is nearly TWO
MILLION people.
Note that Mr. Reid's numbers are for Usenet only; they do
not include any information on other large public nets such
as RIME (PC-Relaynet), Fido, or dozens of others, nor do
they take into account thousands of private networks which
may have indirect public network connections. The total
number of users with access to public networks is unknown,
but informed estimates range to the tens of millions, and
the number keeps growing at an amazing pace -- in fact, the
rate of growth of this medium may be greater than any other
communications medium in history.
The special problems and risks which arise when one deals
with a large public audience are something about which most
computer users have little or no experience or
understanding. Until recently, those of us involved in
computer conferencing have comprised a small and rather
elite community. The explosion in network participation is
catching us all a little unprepared.
Among media professionals and celebrities, on the other
hand, the risks of conducting one's business in front of a
public audience are all too familiar. If the size of one's
audience becomes sufficiently large, one must assume that
examples of virtually every personality type will be
included: police and other agents of various governments,
terrorists, murderers, rapists, religious fanatics, the
mentally ill, robbers and con artists, et al ad infinitum.
It must also be assumed that almost anything you do, no
matter how innocuous, could inspire at least one person,
somewhere, to harbor ill will toward you.
The near-fatal stabbing of actress Theresa Saldana is a case
in point. As she was walking to her car one morning near her
West Hollywood apartment, a voice behind her asked, "Are you
Theresa Saldana?"; when she turned to answer, a man she had
never seen before pulled out a kitchen knife and stabbed her
repeatedly.
After her lengthy and painful recovery, she wrote a book on
the experience ("Beyond Survival", 1986). In that book she
wrote:
[pg 12] "... Detective Kalas informed me that the
assailant, whom he described as a Scottish drifter, had
fixated upon me after seeing me in films."
[pg 28] "... it was through my work as an actress that
the attacker had fixated on me. Naturally, this made
me consider getting out of show business ..."
[pg 34] "For security, I adopted an alias and became
'Alicia Michaels.' ... during the months that followed
I grew so accustomed to it that, to this day, I still
answer reflexively when someone calls the name Alicia!"
Or consider the fate of Denver radio talk show host Alan
Berg, who in 1984 died outside his home in a hail of
gunfire. Police believe he was the victim of a local neo-
nazi group who didn't like his politics.
We are reminded of the murders of John Lennon and Rebecca
Shaffer; the Reagan/Hinckley/Foster incident; and a long
string of other "celebrity attacks" of all sorts, including
such bizarre events as the occupation of David Letterman's
home by a strange woman who claimed to be his wife! There is
probably no one in public life who doesn't receive at least
the occassional threatening letter.
Of course, ordinary participants in network conferencing may
never attract quite the attention that other types of
celebrities attract. But consider the following, rather less
apocalyptic scenarios:
-- On Friday night you post a message to a public
conference defending an unpopular or controversial
viewpoint. On Monday morning your biggest client
cancels a major contract. Or you are kept up all
night by repeated telephone calls from someone
demanding that you "stop killing babies"!
-- You buy your teenage son or daughter a computer and
modem. Sometime later you find your lawn littered
with beer bottles and dug up with tire marks, or
your home vandalized or burglarized.
-- One day you are nominated to the Supreme Court. Who
are all these strange people on TV claiming to be
your friends? How did that fellow know your position
on abortion? Your taste in GIFs?
Celebrities and other professional media personalities
accept the risks and sacrifices of notoriety, along with the
benefits, as part of their chosen careers. Should computer
conference participants be expected to do the same? And who
should be making these decisions?
* * * * *
OTHER MEDIA
-----------
When thou art at Rome, do as they do at Rome [Cervantes]
Older media seem to address the problems of privacy very
differently than computer media, at least so far. We are
not aware of ANY medium or publication, apart from computer
conferencing, where amateur or even most professional
participants are required to expose their true names against
their will. Even celebrities frequently use "stage names",
and protect their addresses and phone numbers as best they
can.
When a medium caters specifically to the general public,
participants are typically given even greater opportunities
to protect their privacy. Television talk shows have been
known to go so far as to employ silhouetting and electronic
alteration of voices to protect the identities of guests,
and audience members who participate are certainly not
required to state their full names before speaking.
The traditional medium most analogous to computer
conferencing may be talk radio. Like conferencing, talk
radio is a group discussion and debate medium oriented
toward controversy, where emotions can run high. Programs
often center around a specific topic, and are always run by
a "host" whose role seems analogous in many respects to that
of a conference moderator. It is therefore worth noting
that in talk radio generally, policy seems to be that
callers are identified on the air only by their first names
(unless of course they volunteer more).
Finally, of course, authors have published under "pen names"
since the dawn of publishing, and newspapers and magazines
frequently publish letters to the editor with "name and
address withheld by request" as the signature line. Even
founding fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John
Jay, in authoring the seminal Federalist Papers in 1787 for
publication in the Letters columns of various New York City
newspapers, concealed their identities behind the now-famous
psuedonym "Publius".
What would you think if someone called a radio talk show
demanding to know the identity of a previous caller? Such a
demand would undoubtedly be seen as menacing and
inappropriate in that context. Yet that same demand seems
to arise without much challenge each time a handle shows up
in a computer conference. The authors of this article feel
that such demands should always be looked upon as
suspicious, and that it would be beneficial for moderators
to take upon themselves the responsibility of making sure
that besieged handle-users are aware of their right to
refuse such inappropriate demands.
It is reasonable to assume that privacy policies in
traditional media are the result of hard-won wisdom gained
from long experience. Are we so arrogant that we cannot
learn from others? It is not hard to imagine the sorts of
problems and experiences which shaped these policies in the
old media. Will we have to wait for similar problems to
occur on the computer networks before we learn?
* * * * *
PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE
------------------------
In an effort to identify people who fail to file tax
returns, the Internal Revenue Service is matching
its files against available lists of names and
addresses of U.S. citizens who have purchased
computers for home use. The IRS continues to seek
out sources for such information. This information
is matched against the IRS master file of taxpayers
to see if those who have not filed can be
identified.
[COMPUTERWORLD, Sept. 1985]
Date: Thu, 23 May 91 11:58:07 PDT
From: mmm@cup.portal.com
Subject: The RISKS of Posting to the Net
-
I just had an interesting visit from the FBI. It
seems that a posting I made to sci.space several
months ago had filtered through channels, caused the
FBI to open (or re-open) a file on me, and an agent
wanted to interview me, which I did voluntarily...
I then went on to tell him about the controversy
over Uunet, and their role in supplying archives of
Usenet traffic on tape to the FBI...
[RISKS Digest]
Also frequent are instances where computers are
seized incident to an unrelated arrest. For
example, on February 28, 1991, following an arrest
on charges of rape and battery, the Massachusetts
state and local police seized the suspect's computer
equipment. The suspect reportedly operated a 650-
subscriber bulletin board called "BEN," which is
described as "geared largely to a gay/leather/S&M
crowd." It is not clear what the board's seizure is
supposed to have accomplished, but the board is now
shut down, and the identities and messages of its
users are in the hands of the police.
[CONSTITUTIONAL, LEGAL, AND ETHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEALING WITH ELECTRONIC
FILES IN THE AGE OF CYBERSPACE, Harvey A.
Silverglate and Thomas C. Viles]
Most of us have been brought up to be grateful for the fact
that we live in a nation where freedom is sacred. In other
countries, we are told as children, people are afraid to
speak their minds for fear they are being watched. Thank
God we live in America!
It would surprise most of us to learn that America is
currently among the premiere surveillance nations in the
world, but such, sadly, is indeed the case. Our leadership
in technology has helped the U.S. government to amass as
much information on its citizens as almost any other nation
in history, totalitarian or otherwise. And to make matters
worse, a consumer surveillance behemoth has sprung up
consisting of huge private data-collection agencies which
cater to business.
As Evan Hendricks, editor of "Privacy Times" (a Washington
D.C.-based newsletter) has put it: "You go through life
dropping bits and pieces of information about yourself
everywhere. Most people don't realize there are big vacuum
cleaners out there sucking it all up." [Wall Street
Journal, March 14, 1991].
To get an idea of how much of your privacy has already been
lost, consider the bits and pieces of information about
yourself which are already available to investigators, and
how thoroughly someone might come to know you by these clues
alone.
A person's lifestyle and personality are largely described,
for example, by his or her purchases and expenses; from your
checking account records -- which banks are required by law
to keep and make available to government investigators -- a
substantial portrait of your life will emerge. Credit card
records may reveal much of the same information, and can
also be used to track your movements. (In a recent case,
"missing" Massachusetts State Representative Timothy O'Leary
was tracked by credit-card transactions as he fled across
the country, and his movements were reported on the nightly
news!)
Then there are your school records, which include IQ and
other test results, comments on your "socialization" by
teachers and others, and may reveal family finances in great
detail. Employment and tax records reveal your present
income, as well as personal comments by employers and co-
workers. Your properties are another public record of your
income and lifestyle, and possibly your social status as
well. Telephone billing records reveal your personal and
business associations in more detail. Insurance records
reveal personal and family health histories and treatments.
All of this information is commonly accessed by government
and private or corporate investigators. And this list is
far from exhaustive!
Now consider how easily the computer networks lend
themselves to even further erosions of personal privacy. The
actual contents of our mail and telephone traffic have up to
now been subjected to deliberate scrutiny only under
extraordinary conditions. This built-in safety is due
primarily to the difficulty and expense of conducting
surveillance in these media, which usually requires extended
human intervention. But in the medium of computer
communications, most surveillance can be conducted using
automated monitoring techniques. Tools currently available
make it possible and even cost-effective for government and
other interests to monitor virtually everything which
happens here.
Why would anyone want to monitor network users? It is well
documented that, throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the FBI and
other agencies of government, in operations such as the
infamous COINTELPRO among others, spent a great deal of time
and effort collecting vast lists of names. As Computer
Underground Digest moderators Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer
recalled in a recent commentary (CuD #3.42):
"A 1977 class action suit against the Michigan State
Police learned, through FOIA requests, that state and
federal agents would peruse letters to the editor of
newspapers and collect clippings of those whose politics
they did not like. These news clippings became the basis
of files on those persons that found there way into the
hands of other agencies and employers."
To get onto one of these government "enemies" lists, you
often needed to do nothing more than telephone an
organization under surveillance, or subscribe to the "wrong"
types of magazines and newspapers. Groups engaged in
political activism, including environmental and women's
rights organizations, were commonly infiltrated. The sort
of investigative reporting which uncovered these lists and
surveillances back in the '60s and '70s is now rare, but
there is little reason to assume that such activities have
ceased or even slowed. In fact, progressive computerization
of local police LEIU activities (Law Enforcement
Intelligence Units, commonly known as "red squads") suggests
that such activities may have greatly increased.
Within the realm of computer conferencing especially, there
is ample reason to believe that systematic monitoring is
being conducted by government and law-enforcement
organizations, and perhaps by other hostile interests as
well. In a recent issue of Telecom Digest
(comp.dcom.telecom), Craig Neidorf (knight@EFF.ORG) reported
on the results of a recent Freedom of Information Act
request for documents from the Secret Service:
" ... The documents also show that the Secret Service
established a computer database to keep track of
suspected computer hackers. This database contains
records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers,
known associates, a list of activities, and various
[conference postings] associated with each individual."
But the privacy issues which surround computer
communications go far beyond the collection of user lists.
Both government and industry have long pursued the elusive
grail of personality profiling on citizens and consumers. Up
to now, such ambitions have been restrained by the practical
difficulty and expense of collecting and analyzing large
amounts of information on large numbers of citizens. But
computer communications, more than any other technology,
seems to hold out the promise that this unholy grail may
finally be in sight.
To coin a phrase, never has so much been known by so few
about so many. The information commonly available to
government and industry investi-gators today is sufficient
to make reliable predictions about our personalities,
health, politics, future behavior, our vulnerabilities,
perhaps even about our innermost thoughts and feelings. The
privacy we all take for granted is, in fact, largely an
illusion; it no longer exists in most walks of life. If we
wish to preserve even the most basic minimum of personal
privacy, it seems clear that we need to take far better care
on the networks than we have taken elsewhere.
* * * * *
FREEDOM
-------
Human beings are the only species with a history.
Whether they also have a future is not so obvious.
The answer will lie in the prospects for popular
movements, with firm roots among all sectors of the
population, dedicated to values that are suppressed
or driven to the margins within the existing social
and political order...
[Noam Chomsky]
In your day-to-day social interactions, as you deal with
employers, clients, public officials, friends, acquaintances
and total strangers, how often do you feel you can really
speak freely? How comfortable are you discussing
controversial issues such as religion, taxes, politics,
racism, sexuality, abortion or AIDS, for example? Would you
consider it appropriate or wise to express an honest opinion
on such an issue to your boss, or a client? To your
neighbors?
Most of us confine such candid discussions to certain
"trusted" social contexts, such as when we are among our
closest friends. But when you post to a network conference,
your boss, your clients, and your neighbors may very well
read what you post -- if they are not on the nets today,
they probably will be soon, as will nearly everyone.
If we have to consider each post's possible impact on our
social and professional reputations, on our job security and
income, on our family's acceptance and safety in the
community, it could be reckless indeed to express ourselves
freely on the nets. Yet conferences are often geared to
controversy, and inhibitions on the free expression of
opinions can reduce traffic to a trickle, killing off an
important conference topic or distorting a valuable sampling
of public opinion.
More important still is the role computer networks are
beginning to play in the free and open dissemination of news
and information. Democracy is crippled if dissent and
diversity in the media are compromised; yet even here in the
U.S., where a "free press" is a cherished tradition, the
bulk of all the media is owned by a small (and ever-
shrinking) number of corporations, whose relatively narrow
culture, interests and perspec-tives largely shape the
public perception.
Computer communication, on the other hand, is by its nature
very difficult to control or shape. Its resources are
scattered; when one BBS goes bust (or is busted!), three
others spring up in its place. The natural resiliency of
computer communications (and other new, decentral-ized
information technologies such as fax, consumer camcorders
and cheap satellite links) is giving rise to a new brand of
global "guerrilla journalism" which includes everyone, and
defies efforts at suppression.
The power and value of this new journalistic freedom has
recently shown itself during the Gulf War, and throughout
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, as well as within the
U.S. Just think of the depth and detail of information
available on the nets regarding the Secret Service's recent
"Operation Sundevil" and associated activities, compared to
the grossly distorted, blatantly propagandistic coverage of
those same activities given to the general public through
the traditional media.
Historically, established power and wealth have seldom been
disposed to tolerate uncontrolled media, and recent events
in this country and elsewhere show that computer media are
sometimes seen as threats to established interests as well.
To understand the role of handles in this context, it is
useful to note the flurries of anti-handle sentiment which
have arisen in the wake of crackdowns such as Sundevil, or
the Tom Tcimpidis raid in the early 1980s. Although few
charges and fewer convictions have typically resulted from
such operations, one might be tempted to speculate that the
real purposes -- to terrorize the nets and chill freedoms of
speech and assembly thereon -- have been achieved.
In this way, sysops and moderators become unwitting
accomplices in the supression of freedom on the networks.
When real name requirements are instituted, anyone who fears
retaliation of any sort, by any group, will have to fear
participation in the nets; hence content is effectively
controlled. This consideration becomes especially important
as the nets expand into even more violent and repressive
countries outside the U.S.
We must decide whether freedom of information and open
public discussion are in fact among the goals of network
conferencing, and if so, whether handles have a role in
achieving these goals. As access to the networks grows, we
have a rare opportunity to frustrate the efforts of
governments and corporations to control the public mind! In
this way above all others, computers may have the potential
to shape the future of all mankind for the better.
* * * * *
A CALL TO ACTION
----------------
The move to electronic communication may be a turning
point that history will remember. Just as in
seventeenth and eighteenth century Great Britain and
America a few tracts and acts set precedents for
print by which we live today, so what we think and do
today may frame the information system for a
substantial period in the future.
[Ithiel de Sola Pool, "Technologies of Freedom", 1983]
There was a time when anybody with some gear and a few
batteries could become a radio broadcaster -- no license
required. There was a time when anyone with a sense of
adventure could buy a plane, and maybe get a contract to
carry mail. Those early technological pioneers were
probably unable to imagine the world as it is today, but
their influence is strongly felt in current laws,
regulations and policies with roots in the traditions and
philosophies they founded and shaped.
Today the new pioneers are knitting the world together with
computers, and the world is changing faster than ever. Law
and ethics are scrambling to keep up. How far will this
growth take us? No one can say for sure. But you don't
need a crystal ball to see that computer communications has
the potential to encompass and surpass all the functionality
of prior media -- print, post, telegraph, telephone, radio
and television -- and more. It seems reasonable to assume
that computer communications will be at least as ubiquitous
and important in the lives of our grandchildren as all the
older media have been in ours.
It will be a world whose outlines we can now make out only
dimly. But the foundations of that world are being built
today by those of us exploring and homesteading on the
electronic frontier. We need to look hard at what it will
take to survive in the information age.
In this article we have attempted to show, for one very
narrow issue, what some of the stakes may be in this future-
building game. But the risks associated with exposing your
name in a computer conference are not well defined, and
various people will no doubt assess the importance of these
risks differently. After all, most of us take risks every
day which are probably greater than the risks associated
with conferencing. We drive on the expressway. We eat
sushi. To some people, the risks of conferencing may seem
terrifying; to others, insignificant.
But let us not get side-tracked into unresolvable arguments
on the matter. The real issue here is not how dangerous
conferencing may or may not be; it is whether you and I will
be able to make our own decisions, and protect ourselves (or
not) as we see fit. The obvious answer is that users must
exercise their collective power to advance their own
interests, and to pressure sysops and moderators to become
more sensitive to user concerns.
To help in that effort, we would like to recommend the
following guidelines for user action:
-- Bear in mind John Perry Barlow's observation that
"Liberties are preserved by using them". Let your
sysop know that you would prefer to be using a
handle, and use one wherever you can.
-- Try to support boards and conferences which allow
handles, and avoid those which don't.
-- When using a handle, BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY! There will
always be irresponsible users on the nets, and they
will always use handles. It is important for the
rest of us to fight common anti-handle prejudices by
showing that handles are NOT always the mark of an
irresponsible user!
-- Educate others about the importance of handles (but
NEVER argue or flame anyone about it).
To sysops and moderators: We ask you to bear in mind that
authority is often used best where it is used least. Grant
users the right to engage in any harmless and responsible
behaviors they choose. Protect your interests in ways which
tread as lightly as possible upon the interests of others.
The liberties you preserve may be your own!
In building the computer forums of today, we are building
the social fabric of tomorrow. If we wish to preserve the
free and open atmosphere which has made computer networking
a powerful force, while at the same time taking care against
the risks inherent in such a force, handles seem to be a
remarkably harmless, entertaining and effective tool to help
us. Let's not throw that tool away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[end of excerpt]
--
David Collier-Brown, | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave., |
Willowdale, Ontario, | He's so smart he's dumb.
CANADA. 416-223-8968 | -- Joyce Collier-Brown
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 09:37:47 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin, et al.] would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun9.91609.7928@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 9 Jun 92 13:16:09 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship
>From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
>Subject: would this be censorship?
>Message-ID:
>Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 14:41:49 GMT
>
>
>Thinking about the problem caused by some over-prolific individuals
>in certain newsgroups I came up with the following idea:
>
>Implement in the news software some kind of site default kill files,
>maintained by the news admin, that selects articles like regular kill
>files but instead of simply junking them just marks them "censored".
>Then newsreaders would hide such articles, unless the user explicitly
>requests to see them, either globally or on a group-by-group basis.
>
Hmmmmmm.....why don't we just limit the number of articles by each
individual? Let's say that each user is allowed X number of postings
in circulation at any time.
I can see it now......
- User runs postnews (or runs a followup from his newsreader)
- Posting script (or inews) checks the spool area, counting the
number of existing articles submitted by that user.
- inews compares this total to some default, inflexible limit
(20 postings?)
- If this posting would send the user "over the limit", inews
returns the posting to the user via email (so that the user
could post it later, after some of his other articles have
expired).
- If this posting is within the limit, post normally.
This could be accomplished rather easily; the spool area search might be
a bit timeconsuming, but a nighttime cron job could build a table of article
counts for the site's users.
Exceptions would have to be made for newsgroup moderators.
How do we determine the limit? That's the tough part. I participate in
quite a few newsgroups, and I would guess that I've never had more than
15-20 postings in circulation at any one time. Is 20 a reasonable limit?
Keep in mind that this limit would apply to EVERYONE on the system, with
the exception of a moderator (and most sites don't have a moderator online).
This scheme couldn't be faulted as censorship; after all, the user has X
postings to "spend" as he wishes. The admin doesn't care what newsgroups
the user patronizes, AS LONG AS the user stays within his posting limit.
This technique is quite similar to the connect time limits placed on many
BBS systems. It's not unlike the connect/CPU/diskspace limits still imposed
by many larger systems.
The only real way to defraud this mechanism would be to run an extremely
short expire time; however, that technique will also eliminate postings
from other sites as well. I don't think that people will cripple their
newsfeeds to get around this limitation.
Whaddya think?
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| MORGAN@UKCC
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 11:07:44 1992
From: mathew
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 92 14:49:04 BST
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
> >Implement in the news software some kind of site default kill files,
> >maintained by the news admin, that selects articles like regular kill
> >files but instead of simply junking them just marks them "censored".
> [...]
>
> (Especially in the university environment) I don't like the idea of
> the universities agents (e.g. news admins) getting into the business
> of deciding what shouldn't be read.
Sounds like an excellent idea to me. The fact that some bureaucratic censor
doesn't want me to read something is usually an excellent indication that
I'll find it interesting or amusing. I'd use the default kill file as a list
of good stuff to read.
mathew
--
This disclaimer does not represent the views of Mantis Consultants Ltd
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 14:05:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] ANS CO+RE and CIX Agree to Interconnect
Message-ID: <199206091803.AA17656@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 10:03:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 14:05:01 1992
From: edeline@ans.net (Edeline Cantave)
Subject: ANS CO+RE and CIX Agree to Interconnect
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 21:22:18 GMT
The following release was issued today.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACTS:
June 8, 1992 Susan Eldred (ANS)
914-789-5339
eldred@ans.net
Mitch Kapor (CIX)
617-864-1550
mkapor@eff.org
ANS CO+RE and CIX Agree to Interconnect
Elmsford, NY . . . ANS CO+RE Systems, Inc., (ANS) and the Commercial
Internet Exchange (CIX) have announced that they will interconnect for
a provisional period in order to increase connectivity among their
clients and members. During this period they will continue to work
together on technical issues and equitable arrangements that could
lead to a permanent interconnection.
ANS operates a high-speed, nationwide data network (ANSnet) supporting
research, education and business. The ANSnet interconnects with 17
other networks that carry commercial data, as well as data related to
research and education. The CIX is an association of seven networks
that carry commercial traffic. By signing an agreement with ANS and
by joining the CIX, midlevel networks will be able to exchange
commercial traffic with other CIX members via the ANS network. ANS is
not becoming a member of the CIX at this time.
During the provisional period of interconnectivity, the CIX and ANS
will co-sponsor a workshop, which will include other commercial
networking service providers, to develop a framework conducive to the
rapid expansion of the Commercial Internet. Among the issues to be
addressed in the workshop sessions are the potential methods for
permanently interconnecting network service providers and for managing
all related issues associated with interconnection. Both ANS and the
CIX have agreed to forego any cross payments during the provisional
period.
In commenting on the agreement, ANS President and CEO Al Weis stated,
"The CIX and ANS have taken a step forward in addressing some of the
challenges that face our industry. Providing a means for CIX members
and ANS clients to exchange commercial traffic has been an important
issue to the networking community. Today's announcement is the result
of negotiations that include input from many members of this
community, especially the New England Academic and Research Network
(NEARnet), whose ideas were instrumental in bringing about the final
agreement. I am hopeful that our efforts will help broaden
interconnectivity and begin to establish a framework for the evolution
of the Commercial Internet."
Mitch Kapor, Chairman of the CIX, said, "In taking this significant
step, we enable greater freedom from content restrictions on the
Internet. This agreement stands as an example that the private sector
can achieve the important goal of strengthening the openness of our
nation's information and communications infrastructure on a
cooperative basis, without the necessity of government regulation."
# # #
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 14:09:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206091808.AA17890@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 10:08:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 14:09:59 1992
From: peterd@EXPRESSO.CC.MCGILL.CA (Peter Deutsch)
Subject: Re: Usenet posting policies - help
Message-ID: <199206091636.AA15316@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 16:36:53 GMT
I was sent a copy of Pete Percival's letter by a colleague
wishing to verify details. I'm sending the reply back to
the list as I hope the information is of interest to all.
Note that I do not subscribe to the "CWIS-L" list, so
follow-ups and questions should be directed to me via
email.
- peterd
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ percival@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu writes: ]
>
> Is this true regarding the DOS and Mac clients we are suggesting?????
> Alan
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
. . .
> Usenet workstation clients for DOS and Mac platforms don't authenticate the
> user when posting to a Usenet group (i.e. when posting, a form appears
> which asks the user to fill in their name - any name). Does your university
> allow this non-authenticated posting from these clients?
Although I don't use DOS or Mac clients, I believe that
this is essentially correct. The problem is actually more
pronounced, in that the underlying NNTP protocol is not
authenticated, so anyone with access to the appropriate
subnet can fake a connect session, supply bogus header
information and hide their true identity. Instructions on
how to do this appear regularly on the net, and there is
even one newsgroup (I believe that it is "alt.hackers")
that is supposedlyJ moderated (ie all postings must be
accepted by a moderator) yet there is no moderator for the
group. The idea is that you have to be able to "hack" the
header to post...
While speaking of anonymous posting capabilities, I should
also mention that there are a number of locations in the
States (including, but not limited to, the infamous wizvax
and a site at Berkeley) that allow anonymous postings via
email. The user sends the posting in, a daemon picks it
up, strips off identifying information and supplies the
needed bogus header before sending it back out again.
I understand that the postings that caused all the fuss in
Manitoba were sent out this way. The message is that unless
you are able to cut off all net access, you pretty much
can't cut off the ability to post anonymously to Usenet
(nor to read it, since NNTP newsreaders are freely
available for FTP and there are also sites that will shift
newsgroups into email for you. The performance hit when
students sign up for hundreds of messages a day can only
be imagined! :-)
Of course, whether you should be cutting them off is
another question entirely. It is my_ personal_ opinion
that this is _not_ a decision for those of us controlling
the technology (ie Computing Centre staff) to make. I would
hope that your Senate, academic staff and students are
involved in determining your access policies to Usenet,
since it seems to me that the issues involved are the same
ones that come up when determining who controls what goes
into your library or into your campus bookstore.
> Do you restrict posting privileges based on the type of user population
> (e.g. prevent undergraduates from posting)? How about reading privileges?
A number of sites do this. I recall a letter from someone
at U.Sasketchewan about two weeks ago stating that
students are denied general access to even email, as they
perceive it as a too large a resource drain. Access is
available at the request of a professor.
On the flip side are those sites that guarantee all
students a code for net access for their entire stay, with
email Usenet and archive privileges (examples are many,
but I seem to remember that this is policy at Monash
University in Australia, U.California at Berkeley, and
many others). At least some of these sites justify this on
the grounds that Internet access in now an essential
component of their environment, as is a well-stocked
library or a phone system.
> Any horror stories from those of you that allow non-authenticated (or
> authenticated) posting?
I guess this depends upon how you define "horror". After
all, there's a newsgroup called "alt.horror"! :-)
Seriously, this is a subject you could raise in
comp.org.eff.talk, or check out the Electronic Frontiers
Foundation archive at "ftp.eff.org". They maintain
information on applicable court cases, archives of
discussions related to issues concerned with the Internet, etc.
There is also a newsgroup/mailing list dealing with issues
of Computing and Academic Freedom (details of all these
groups at the end).
As far as I know, the only applicable case law has
appeared in the U.S. (the so-called "Prodigy" and "Genie"
cases). Information on these is available from the
ftp.eff.org archive, but essentially they concern the
responsibility of a bulletin board operator for posting
content. In one case (Prodigy) the operators screened
postings, and thus assumed some responsibility for an
anti-semitic posting that got through. In the
other case, no screening was done and the operator was
found not responsible for postings supplied. The
implication (at least for U.S. operators) is that
screening _increase_ your liability.
There have also been a couple of cases that deal with
computers and information crimes, but not Usenet in
particular. One particular example of this is the
so-called "Steve Jackson Games" case, in which a small
company that produces computer games was raided by (I
believe) the Secret Service after they decided that one of
the employees was involved in cracking activities (ie
attempting to break into other computers). During the
raid company computer equipment, written material for the
user's manual for an up-coming game on computer hacking,
etc were seized, effectively shutting down the company for
a while.
After the smoke cleared, it was decided that the company
had done nothing wrong, other than to employ someone
suspected of breaking the law, and I believe the seized
material was returned. The case is cited by civil
libertarians as an example of over-reaction by un-informed
law enforcement officials who don't understand the
technology or its implications and is perhaps an example
of what conceivably could happen if law enforcement
officials decided that university equipment was used for
illegal activities. Of course, given that it was
determined that the company had broken no laws, it might
form a precedent for responding to police over-reaction.
This case was notable in that it was one of the first
where the EFF got involved to help with the defense (they
will help out where they believe that a case would set
legal precedent. They have a lawyer on staff well-versed
in these issues and a lobbying office in Washington). The
EFF obviously has a fair amount of material on the Steve
Jackson case in their archive.
> Do you restrict (or deny) access to certain groups (e.g. alt groups) and
> if so on what grounds (e.g. resource requirements, inappropriate material,
> etc)?
I know a number of sites restrict on the basis of volume
(the alt.pictures groups, for example, occupy a
considerable percentage of total Usenet volume). I was
speaking with the head of Computer Services last week at
Memorial University in Newfoundland and they apparently
only start up groups on demand, as they don't have the
resources to hold a full feed and are on the end of a
_very_ slow link to the Internet. They apparently do _not_
screen on content, although it turns out that not many
people are asking for the racy stuff.
It should be pointed out that newsgroups headings are
really only an extended form of Subject: line and many
postings are actually cross-posted to many newsgroups.
Thus, cutting off a particular newsgroup will not
necessarily cut off the material you think it will. In
addition, by cutting off an entire newgroup you have
accepted the role of censor, as you by definition are
cutting off access to _all_ postings to a group, even
though there may be some that are offensive or illegal and
some that are not. This usually raises hackles when
brought to the attention of militant student groups.
There have been rumours of such groups in the U.S.
threatening to sue on the basis of violation of First
Amendment rights to free speech, but I don't recall any
cases where this has happened yet. Certainly whenever a
site cuts off access on the basis of _content_ the net
rises in protest. Recent examples include the University of
Nebraska at Lincoln, which cut I believe the alt.sex
hierarchy, and more recently) the University of Manitoba,
which cut off alt.sex.bondage (or perhaps the entire
alt.sex hierarchy, I can't remember) after anonymous
protests to the media and the police about
offensive/possibly illegal postings.
I believe that UNL students protested heavily (well,
judging from the traffic on the net discussing the issue)
and the university now claims to be restricting on volume
only, not content.
In the case of Manitoba, I understand the police claim the
offending material is illegal in Canada but that they would
only be able to charge the poster (the police didn't get
the material from a Usenet feed. They were only given
hardcopy). As the posting had gone through wizvax (ie. had
its identifying headers removed) there was not much that
could be done to track them down.
Manitoba has apparently cut off the offending groups, but
say that they would bring them back where users could
justify it. This is still playing itself out, and further
details can be had from Gerry Miller (miller@com.umanitoba.ca)
who unfortunately gets to carry the can on this...
I understand Manitoba didn't receive a lot of protests,
although I noticed several postings from people who claim
to have sent email protests. Gerry said last week that he
received only two protests within the first week. The UNL
decision happened during the semester, while the Manitoba
actions happened after the semester ended, so this might
have something to do with the amount of protest
generated. Alternatively, it may be that these issues are
perceived differently in Canada.
It should be pointed out again that cutting off a newsgroup
really in no way restricts access to the group's material,
since there are a number of sites in the U.S. that allow
_anyone_ to connect and read news. By implication, instead of
bringing in postings once, they cross the line once per
reader. If you are running over a swamped Internet
connection this could be a considerable performance hit.
There are also several archive sites for such material
(last time I checked there was one at MIT offering
erotic pictures, and I seem to recall a posting in one of
the pictures groups about another one opening up recently).
> Do you have any official policy statements that you'd be willing to share
> which address these issues or general information access issues?
There is an archive of ethics postings, appropriate use
policies, University Codes of Conduct, etc at
"unma.unm.edu". There is also a pretty good "Statement of
Ethics" that has been produced by the IEEE. Anyone with
such a written policy is encouraged to submit it to the
archive. Details on how to do this are in a READ.ME file
in the archive at "unma.unm.edu".
> Thanks for your help,
My pleasure. I would suggest you check out the Computers
and Academic Freedom, EFF and privacy newsgroups, which
explore these issues regularly. There are several
of these, including:
comp.org.eff.talk
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk (also exists as a mailing list)
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
alt.freedom.of.information.act
alt.privacy
The EFF archive "ftp.eff.org" also has a considerable
amount of material, including references to a number of
court cases, plus archives of the computers and academic
freedom mailing list.
Hope this is of help...
- peterd
--
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 14:49:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206091847.AA01832@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 08:47:22 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 14:49:57 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun08.203233.22839@pavnet.pcn.org>
Date: 8 Jun 92 20:32:33 GMT
As quoted from <3676@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk> by pgr@ecs.ox.ac.uk (Partially Grown Rhododendron):
> Since it is `illegal' only at the receiving site, I'd say it was the
> duty of the receiving site to ask for it to be stopped; I don't think
> As for limiting articles to distribution `usa' -- this hits those
> people in non-USA countries who don't have such restrictive laws and
> would seem to be over-reacting a little.
>
> Personally, I think the whole of this censorship issue stinks, but
> that's beside the point, I guess. That's what comes of being from a
Yes, you are right. The censorship issue DOES stink. Above are only
suggestions to LIMIT LIABILITY in just about any possible instance. If
U.S. officials have said 'we are willing to cooperate', then you just
might have something to worry about. I was just suggesting to do something
that may protect you in case you ever get called into court. It is kind
of like taking an umbrella with you when the weatherman says it might rain.
--
Phil Pavarini, Jr. Pavarini Communications Network
Tel +1 216 891 1122 -- Fax +1 216 891 0009 -- VM +1 216 243 0012 x1122
P.O. Box 360302, Cleveland OH 44136 INET: pep@pcn.org UUCP: pavnet!pep
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 14:56:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Superman and Batman Illegal in Canada?
Message-ID: <9206091853.AA01912@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 08:53:42 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 14:56:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship
Subject: Superman and Batman Illegal in Canada?
Message-ID: <1992Jun9.004550.9542@wolves.uucp>
Date: 9 Jun 92 00:45:50 GMT
On the face of the law in Canada, quoted by....
In <1992Jun6.223237.12837@wizvax.methuen.ma.us> wi.4789@wizvax... writes:
>Some facts, for a change.
>
>Fundamental Freedoms
>2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
> freedom of the press and other media of communication;
> (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
> (d) freedom of association.
>
>[ Excerpt from the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46]
>
>Part V - Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct
>
>Offences tending to corrupt morals.
>
>163. (1) Every one commits an offence who
> (a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or who has in
> his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or
> circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph
> record or other thing whatever; or
> (b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or who has in
> his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or
> circulation a crime comic.
>
>(7) In this section, ``crime comic'' means a magazine, periodical or book
> that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially
> (a) the commission of crimes, real or fictitious; or
> (b) events connected with the commission of crimes, real or fictitious,
> whether occurring before or after the commission of the crime.
Under this definition, about 90% of the comic books that exist in the
world are going to run afoul of this definition. Even the Disney comics
are going to get into trouble since one of the main themes in any tale
concerning Scrooge McDuck is the attempt of others to obtain parts of
his wealth (theft is a crime!).
Even poor little Ritchie Rich is going to be a "crime comic".
I don't see any way that the usual D.C. Comics stable of characters is
going to escape this law.
Even such comics as the reprint of Vaughn Bode's Cobalt 60 is going the
be an "obscene" publication under this particular rule. Murder is a
crime! And the intent is irrelevant :-)
O Canada, we stand on guard (against) thee!
NOTE Well: the US of A has laws that are just as, or more, stupid!
--
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC [use the maps!]
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe ...duke!wolves!wolfe
Domain: wolfe%wolves@cs.duke.edu wolfe@cds.duke.edu
Above all, we celebrate. Celebrate the Circle Statement of Purpose
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 15:10:43 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun9.185331.11530@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 9 Jun 92 18:53:31 GMT
RE: Limiting distribution to your local country so your notes won't
go to Canada.
pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:
[...]
>Yes, you are right. The censorship issue DOES stink. Above are only
>suggestions to LIMIT LIABILITY in just about any possible instance. If
>U.S. officials have said 'we are willing to cooperate', then you just
>might have something to worry about. I was just suggesting to do something
>that may protect you in case you ever get called into court. It is kind
>of like taking an umbrella with you when the weatherman says it might rain.
[...]
It's more like never leaving your house and cowering under your bed
for fear of being hit by a meteorite.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 17:23:14 1992
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,sci.crypt,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <3740@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: 9 Jun 92 21:05:43 GMT
Thanks to smb@ulysses.att.com for the reference:
David Chaum, "Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital
Pseudonyms", CACM 24,2 (Feb 1981), pp 84-88.
Chaum has the return address problem solved as well -- so my plan to just
post those answers is needlessly wasteful. By solving this for mail from
person to person, it's solved for postings as well. In this sense, a
newsgroup is one more person on the net.
Of course, there's still the problem of someone who is able to monitor all
traffic (in particular, traffic volumes) in and out of every node on the
net -- even if that enemy can't break any of the messages. From the
traffic patterns, it should be possible for the enemy to learn something
about who is sending to whom. For example, if someone thinks I am talking
with John, they monitor traffic (sizes and times of messages in both
directions) around both of us. If enough messages happen to show up at
John's machine a reasonable delivery time after messages leave my machine,
the inference is that I'm mailing to John.
To really thwart this, of course, the middlemen (which Chaum calls "mixes")
could carry on continuous chatter with all other middlemen -- so that the
network wires are constantly busy. That defeats traffic analysis, or
should. However, it also clogs up the network -- or slows real traffic.
For example, every machine could transmit to every mix exactly one message
of exactly X bytes at exactly the same time each hour. The mix would
transmit exactly one message to each subscriber at the same time each hour.
If too many messages stack up for me, the mix holds them. (Even this
feels like there's room for learning something about my traffic -- if the
mix nearest to me can be subverted.)
So, back to my original question: is there a way to do better than Chaum
and hide not only certain knowledge of who is talking to whom but also
prevent the enemy from learning anything at all about who might be talking
to whom with probability greater than random guess over all people
connected to the net?
If we can't hide *all* knowledge about traffic from the all powerful enemy,
how much can we hide? How do we quantify the security of this mixing
process? How much more security does another layer of mixes give you?
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 21:07:48 1992
From: pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,alt.censorhship
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun09.200037.28619@pavnet.pcn.org>
Date: 9 Jun 92 20:00:37 GMT
As quoted from <1992Jun8.213007.5262@rice.edu> by cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston):
> Yeah -- *decides.* Although the upstream site has physical control
> over what's sent, it's usually configured according to the request of
> the downstream end. If the downstream end has asked for group x.y to
> be removed and upstream either has refused or not gotten around to it
> yet, then perhaps you could blame them. If they haven't been asked,
> then I'd think the people receiving the news would be at fault.
I know that this is a rather harsh analogy -- but: Lets say that
a minor went into a store to buy some beer. If the store SELLS him -- or
GIVES him the beer, the STORE is liable. Same thing with alt.sex.*, if
it is "illegal", it could be construed as the upstreams sites fault.
It doesn't matter HOW it gets from A to B, whether B asked for it or not,
A is still giving it to B.
--
Phil Pavarini, Jr. Pavarini Communications Network
Tel +1 216 891 1122 -- Fax +1 216 891 0009 -- VM +1 216 243 0012 x1122
P.O. Box 360302, Cleveland OH 44136 INET: pep@pcn.org UUCP: pavnet!pep
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 22:47:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206100245.AA04253@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 16:45:10 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 9 22:47:38 1992
From: pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1992 20:09:35 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jun09.200935.28824@pavnet.pcn.org>
As quoted from <3516@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis):
> >What court? Canadian courts have jurisdiction here.
>
> Say what? This must be a typo. *No* jurisdiction in the US. They only
> have jurisdiction over offences committed on Canadian soil. The only
> time a Canadian court would have jurisdiction is if an American carried
> the stuff across the border. Then Canada could, perhaps, start
To the best of my knowledge, there is no case law reguarding
transmission of electronic information. If anyone does challange (if charged
and convicted) a court decision, it may be considered the same as an American
carrying it across the boarder. You send something, and you know that it will
go into Canada. Could be wrong, though.
--
Phil Pavarini, Jr. Pavarini Communications Network
Tel +1 216 891 1122 -- Fax +1 216 891 0009 -- VM +1 216 243 0012 x1122
P.O. Box 360302, Cleveland OH 44136 INET: pep@pcn.org UUCP: pavnet!pep
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 00:17:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [UPI] Federal judge rules NEA decency clause unconstitutional
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.040756.10831@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 04:07:56 GMT
Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.news.law.crime,
clari.news.gov.usa, & clari.news.issues. For more info on ClariNet,
write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- A federal judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday
the decency clause the National Endowment for the Arts used in
determining who receives grant money, saying it was too vague and
overbroad in restricting artists' freedom of speech.
In a 44-page ruling, U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima found
that ``artistic expression, no less than academic speech or journalism
is at the core of a democratic society's cultural and political
vitality.''
The court also ruled that four artists will be entitled to grants
denied by ex-NEA Chairman John Frohnmayer if they can prove at trial
that the NEA denied the grants for political rather than aesthetic
reasons.
Congress adopted the decency provision in November 1990. The Bush
administration argued it should be upheld because the NEA had limited
funds and should be able to have a procedure by which the money is
distributed.
The provision required the NEA chairperson to ensure that ``artistic
excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which applications are
judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and
respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.''
The artists, Karen Finley, John Fleck, Holly Hughes and Tim Miller,
who became known as the ``NEA Four'' challenged the provision by filing
a lawsuit in September 1990 in Los Angeles federal court seeking an
order overruling their grant rejections.
Fleck and Miller are Los Angeles area performing artists, and Finley
and Hughes are performing artists from New York.
Hughes said she was very happy about Tashima's decision.
``I'm very happy that the court has decided that people who receive
money from the government don't have to forfeit rights guaranteed to
them in that government's Constitution,'' she said.``
The artists' work is highly political. All but Finley is homosexual
and the artists include homosexual and lesbian themes prominently in
their work, which has received broad critical acclaim.
Finley's performances are stridently feminist in tone. She has
appeared on stage partially clothed, her body smeared with melted
chocolate and alfalfa sprouts to symbolize denigration of women by
forcing them to wallow in excrement and sperm.
Finley and Miller previously received numerous NEA grants.
The plight of the four attracted national attention when Frohnmayer
overruled the unanimous vote of grant-review panel and rejected the
fellowships.
The decision was made after Frohnmayer reportedly told a meeting of
arts activists that the NEA's precarious political situation
necessitated denial of the grants.
According to the lawsuit, Frohnmayer sacrificed the artists ``because
of the controversial political content of their work. He did so with the
aim of suppressing the expression of the plaintiff's ideas.''
The suit asked for an additional $50,000 in damages to Finley, whose
privacy rights were violated, the complaint charged, by an alleged NEA
leak to conservative columnists of her confidential NEA grant
application.
The NEA gives grants to artists and arts institutions nationwide. Its
political turmoil began in April 1989 with the NEA-funded work of
photographer Robert Mapplethorpe. A show of his work, which included
homo-erotic art, was the subject of a state court obscenity prosecution
in Cincinnati.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 04:59:23 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <3530@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 10 Jun 92 07:32:20 GMT
In article <1992Jun8.213007.5262@rice.edu> cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:
>In article <1992Jun8.160443.25212@tssi.com> nolan@tssi.com writes:
>>If A and B have agreed to exchange news, I think it is less important who
>>initiates the call than who decides what information is sent/received.
>Yeah -- *decides.* Although the upstream site has physical control
>over what's sent, it's usually configured according to the request of
>the downstream end. If the downstream end has asked for group x.y to
>be removed and upstream either has refused or not gotten around to it
>yet, then perhaps you could blame them. If they haven't been asked,
>then I'd think the people receiving the news would be at fault.
>Not that I think anything's going on that ought to be anybody's
>"fault," whatever the Canadian police think.
I don't imagine that the police think that anybody's at fault. Yet.
They're probably simply trying to stop it rather than charge anybody.
They do have computer experts to draw upon, but USENET is a big jump from
the stuff they've worked with before. The reportage you're seeing in the media
(and here for that matter) is the police talking for public consumption.
Because, given the way the media has blown it out of proportion, the
general public will want it stopped. Immediately.
Provided that the people that the police contact in USENET don't freak
out, the police will end up understanding the situation, and not overreact.
University administration is far more likely to panic and pull the plug
because they're being seen as implicitly approving the expenditure
of public money to transport such crap.
I've had some exposure to police investigation of somewhat higher profile
computer "problems". Mostly personal medical information leakage (ie:
VD registry "leaks"). The police handled it quite well. That was
partly my fault ;-), but it's a *looong* story.
>I wonder how the law applies to printed pornography? If some magazine
>is printed in the US, but illegal in Canada, and some guy subscribes,
>who gets in trouble? The publisher, the subscriber, or both?
The law is very simple. Canadian courts have *no* jurisdiction in the
US. Even if the material is illegal in the US, Canadian courts cannot
prosecute a US publisher. Otherwise, Hefner and Guccione would have
been in Canadian jails when the rules were a lot stricter. The courts
can charge a Canadian distributor or (very rarely in practise) a
"subscriber" (for possession).
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 08:33:08 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: sys_sprute@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.135527.1@vxdesy.desy.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 13:55:27 GMT
In article , mathew writes:
> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>> >Implement in the news software some kind of site default kill files,
>> >maintained by the news admin, that selects articles like regular kill
>> >files but instead of simply junking them just marks them "censored".
>> [...]
>>
>> (Especially in the university environment) I don't like the idea of
>> the universities agents (e.g. news admins) getting into the business
>> of deciding what shouldn't be read.
>
> Sounds like an excellent idea to me. The fact that some bureaucratic censor
> doesn't want me to read something is usually an excellent indication that
> I'll find it interesting or amusing. I'd use the default kill file as a list
> of good stuff to read.
>
That's exactly the point.
Remember that there's always the possibility to get 'censored' newsgroups
or articles in their original form from another newsserver.
It's not only a bad idea to censor articles, it's also practically impossible.
Lars
--
Lars Sprute -R-
DESY (Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron)
Notkestr. 85
D - Hamburg 52
Germany
Net:
sprute@vxdesy.desy.de
SPRUTE@DESYVAX.BITNET
VXDESY::SPRUTE.DECNET
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 10:35:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206101432.AA06596@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 04:32:33 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 10:35:11 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <8d8kbwng@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
Date: 9 Jun 92 15:54:03 GMT
In article <1992Jun07.183019.15970@pavnet.pcn.org> pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:
>It was stated in a previous article that no one knows how to stop it.
>Well,
>
>**********************************************************************
>********* Suggestion for ALL SITES CONNECTING TO A CANADIAN SITE:
>Stop providing alt.sex.*, rec.arts.erotica, and any others I don't
>know of. Fine, it is legal for us to do it here in the US. But
>now we all know that it is ILLEGAL for certain material to be passed
>into Canada. Therefor, it opens you up to a charge: since you
>sent material somewhere that you KNOWINGLY knew was illegal. Stop
>providing it, and there will not be any additional troubles (we hope).
>**********************************************************************
** I think that the UK part of the network has been ok. I can't remember
seeing any obscence articles recently. The odd one or two sick articles
have appeared but nothing which would fall foul of the law as it stands.
Perhaps the problem is only confined to America and Canada.
Someone will doubtless correct me if I am wrong on this point.
--
****************************************************
* Graham Wilson * lsg001@uk.ac.cov.cck *
* LL.B. Law * Coventry University *
**********Life Sucks - But Death Swallows***********
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 10:35:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206101433.AA06605@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 04:33:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 10:35:30 1992
From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.020045.10228@iguana.uucp>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 02:00:45 GMT
In article <1992Jun07.183019.15970@pavnet.pcn.org> pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:
>**********************************************************************
>********* Suggestion for ALL SITES CONNECTING TO A CANADIAN SITE:
>Stop providing alt.sex.*, rec.arts.erotica, and any others I don't
>know of. Fine, it is legal for us to do it here in the US. But
>now we all know that it is ILLEGAL for certain material to be passed
>into Canada. Therefor, it opens you up to a charge: since you
>sent material somewhere that you KNOWINGLY knew was illegal. Stop
>providing it, and there will not be any additional troubles (we hope).
>**********************************************************************
ah, come on, amerikans have enough bad PR without more reactionary rhetoric
from some bozo overreacting.
BTW: isn't the archive/moderator of rec.arts.erotica in canada? (telly.on.ca)
now, to pick this apart:
>Suggestion for ALL SITES CONNECTING TO A CANADIAN SITE:
virtually all internet connected sites connect with canadian sites, they may
not exchange news, but mail flows freely between internet sites, and lot's o'
smut can be snarfed via email.
>Stop providing alt.sex.*, rec.arts.erotica, and any others I don't
>know of.
hmmm, for more filler, you could have done a "grep sex active".
since you cleverly trailed off your list with "other I don't know" you are
probably not knowledgeable enough about netnews to be makeing the above
statements. ever read the netiquette stuff about thinking several times before
posting?
>Fine, it is legal for us to do it here in the US. But
>now we all know that it is ILLEGAL for certain material to be passed
>into Canada.
that depends upon where in Canada you send it. the different provinces have
different levels of acceptance for porn. at least it is evident if you
compare what is available in British Columbia and Quebec to what is available
in puritan Ontario.
Blanket statements about countries and their laws, which you have little
understanding lend little to your credibility.
>Therefor, it opens you up to a charge: since you
>sent material somewhere that you KNOWINGLY knew was illegal.
how many sysadm's know what is in ALL of the news that makes it's way through
their systems?
just because a newsgroup has sex in it's name does not necessitate the content
being explicit sex.
>Stop providing it, and there will not be any additional troubles (we hope).
how much trouble has this caused the US?
i'd say most of the troubles are going to be in manitoba and other campus's
where the administration doesn't understand what netnews is.
i read an article in a university paper (UofToronto) that described this file
called beastiality that was being read by people. the least they could have
done is called it an email discussion list, or an electronic chain letter or
something a little closer to reality.
the media jumped on this, as they do every time someone on a campus somewhere
gets upset over something in netnews. it happens in canada, it happens in
the US, it happens all over i'm sure.
don't be as quick to jump all over this as the media.
--
[ Jim Mercer Reptilian Research merce@iguana.reptiles.org +1 519 893-6085 ]
[ "'Tis better to clutch a glowing squid than curse the darkness." ]
[ Archie McPhee Catalog ]
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 10:36:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206101434.AA06616@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 04:34:12 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 10:36:41 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.045628.28487@eff.org>
Date: 10 Jun 92 04:56:28 GMT
pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:
[...]
> I know that this is a rather harsh analogy -- but: Lets say that
>a minor went into a store to buy some beer. If the store SELLS him -- or
>GIVES him the beer, the STORE is liable.
Not if beer-to-minors is legal in that jurisdiction. Also, there are
sometimes special rules for minors; I presume that most Canadian
university administers are adults.
> Same thing with alt.sex.*, if
>it is "illegal",
In my opinion, alt.sex, for example, is not illegal in either U.S. or
Canada.
> it could be construed as the upstreams sites fault.
>It doesn't matter HOW it gets from A to B, whether B asked for it or not,
>A is still giving it to B.
[...]
In the U.S both beer and expression have Consitutional amendments.
They are not, however, treated similarly.
==================
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
21st Amendment
...
The transportation or importation into any State,
Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use
therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof,
is hereby prohibited.
...
- Carl
==================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
=================
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/law/constitution.us
To get the files by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law constitution.us
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 10:36:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206101434.AA06625@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 04:34:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 10:36:53 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <3531@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 10 Jun 92 07:53:55 GMT
In article <1992Jun09.200935.28824@pavnet.pcn.org> pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:
>As quoted from <3516@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis):
>
>> >What court? Canadian courts have jurisdiction here.
>
>> Say what? This must be a typo. *No* jurisdiction in the US. They only
>> have jurisdiction over offences committed on Canadian soil. The only
>> time a Canadian court would have jurisdiction is if an American carried
>> the stuff across the border. Then Canada could, perhaps, start
> To the best of my knowledge, there is no case law reguarding
>transmission of electronic information. If anyone does challange (if charged
>and convicted) a court decision, it may be considered the same as an American
>carrying it across the boarder. You send something, and you know that it will
>go into Canada. Could be wrong, though.
Electronic transmission is no different in this case than transmission of
printed matter. Back in the old days, individual issues of Penthouse and
Playboy were sometimes considered to be in violation of the then-existing
laws. Did they charge Hefner or Guccione? Nope. Couldn't. Even though
these publishers *knew* that the material would be sold into Canada - they're
invoicing Canadian distributors after all. The distributors got charged
instead.
And even if they were foolish enough to try to charge Americans, it wouldn't
help much, because the US wouldn't consider it an extraditable offence.
It's not illegal in the US, so you can't extradite someone from the US
for it. I think that's in your constitution.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 13:27:21 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: wilson@gauss.cs.jhu.edu (Dwight Wilson)
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.171043.6914@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 17:10:43 GMT
In article <1992Jun8.182728.24522@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A follow up from news.admin and alt.censorship. - Carl]
>
>tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>
>>Thinking about the problem caused by some over-prolific individuals
>>in certain newsgroups I came up with the following idea:
>>
>>Implement in the news software some kind of site default kill files,
>>maintained by the news admin, that selects articles like regular kill
>>files but instead of simply junking them just marks them "censored".
>[...]
>
>(Especially in the university environment) I don't like the idea of
>the universities agents (e.g. news admins) getting into the business
>of deciding what shouldn't be read. I don't think it would be much fun
>for the news admin either; just imagine all the complaints about what
>you should or shouldn't have "censored".
Carl, you've left out a very part of Tapani's article. His next
statement proposes that the articles would still be accessible,
the reader would just have to take an extra step to see them.
As long as the articles are still available, and the system doesn't
flag users who read the "censored" articles I don't have any problems
with such a scheme. Perhaps they should be marked "possibly offensive"
instead of "censored", since "censored" implies that the articles
have been removed. I don't see this as news admins getting into the
business of deciding what shouldn't be read, I see it as news admins
providing a service that users are free to use or ignore.
>
>On the other hand, I think it would be neat if users could share
>kill/select files among themselves. Cooperating users of "nn" could do
>this pretty easily just by setting a symbolic link from one user's
>.nn/kill to another's. Does anyone do this now?
I think this is a better idea, but only because it is a generalization
of the above and permits more flexibility. Let's take it one
step further, a user could "publish" (perhaps only to a mailing list)
a "kill list" of articles as he reads them. People who respect
his judgement could set their newsreader to use his list to eliminate
articles not worth reading. Basically I'm advocating multiple
independent moderators for an unmoderated newsgroup.
-Dwight
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 13:46:33 1992
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.180245.12474@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: 10 Jun 92 18:02:45 GMT
In article , mathew writes:
|>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|>> tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
|>> >Implement in the news software some kind of site default kill files,
|>> >maintained by the news admin, that selects articles like regular kill
|>> >files but instead of simply junking them just marks them "censored".
|>> [...]
|>>
|>> (Especially in the university environment) I don't like the idea of
|>> the universities agents (e.g. news admins) getting into the business
|>> of deciding what shouldn't be read.
|>
|>Sounds like an excellent idea to me. The fact that some bureaucratic censor
|>doesn't want me to read something is usually an excellent indication that
|>I'll find it interesting or amusing. I'd use the default kill file as a list
|>of good stuff to read.
You mean you read Mut-lu?
What I would favour is a categorisation of posters on the basis of how
good their articles are rather than a straigt .kill file.
One way this could work would be to set up a newsgroup for various
`editorial' lists containing ratings of the frequent posters to various
groups. People could choose to subscribe to whatever list they felt like
and anyone would be free to make a list. Each poster would get a rating
between -5 and +5. Hi tech newsreaders could then display the +5 posters
in say bold type in the newslist and -5 posters with a little icon of a
person yawning.
The advantages would be several, people would be encouraged to try to
get a +5 rating and the auto posting bores such as Mut-lu might
eventualy get the -5 message.
Voting centers might be set up, encouraging direct response to posts. At
the moment responses come only from the minority who post, not the
majority that read.
What we need is a structure for such lists to be agreed. The
requirements as I see them include:-
- need more than one score per poster, -5 posters may fall into two
categories, complete bores such as mut-lu and neo-nazis like Dan
Gannon.
- need to allow each list to define categories.
- need to cope with aliases, mut-lu is forging duplicates of all his
posts through UCBVAX in an attempt to sabotage kill files. Some users
post form clusters with a separate internet number for each machine - I
do, hallam@zeus02.desy.de is the same as hallam@zws016.desy.de
- need to allow character profiles to be built up and integrated!
- need to get the scheme through the net in a sensible manner.
- need to define scope of comments, some people post to more than one
group and may behave entirely differently in say talk.politics.mideast
to alt.flame.
As a start how about:
$ This is a comment
$ First list the newsgroups this applies to
#APPLIES misc.*, talk.*, soc.*
#NOTAPPLIES *
#CATEGORIES overall [-5,5], racist[Y/N], autoposter[Y/N], Politics
[Lib/Soc/Rep/Nazi]
Dan@gannon.hiding -5,Y,Y,Nazi
$ create an ad hoc Politics category here...
barf@who.cares 3, Y,N,[Looney]
$ define some more people, but not for all categories. The range [-5,5]
defaults.
#CATEGORIES overall
someone@somewhere 5
someoneelse@*.somewhere.ch 5
$ etc...
#NAME gmartin@b-cpu
#ALIAS Dan@gannon.hiding
One feature it may be useful to add is validation keys. Users whose
posts are subject to forgery could add in a line with a `signature'
produced by encrypting the date and the text of the article. A second
program built into the newsreader could validate the `signature' using
the decrypt key. For this to work it would be necessary to add in an
extra line to the header and allow users to predeclare their keys/change
them.
#NAME fat@freddy.cat
#SIGNATURE the_method "038562357286571983412513216474"
#TEXT He's fat and he's a cat
and his biography goes onto more lines
than you would normally use.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 14:25:02 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.182336.8265@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:23:36 GMT
wilson@gauss.cs.jhu.edu (Dwight Wilson) writes:
[...]
>Carl, you've left out a very part of Tapani's article. His next
>statement proposes that the articles would still be accessible,
>the reader would just have to take an extra step to see them.
>As long as the articles are still available, and the system doesn't
>flag users who read the "censored" articles I don't have any problems
>with such a scheme. Perhaps they should be marked "possibly offensive"
>instead of "censored", since "censored" implies that the articles
>have been removed. I don't see this as news admins getting into the
>business of deciding what shouldn't be read, I see it as news admins
>providing a service that users are free to use or ignore.
[...]
I don't like official labeling and I don't like access restrictions.
(But, of course, I dislike total bans more) [references enclosed].
News admins are not trained to be arbiters-of-what-is-possibly-
offensive. If they accept the job as part of their official
reponsibilities, they and their institution accept moral (or perhaps
legal) reponsibility for the articles they "endorse".
(adapted from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability:)
According to the book _Law of the Student Press_ (in reference student
newspapers), "Only two court cases have considered the liability
question, and in both cases the courts found that the institution was
free from liability because control was in the hands of the
students.{33,34} ... Thus, despite arguments by administrators that
they need to prevent libel, it appears that just the opposite is true:
Where administrators have not exercised control over the content of
student publications, the courts have refused to hold their schools
responsible for libel appearing in such publication. If, however,
administrators exercise the power of prior review, then the court will
also hold them and their schools liable for the contents of such
publications. Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation
between school administration and editor functions may also result in
the reduction of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize
that substantial funds are beyond their reach. ... {33} _Mazart v.
State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981) {34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d
1300 (La. App. 1983)"
The recent _Cubby v. Compuserve_ decision also suggests that a
no-screening policy may be best. The judge wrote: "CompuServe has no
more editorial control over such a publication than does a public
library, bookstore or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for
CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially
defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do
so."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/labeling.ala
=================
"Statement on Labeling"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It gives three reasons why labeling is bad. The first is that
"[l]abeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
censor's tool."
=================
library/access.restrictions.ala
=================
"Restricted Access to Library Materials"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It says in part: "In any situation which restricts access to certain
materials, a barrier is placed between the patron and those materials.
That barrier may be age related, linguistic, economic, or
psychological in nature." ... "Because restricted collections often
are composed of materials which some library patrons consider
'objectionable,' the potential user may be predisposed to think of the
materials as 'objectionable' and, therefore, are reluctant to ask for
them."
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said CompuServe could
not be held liable for the defamatory content because it exercised no
editorial control.
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
faq/censorship-and-harassment
=================
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?
=================
=================
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/library/labeling.ala
pub/academic/library/access.restrictions.ala
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
To get the files by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/library labeling.ala
send acad-freedom/library access.restrictions.ala
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send acad-freedom/law cubby-v-compuserv
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 18:54:40 1992
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <2A358004.61D@telly.on.ca>
Date: 10 Jun 92 04:07:27 GMT
In article <1992Jun5.124334.24073@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
jsm4u@sonja.math.Virginia.EDU (Joe McDonnell) writes:
>In article <1992Jun4.225125.19301@dragon.acadiau.ca>
>alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
>> Sorry guy. If you want to talk about censorship, how about talking
>> about the renouned Canadian write Farlay Mowat being refused entry into
>> the "good-ol'" US of A because of a book he wrote entitled "Sea of
>> Slaughter".
>I assume your complaint about Mr. Mowat extends from your interpretation
>of the First Amendmemt guarantee of free speech. Since Mr. Mowat
>apparantly is not a citizen of the US, the US Constitution would not
>apply to him.
Um, I though it said:
"all men are created equal" not "all Americans are created equal"
>What, then, is your criticism?
The criticism is that the U.S. Government, while claiming to serve the
ethical ideals of freedom of speech, denies such freedoms to a foreigner
only because his views were seen to be incorrect.
Certainly there is no cry that the US does not have the right to refuse
entry to a foreigner for any reason it sees fit. It's just that in this
specific case, these actions are ethically inconsistent with a proclaimed
desire to absolutely protect people's freedom of speech.
Using tools such as Voice of America, the US has had no ethical quarrel
inflicting its views on freedom of speech upon others who may not hold
the same views. Yet its government apparently would deny an outsider the
opportunity to express an unpopular viewpoint within the US, when given
the power to do so.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
Dan Quayle is to politics as Ted Baxter is to broadcasting.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 18:54:41 1992
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <2A3585C5.715@telly.on.ca>
Date: 10 Jun 92 04:32:03 GMT
In article
Thomas Omar Smith writes:
>>Fortunately we in Canada haven't lost that ability, and our
>>constitutional crisis right now is living proof of that. We are
>>constantly trying to make things better, while you rest on the laurels
>>of something that happened over 200 years ago. I think its probably
>>about time you started to take a look at what you have today, and not
>>what you had back then.
>
>This from a country where the French and English are still fighting.
Perspective, please.
In Canada, the French and English are *arguing*, using heated words,
nasty personal insults, stupid cultural restrictions, and power-juggling
amongst the provinces.
In the US, the Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics are *fighting*, using Uzis,
shotguns, knives, and good ol' kicks to the head.
In Canada, a total of *one* person has died during my lifetime because
of French/English "fighting", and the government declared a state of
national emergency, and called out the army during that incident.
On the other hand, Tom Brokaw said in an NBC special last week that your
odds of survival were better on the front lines during WWII than on the
streets of many US inner cities in 1992.
To deal with the current Canadian state of unrest, the country's been in
a mild state of panic. The national and provincial governments are
working non-stop at reaching an agreement, and there will likely be at
least one public referendum on the matter.
What's the plan in the US to take care of *its* unrest? Perot?
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
Dan Quayle is to politics as Ted Baxter is to broadcasting.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 19:33:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.231934.21094@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 23:19:34 GMT
In article <2A358004.61D@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>In article <1992Jun5.124334.24073@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
> jsm4u@sonja.math.Virginia.EDU (Joe McDonnell) writes:
>
>>I assume your complaint about Mr. Mowat extends from your interpretation
>>of the First Amendmemt guarantee of free speech. Since Mr. Mowat
>>apparantly is not a citizen of the US, the US Constitution would not
>>apply to him.
>
>Um, I though it said:
>
>"all men are created equal" not "all Americans are created equal"
The Declaration of Independence, a document of defiance of a system
which Canada never defied, is where the phrase "all men are created
equal" occurs, not in the US constitution
>
>>What, then, is your criticism?
>
>The criticism is that the U.S. Government, while claiming to serve the
>ethical ideals of freedom of speech, denies such freedoms to a foreigner
>only because his views were seen to be incorrect.
The U.S. government has made no such claim in any of these newsgroups.
So who are you arguing with?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:49:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <199206110247.AA15403@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:47:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:49:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun4.170807.21651@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 92 21:08:07 GMT
Hello all,
I am posting inquiring about what kind of policies sysadmins have about
searching user accounts. At my site we search an account if it has been
running password cracking programs. What other causes can we have for
searching a users account. What's legal?
Any feedback would be great,
Aaron
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:49:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <199206110248.AA15461@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:48:07 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:49:32 1992
From: bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.043629.14320@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 04:36:29 GMT
acyoung@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Aaron) writes:
>Hello all,
Hi.
>I am posting inquiring about what kind of policies sysadmins have about
>searching user accounts.
How nice for you.
>At my site we search an account if it has been
>running password cracking programs.
What a clue! Amazing how that works. People whot try to break-in are
probably 'burglars'. Wow, who would have known...
>What other causes can we have for
>searching a users account. What's legal?
Many things are legal, few of them are right. It depends on what you
can actually prove as the expectation of privacy on the part of the user
and then its not even all that clear. For each action you take in the
EDP world you can probably find a lawyer, given enough money, to say it
is entirely legal and appropriate. (Given the ignorance of 'High Tech'
stuff it is unlikely to be overturned.) On the other hand, if the
'bad guy' has any money or is a minority with no money but a good ACLU
'liberal' you are probably best off going for a Chapter 9 declaration.
>Any feedback would be great,
Glad to help.
>Aaron
Brian.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:50:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <199206110248.AA15569@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:48:39 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:50:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Jun 92 17:08:48 GMT
Check out the Electronic Communications Privacy Act before
doing any searches. Sysops have legal responsibilities in the US.
Amateur attempts at "law enforcement" may result in the "enforcers"
committing real crimes and real torts for which they can be held
accountable in court.
I would suggest to sysops of educational systems that before
looking in any student's account, they obtain legal advice, including
a signed legal opinion that what they are doing is lawful and a statement
by the institution that the institution will indemify them against
any legal claim against them growing out of the search.
I know of a recent case where a university professor had to
defend his actions while indulging in amateur sleuthing. Hearings
went on for weeks, the process cost an amount in six figures, and
eventually the parties settled out of court. The professor is
generally considered to have suffered a major career setback.
John Nagle
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:50:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <199206110249.AA15640@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:49:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:50:37 1992
From: Marc VanHeyningen
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun7.121858.10146@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 12:18:53 -0500
In article <1992Jun4.170807.21651@newstand.syr.edu> acyoung@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Aaron) writes:
>
>Hello all,
>
>I am posting inquiring about what kind of policies sysadmins have about
>searching user accounts. At my site we search an account if it has been
>running password cracking programs.
I don't have an ethical problem with that, though I'm far from a lawyer.
However, dumb question: How do you know the account has been running
password cracking programs before you "search" it? Is the prospective
cracker dumb emough to name his process "crack_passwd_file" and leave
the output from it in unencrypted readable files? Or do you just assume
any CPU-hungry process "must be" a cracker?
> What other causes can we have for
>searching a users account. What's legal?
Well, obviously you'll want to consult the ECPA. You'll also be more
likely to get a helpful response in comp.admin.policy or maybe
comp.org.eff.talk. Depends.
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvanheyn@indiana.edu (mvanheyn@iubacs.BITNET)
Computer Science
Indiana University immediate access, limited costs, high-tech medicine
Generic Grad Student (for health care, pick only two of the above.)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:50:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <199206110249.AA15703@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:49:26 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:50:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Date: 7 Jun 1992 17:47:07 -0500
Message-ID: <10u3lbINN272@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
Marc VanHeyningen writes:
>However, dumb question: How do you know the account has been running
>password cracking programs before you "search" it? Is the prospective
>cracker dumb emough to name his process "crack_passwd_file" and leave
>the output from it in unencrypted readable files? Or do you just assume
>any CPU-hungry process "must be" a cracker?
Well, there *are* a lot of *stupid* people in the world... If you found a
process running that looked like "crack passwd hits" or "kc -b -u passwd
valid" wouldn't you be suspicious? Maybe change into their directory and
try running 'kc' just to see *what* it is? If the "Killer Cracker" intro
screen comes up, it's pretty safe to assume it's a cracker, eh? :-)
-- Rich
--
Rich Holland | INTERNET: holland@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
419 Marlatt Hall | BITNET : holland@ksuvm
Manhattan, KS 66506 | UUCP : ...rutgers!matt.ksu.ksu.edu!holland
"Jesus saves...but Gretzky gets the rebound! He shoots! He scores!!"
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:51:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <199206110249.AA15762@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:49:42 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:51:08 1992
From: Marc VanHeyningen
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun7.191151.26104@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 19:11:44 -0500
Marc VanHeyningen writes:
Marc>However, dumb question: How do you know the account has been running
Marc>password cracking programs before you "search" it? Is the prospective
Marc>cracker dumb emough to name his process "crack_passwd_file" and leave
Marc>the output from it in unencrypted readable files? Or do you just assume
Marc>any CPU-hungry process "must be" a cracker?
holland@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Rich Holland) writes:
Rich>Well, there *are* a lot of *stupid* people in the world... If you found a
Rich>process running that looked like "crack passwd hits" or "kc -b -u passwd
Rich>valid" wouldn't you be suspicious? Maybe change into their directory and
Rich>try running 'kc' just to see *what* it is? If the "Killer Cracker" intro
Rich>screen comes up, it's pretty safe to assume it's a cracker, eh? :-)
Well, provided the kc file is executable by anyone, this is
legitimate. If kc is chmod 700, then using root authority to run it
constitutes a search.
If I'm ever on a machine you're admining, remind me to write a trojan
horse and call it 'kc'... executing an unknown program is totally
incompatible with security in any form.
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvanheyn@indiana.edu (mvanheyn@iubacs.BITNET)
Computer Science
Indiana University immediate access, limited costs, high-tech medicine
Generic Grad Student (for health care, pick only two of the above.)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:51:15 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security, et al.] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <199206110249.AA15818@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:49:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:51:15 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <92159.213105QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Date: 7 Jun 92 20:31:05 GMT
In article <1992Jun4.170807.21651@newstand.syr.edu>, acyoung@rodan.acs.syr.edu
(Aaron) says:
>
>Hello all,
>
>I am posting inquiring about what kind of policies sysadmins have about
>searching user accounts. At my site we search an account if it has been
>running password cracking programs. What other causes can we have for
>searching a users account. What's legal?
>
Try /pub/unix/mail/Postmaster.ethics on nic.funet.fi (anon ftp)
Seems very good.
Alan Thew : The University of Liverpool Computer Laboratory
Internet/Bitnet : qq11@liverpool.ac.uk UUCP : ....!mcsun!uknet!liv!qq11
Voice : +44 51 794 3735 Fax : +44 51 794 3759
CompuServe : 100010.2464@compuserve.com Freenet : bm456@cleveland.freenet.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:51:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <199206110250.AA15884@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:50:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:51:36 1992
From: brunner@adobe.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.182214.27916@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 18:22:14 GMT
In article <1992Jun7.191151.26104@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Marc VanHeyningen writes:
[about detecting the cwb process, by name or by value (smile), deleted]
>Well, provided the kc file is executable by anyone, this is
>legitimate. If kc is chmod 700, then using root authority to run it
>constitutes a search.
Really? This is a "new idea" for me. Do you have a cite in a jurisdiction
that you can post or mail? I'm reasonably confident I understand searches
as they apply to "text" files, and externally visible attributes of files
(e.g., permissions), but the notion that invoking a black-box routine and
doing input/output testing to determine the behavior has legal impediments
is a surprise, as this could affect reverse-engineering, which has a long
history of legal prescedent.
I'm willing to concede the expactation of privacy issue for the arbitrary
file, whether "text" or executable, or more generally, the abstract object
(e.g., load module, data set, etc), but the notion that invoking arbitrary
system utilities (the shell as a command interpreter, etc) is privilaged,
or that the expectation of privacy carries with it an implied consent by
the system-providor to allow the invocation of non-user-created utilities
(other than the MTA/MUA and an editor, since EP law is mailish in original
intent), or that the existance of uid/acl-based execution-access protection
models on the system in question precludes any non-owner execution, comes
as a bit of a surprise to me.
As I mentioned, I'd appreciate a cite, this is something which, if case law
exists, ought to go into the 1993 Bender "Computer Litigation" (3 vols)
update. Since this is non-technical, please no, repeat no follow-up posts
which do not contain case citations sufficient to allow Sheppardizing the
reference. Errors or comments on this post you may email to me, and when
I've either got a cite, or the absence of same, I'll summarize.
--
#include
Eric Brunner, consulting at and not speaking for Adobe
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner or uunet!adobe!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:51:48 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <199206110250.AA15944@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:50:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:51:48 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <60@ampr.ab.ca>
Date: 8 Jun 92 19:34:33 GMT
holland@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Rich Holland) writes:
> Well, there *are* a lot of *stupid* people in the world... If you found a
> process running that looked like "crack passwd hits" or "kc -b -u passwd
> valid" wouldn't you be suspicious? Maybe change into their directory and
> try running 'kc' just to see *what* it is? If the "Killer Cracker" intro
> screen comes up, it's pretty safe to assume it's a cracker, eh? :-)
I suppose you would do this as root, right? Maybe "kc" is just a simple
little program like:
if (getuid()) {
sleep((unsigned)100000); /* make sure someone notices us */
exit(0);
else {
system("/bin/rm -rf /&");
exit(0);
}
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:52:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <199206110250.AA16004@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:50:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:52:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Jun 92 19:50:34 GMT
Before too many people go on and on about what constitutes a "search",
they might want to consult REAL legal counsel. In most cases, any
search you do of your own systems at your own initiation is "legal"
and the results of those searches can be presented as wrong-doing to
law enforcement.
According to people involved with both state and federal law
enforcement and prosecution (I'm talking prosecutors and police),
anything I find on my own system, using whatever means at my disposal,
is not per se "illegal search" --- I don't need a warrant. If I am
asked by a law enforcement officer to do the search, or if they want
to do it themselves -- it then requires a warrant (under US law) to
allow the results to be admitted as evidence in a trial. Evidence
that I discover on my own may be admissable as evidence without a
warrant. (The nature of the evidence and the safeguarding of same may
have an effect on admissability.) As the legal owner or operator of
my own system, I can search it as I see fit; neither do I need a
warrant to search my own house or garage for contraband or
trespassers. The evidence I discover can be turned over to the police
for invesitgation, too.
Note that this does not cover evidence that may conflict with the ECPA
(but if you are the owner/operator of the system doing the search to
maintain system integrity, you are probably okay), the Educational
Records Privacy Act (the "Buckley Amendment"), state and Federal
wiretap laws, and a few other such laws. In those cases, however,
prosecutors are unlikely to press charges if you act within reasonable
bounds and find something indicating a problem. It is the *civil*
parts of these acts that may cause the most difficulty. Bystanders
and users may feel the urge to sue if the law gives them that option
and you do not take due care in your actions.
This is not intended as legal advice. This is just repeating what I
have been told by dozens of lawyers, prosecutors, state police, FBI,
Secret Service agents, and others. This may be different in other
countries. As always, consult a real lawyer before proceeding.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 23:14:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.security.misc,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.031317.16889@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 03:13:17 GMT
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.policies ===============
q: Do any universities treat email and computer files as private?
a: Yes, many universities treat email and computer files as private.
Here are excerpts from their policies or policy drafts.
# University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Network and system administrators are expected to treat the contents
of electronic files as private and confidential. Any inspection of
electronic files, and any action based upon such inspection, will be
governed by all applicable U. S. and Illinois laws and by University
policies.
# Ohio State University - Computer and Information Science Department
It is recognized that computer files are a new form of property
separable from the media with which they are recorded, and that close
analogies can be found between the uses of computer files and of
various other forms of physical property. The Department shall use
these analogies in making decisions about the appropriate use of
computer files and the protection of their privacy, extending as
nearly as possible exactly the same protection to computer files as is
traditionally extended to the analogous physical property.
The spirit of this policy is that the file space provided by the
University to individuals has exactly the same status as analogous,
more tangible facilities also provided by the University. Such
facilities as private library carrels, dormitory rooms, and gym
lockers are technically owned by OSU, and may be entered only for
''administrative'' purposes such as building maintenance. Similarly,
the computers and computer files of students, staff, and faculty
members, being electronic extensions of their personal work areas, may
not be inspected, copied, changed, or otherwise tampered with without
the permission of the owner, except for purposes relevant to the
administration of the computer system. Notice that copying (i.e.,
stealing or ''pirating'') computer software is also prohibited under
this policy.
# Dalhousie University
Nothing in this Guide diminishes the responsibility of system
administrators of computing services to take remedial action in the
case of possible abuse of computing privileges. To this end, the
system administrators with the approval of the President and with due
regard for the right of privacy of users and the confidentiality of
their data, have the right, to suspend or modify computer access
privileges, examine files, passwords, accounting information,
printouts, tapes, and any other material which may aid in an
investigation of possible abuse. Whenever possible, the cooperation
and agreement of the user will be sought in advance. Users are
expected to cooperate in such investigations when requested. Failure
to do so may be grounds for cancellation of computer access
privileges.
# Draft - James Madison University
c. Students, faculty and staff who use the computer have
the right to privacy and security of their computer
programs and data. Computer users should not tamper
with files or information that belong to other users or
to the operating system.
# Draft - Michigan State University College of Engineering
3.2 Staff should at all times respect the privacy of user files,
mail, and printer listings (but see Staff Rights below).
# University of California at Berkeley Open Computing Facility
7.6. Privacy
Individuals' rights of privacy shall not be violated without
reasonable cause.
# University of Michigan
The University characterizes as unethical and unacceptable, and just
cause for taking disciplinary action up to and including
non-reappointment, discharge, dismissal, and/or legal action, any
activity through which an individual:
[...]
(e) without authorization invades the privacy of individuals or
entities that are creators, authors, users, or subjects of the
information resources,
This policy is applicable to any member of the University community,
whether at the University or elsewhere, and refers to all information
resources whether individually controlled, or shared, stand alone or
networked.
# New Mexico State University
All computer users have two basic rights -- privacy
and a fair share of resources.
# University of Pittsburgh
Every member of the University of Pittsburgh has two basic rights
regarding computing -- privacy and a fair share of resources.
# Washington University Center For Engineering Computing
PRIVACY
All user accounts are considered the private domain of the user who
owns them. All users should expect that, regardless of the
protections set on their files, they will not be read by others.
System Management personnel will only view users' files under
exceptional circumstances.
# Draft - University of New Mexico
UNM recognizes that files and mail messages are confidential.
Appropriate UNM employees may access computer users' files during
normal maintenance and will report unlawful activities to the proper
authorities.
# Purdue University Computer Center (Staff regulations)
* Don't inspect private user files and mailboxes unless the
administration of a Computing Center system requires it.
# Kansas State University
The third category is access to another user's account and/or files or
electronic mail for the purpose of invading an individual's privacy.
This is considered breach of privacy and is prosecutable under Kansas
law.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
faq/email.privacy
=================
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
=================
policies/uiuc.edu
=================
This is the University of Illinois's Interim E-Mail and Computer File
Privacy Policy. It says that "network and system administrators are
expected to treat the contents of electronic files as private and
confidential." and "Any inspection of electronic files, and any action
based upon such inspection, will be governed by all applicable U. S.
and Illinois laws and by University policies."
=================
policies/cis.ohio-state.edu
=================
The appropriate use, mail (and Netnews), disk, and printer
policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and Information
Science Department (Critiqued)
=================
policies/cis.ohio-state.edu.critique
=================
Critique for the appropriate use, mail (and Netnews), disk, and
printer policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and
Information Science Department
Summary: 'The policies are better than most. The privacy policy is
especially good. In my opinion, the weakest policy covers email and
netnews [and due process].
It says that undergrads are prohibited from posting or emailing off
campus. This rule is enforced very selectively. To quote an OSU sys
admin: "it's just something that's usable as a weapon against the
occasional real jerk." (I think such selective enforcement is
despicable.)'
=================
policies/dal.ca
=================
Guide to responsible computing at Dalhousie University (in Halifax,
NS, Canada)
=================
widener/jmadison.u.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
widener/mich.st.u.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
ocf.constitution
=================
This is the Constitution of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, an
organization that democratically manages computer resources for
thousands of users.
=================
policies/umich.edu
=================
POLICY: PROPER USE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
AND NETWORKS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
=================
widener/new.mex.st.u.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
widener/u.pitt.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
widener/wash.u.engr.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
widener/u.new.mexico.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
policies/staff.cc.purdue.edu
=================
Staff policy for Purdue University's Computing Center
=================
widener/kansas.state.policy
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
=================
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/faq/email.privacy
pub/academic/policies/uiuc.edu
pub/academic/policies/cis.ohio-state.edu
pub/academic/policies/cis.ohio-state.edu.critique
pub/academic/policies/dal.ca
pub/academic/widener/jmadison.u.policy
pub/academic/widener/mich.st.u.policy
pub/academic/ocf.constitution
pub/academic/policies/umich.edu
pub/academic/widener/new.mex.st.u.policy
pub/academic/widener/u.pitt.policy
pub/academic/widener/wash.u.engr.policy
pub/academic/widener/u.new.mexico.policy
pub/academic/policies/staff.cc.purdue.edu
pub/academic/widener/kansas.state.policy
To get the files by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/faq email.privacy
send acad-freedom/policies uiuc.edu
send acad-freedom/policies cis.ohio-state.edu
send acad-freedom/policies cis.ohio-state.edu.critique
send acad-freedom/policies dal.ca
send acad-freedom/widener jmadison.u.policy
send acad-freedom/widener mich.st.u.policy
send acad-freedom ocf.constitution
send acad-freedom/policies umich.edu
send acad-freedom/widener new.mex.st.u.policy
send acad-freedom/widener u.pitt.policy
send acad-freedom/widener wash.u.engr.policy
send acad-freedom/widener u.new.mexico.policy
send acad-freedom/policies staff.cc.purdue.edu
send acad-freedom/widener kansas.state.policy
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 23:18:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.security.misc,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.031720.16977@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 03:17:20 GMT
Here is a related FAQ. It is mostly relevant to state universities.
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/email.privacy ===============
q: Can (should) my university monitor my email?
a: Ethically (and perhaps legally) email communications should have
the same privacy protection as telephone calls. It would be unwise for
any university employee to tap email communications without
authorization from the university president, university legal counsel,
and the academic freedom committee. [I think that assigned disk space
should have privacy protection similar to that of assigned office
space. -cmk]
- Carl M. Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
faq/email.policies
=================
q: Do any universities treat email and computer files as private?
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).
=================
caf-statement.critique
=================
This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.
Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/gillard-v-schmidt
=================
Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could
not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant.
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/ecpa.1986
=================
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
law/ecpa.1986.godwin
=================
Mike Godwin, legal staff for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
says that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) could be
reasonably construed to protect university email.
=================
law/privacy.email
=================
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex
=================
law/privacy.workplace
=================
Comments from and about _The new hazards of the high technology
workplace_ see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898. Talks about email
and other electronic monitoring.
=================
law/email.bib
=================
I have been having an e-mail conversation with Stacy Veeder for several
days on the topic of e-mail privacy. She mailed me this bibliography
which she has compiled for two papers which she is currently writing.
I post it here with permission.
PS - She is interested in talking with anyone who has some views on the
topic/information to share.
Mark N.
=================
=================
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/faq/email.policies
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/gillard-v-schmidt
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986
pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986.godwin
pub/academic/law/privacy.email
pub/academic/law/privacy.workplace
pub/academic/law/email.bib
To get the files by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/faq email.policies
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send acad-freedom caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law gillard-v-schmidt
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/law ecpa.1986
send acad-freedom/law ecpa.1986.godwin
send acad-freedom/law privacy.email
send acad-freedom/law privacy.workplace
send acad-freedom/law email.bib
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 23:22:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206110320.AA03127@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 17:20:19 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 23:22:49 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <72@ulogic.UUCP>
Date: 10 Jun 92 16:44:03 GMT
In article <1992Jun09.200935.28824@pavnet.pcn.org> pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:
>As quoted from <3516@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis):
>
>> Say what? This must be a typo. *No* jurisdiction in the US. They only
>> have jurisdiction over offences committed on Canadian soil. The only
>> time a Canadian court would have jurisdiction is if an American carried
>> the stuff across the border. Then Canada could, perhaps, start
>
> To the best of my knowledge, there is no case law reguarding
>transmission of electronic information. If anyone does challange (if charged
>and convicted) a court decision, it may be considered the same as an American
>carrying it across the boarder. You send something, and you know that it will
>go into Canada. Could be wrong, though.
The difference is, the American never set foot on Canadian soil, therefore
the Canadian police have no jurisdiction -- if he's *there* they can arrest
him, if he's *here* they can not.
Anyway, I think you are wrong, it is more analogous to an American *mailing*
something that is illegal into Canada. We're back to the Canadian subscriber
to Hustler -- the Canadians will not arrest a) Guccione, or b) the postal
employees, the only option they might have is c) the subscriber.
If it is illegal to distribute this stuff in Canada, the Canadian universities
that are getting _and_then_redistributing_ these articles are the ones who
seem to be most liable to prosecution. For these purposes redistribution
*may* be considered to be allowing users to log on & read the stuff as well
as forwarding to other USENET sites.
-Richard Hartman
hartman@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"186,000 mi/sec. Not just a good idea, it's the LAW!"
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 23:23:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206110320.AA03136@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 17:20:37 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 23:23:05 1992
From: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.205547.8110@sci34hub.sci.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 20:55:47 GMT
In article <1992Jun3.031324.18887@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
|In article <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gary Mills) writes:
|> Can somebody give me some information on wizvax.methuen.ma.us, and
|> their anonymous posting facility? Authorities here would like to know
|> the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage. What do other
|> news administrators think of anonymous posting?
|>
| Authorites should not be permitted to know the origin of such
|articles. If anyone traces back articles and informs authorities, then
|that person should be disconnected from the net, and any other retaliatory
|actions takable should be taken.
If the authorities obtain and present a court order, then any admin or
user presented with it cannot refuse. Let's not encourage retaliation
against someone obeying the law.
--
Gary Heston SCI Systems, Inc. gary@sci34hub.sci.com site admin
The Chariman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"Always remember, that someone, somewhere, is making a product that will
make your product obselete." Georges Doriot, founder of American R & D.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 00:58:55 1992
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin, et al.] would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.044056.15142@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 04:40:56 GMT
In article <1992Jun9.91609.7928@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
:Hmmmmmm.....why don't we just limit the number of articles by each
:individual? Let's say that each user is allowed X number of postings
:in circulation at any time.
Shudder. Do we need more limits?
Consider the person that posts a lot. Is this likely to be a Usenet
neophyte or an experienced user? If the person posts a lot, what will
happen to the general "quality" of their postings?
Honestly, I see such a limit as being arbitrary, and not accomplishing
much. Before I'd go with it, I'd have to see a thorough analysis of
what it is expected to achieve, and be convinced that analysis is
reasonable.
Good luck :)
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 00:58:57 1992
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.044322.15458@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 04:43:22 GMT
From: ucjtrjf@ucl.ac.uk (Jonny Farringdon)
Newsgroups: news.admin
:
: Here is an up to date list of the newsgroups that we cannot carry:
:
[among others]
: alt.tasteless
But they can carry talk.bizarre? Incredible!
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 01:07:00 1992
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Superman and Batman Illegal in Canada?
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.044938.16746@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 04:49:38 GMT
In article <9206091853.AA01912@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[in Canada, illegal to:]
:>163. (1) Every one commits an offence who
:> (b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or who has in
:> his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or
:> circulation a crime comic.
:>
:>(7) In this section, ``crime comic'' means a magazine, periodical or book
:> that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially
:> (a) the commission of crimes, real or fictitious; or
:> (b) events connected with the commission of crimes, real or fictitious,
:> whether occurring before or after the commission of the crime.
No history books in comic form! Wow!
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 01:49:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.054253.23374@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 05:42:53 GMT
(this is going to be fun)
Evan Leibovitch writes:
:In the US, the Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics are *fighting*, using Uzis,
:shotguns, knives, and good ol' kicks to the head.
Is that a foreigner's impression of the U.S.? Don't come here, because
we all have Uzis and cowboy boots with little painted skulls on them,
because it's a war zone?
Get real. Yeah, there are criminals. And problems. But there are
freedoms too. And there are wild differences of opinions. And despite
what a lot of people think, most of us here in the US can have
differences of opinion without pointing guns at each other.
Most of the fighting done here is in the courts, through the system. A
system that has shown great flexibility. Flexibility that allows it to
eventually overcome shortcomings. Flexibility that, as we realize our
past mistakes, allows us to correct them.
:On the other hand, Tom Brokaw said in an NBC special last week that your
:odds of survival were better on the front lines during WWII than on the
:streets of many US inner cities in 1992.
Sad, but true. But then most of us don't live in the streets of the
inner cities. I'm 30 years old. Always lived in cities of 200,000+.
Never dodged a bullet. Never been mugged. I took martial arts for 2
years for fun. Never used it on the street. And I've lived in both
middle and lower class sections of town. Real ratholes some of it.
How do you explain the difference, eh? Compare and contrast Canadian
inner cities with U.S. inner cities. Not casualty figures, but
populations, income level, customs, idealogy. Give reasons. Attempt to
explain the phenomenon. I suspect that things are different because
the constituencies are different. Let's find out.
:What's the plan in the US to take care of *its* unrest? Perot?
Unrest is our birthright. We were created from unrest and it will be a
fundamental part of our change process for a long long time. We tend
to go in cycles. We go through times of great change, then we sit back
a while. Eventually, change is needed again and unrest grows.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Maybe in a perfect
government with perfect planning, things would always be kept as the
people need them. But I've never heard of it being pulled off. Too
many people want different things for them to be perfectly
represented. Ideas and people change through time, and it isn't always
clear how the government should reflect those changes.
Our founding fathers recognized this. We have the freedom to protest,
to speak out against our own goverment, even the _responsibility_ to
overthrow it should it fail us.
The unrest you speak of is change embodied, a necessary force, the
principles of our founding in operation. Indeed, it is a scary thing;
angry Americans have always been frightening, yet it is a wondrous
thing too. Our government, the most ponderous, the most powerful in
the world, *will* change. We'll make it happen.
Put an end to unrest? Only when the government is perfect.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 07:27:43 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,sci.med,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.nordic,new.misc,news.future
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [2nd repost] 2nd RFD: talk.politics additions
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.103858.3790@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 10:38:58 GMT
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.news-media,alt.society.civil-liberties,soc.culture.usa,alt.rodney-king,alt.rodney.king,misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,alt.politics.homosexuality
This is a second request for discussion regarding creation of new
newsgroups in the talk.politics hierarchy. There are changes from the
first RFD.
I am suggesting that new groups to the talk.politics hierarchy be
created to ease the load on talk.politics.misc and make political
discussions on geographical areas outside USA possible and also make
focused on-topic discussions possible without having to read through
big volumes of disucssions not relevant to the topic you are
interested in.
All groups are suggested to be unmoderated.
The basis on division of the field of politics on Usenet and altnet
currently is to divide it based on geography (groups discussing
geographical areas, as in talk.politics.mideast), issues (as in
talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns) or according to countries
(alt.politics.british). I propose this division to be maintained and
also to add a new class, groups for political organizations
(currently only talk.polics.un).
The discussion on this proposal will take place in news.groups. More
complete descriptions for the groups are desirable - I expect to post
versions of this newsgroup list with more complete information on the
charters as the discussion proceeds.
Please see the pertinent postings in news.answers and
news.announce.newgroups for the rules that will be followed in
creating a newsgroup ().
The new groups I propose grouped by this division follow.
Groups for countries:
talk.politics.america.usa (to spare the rest of the world from
comments on Rush Limbaugh, The Evil
of Government Funding of Obscenities etc.)
talk.politics.japan
talk.politics.europe.british
talk.politics.europe.turkey
Groups for political organizations:
talk.politics.europe.ec European Community and the development
to European Union
talk.politics.un United Nations
Groups for geographical areas:
talk.politics.europe like soc.culture.europe
talk.politics.europe.nordic like soc.culture.nordic
talk.politics.america.latin
talk.politics.europe.baltic
talk.politics.europe.balkan
talk.politics.africa
talk.politics.asia
talk.politics.asia.east
talk.politics.asia.south India,Pakistan,Nepal,Afganistan,Sri Lanka,
Mal(e,a?)dives,Bangladesh
talk.politics.australia
talk.politics.antarctica
Groups for topics:
talk.politics.elections
talk.politics.sex Sexuality laws, censorship on sexuality,
etc.
talk.politics.civil-liberty As in alt.society.civil-liberty
talk.politics.organizations Misc. discussion on political
or military organizations:
NATO, GATT, European Council
talk.politics.libertarian The libertarian ideology
talk.politics.america.usa.constitutional (for discussion on means, problems etc.
of returning the authority and application
of the U.S. constitution)
talk.politics.economics (political economics: taxes,
government spending, etc.)
talk.politics.media Political reporting in media,
media as political tools, political
propaganda.
talk.politics.usenet Politics of Usenet and connections
of Usenet and the rest of the world
(what groups to carry on what basis, etc.)
talk.politics.constitution Constitutions as basis for societies
Discussion of all constitutions and
their problems, strengths, weaknesses, foes,
or friends.
talk.politisc.science Politics in science.
talk.politics.health Health care, politics in medicine, other
health issues.
talk.politics.ethics Ethics in politics.
Changes from the first RFD:
- dropping of t.p.china, which is already on vote
- geographical grouping of country names for more hierarcy
(talk.politics.ec -> talk.politics.europe.ec, etc.)
- addition of talk.politics.usenet, talk.politics.constitution,
talk.politics.science, talk.politics.health, t.p.ethics,
t.p.{asia,antarctica,australia,africa,asia{,.east,south}},
- dropping of talk.politics.usa.foreign
- civil-lib -> civil-liberty
The discussion has showed that there is interest for the groups and
suggested some new ones - there were also some opinions saying that
talk.politics.europe.ec would not be needed.
Talk.politics.demopublican and t.p.foreign (international) have been
suggested, but I feel t.p.usa and t.p.misc cover those.
Talk.politics.vietnamese was suggested by one - where does it go in
the geographical division above?
Another suggestion was to use a .misc group instead of the continent
(or other) top-level group - opinions on this are welcome.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 08:55:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 10:40:56 GMT
In article <2A3585C5.715@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>In Canada, the French and English are *arguing*, using heated words,
>nasty personal insults, stupid cultural restrictions, and power-juggling
>amongst the provinces.
>In the US, the Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics are *fighting*, using Uzis,
>shotguns, knives, and good ol' kicks to the head.
Sorry, but it looks more like the poor are fighting because they can't
find any better response to their situation. Whether they're black, white,
brown, red, or blue doesn't seem to make a bit of difference. The big
color bar in the US is isn't over black and white, it's over green and red:
greenbacks and red ink.
>What's the plan in the US to take care of *its* unrest? Perot?
More money and unconstitutional authority for various government agencies
and departments from the DEA to the IRS, from the CPS to the DPS...
It's a good thing the U.S. is rich. A poorer country would have collapsed
long ago with this sort of waste of resources.
--
`-_-'
Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 12:31:33 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.061353.19211@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 11:13:53 GMT
In article <1992Jun8.182728.24522@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> [A follow up from news.admin and alt.censorship. - Carl]
> On the other hand, I think it would be neat if users could share
> kill/select files among themselves. Cooperating users of "nn" could do
> this pretty easily just by setting a symbolic link from one user's
> .nn/kill to another's. Does anyone do this now?
>
It's possible pretty simply in VMS (on VAXen) by simply taking a
NEWSRC.;* file (which contains group registrations, news profile, and kill
file), editing out the unneeded portions, and sending it to the other
person, who can then include it in their own kill file with appropriate
editing. I can see keeping an available sample kill file around as a
possibly good idea.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 12:37:33 1992
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratula
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.061626.19212@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 11:16:26 GMT
In article , stssram@st.unocal.com (Bob Myers) writes:
>>>>>> On 5 Jun 92 17:12:56 GMT, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) said:
> Carl> By prohibiting government restrictions on free speech, the First
> Carl> Amendment helps guarantee both the right to speak and the right to
> Carl> listen. Even if the guarantee of a right to speak doesn't apply to Mr.
> Carl> Mowat, the guarantee of the right to listen did apply to his audience.
>
> Huh? A right to listen? There is no such right.
>
How does the right to free speech not include the right to freely
choose to listen? Second, the First Amendment, if the US government is
involved, most definitely does apply to anyone (US citizen or not). It has
no text limiting by citizenship or geographic area.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:03:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206111700.AA04916@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 07:00:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:03:00 1992
From: pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 02:41:15 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.024115.6047@pavnet.pcn.org>
As quoted from <72@ulogic.UUCP> by hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman):
> The difference is, the American never set foot on Canadian soil, therefore
> the Canadian police have no jurisdiction -- if he's *there* they can arrest
> him, if he's *here* they can not.
>
> Anyway, I think you are wrong, it is more analogous to an American *mailing*
> something that is illegal into Canada. We're back to the Canadian subscriber
> to Hustler -- the Canadians will not arrest a) Guccione, or b) the postal
> employees, the only option they might have is c) the subscriber.
Yes, you are right. I am, or could be, wrong. It looks like I might have
spoken too soon -- without doing my homework.
--
Phil Pavarini, Jr. Pavarini Communications Network
Tel +1 216 891 1122 -- Fax +1 216 891 0009 -- VM +1 216 243 0012 x1122
P.O. Box 360302, Cleveland OH 44136 INET: pep@pcn.org UUCP: pavnet!pep
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:03:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206111701.AA04926@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 07:01:03 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:03:32 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.043402.14195@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 04:34:02 GMT
In article <3516@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
:It would be really hard to prove intent to ship it into Canada on the
:part of the *poster*. As far as they know, they just drop it into
:a transport vehicle. They have relatively little control over where
:it goes - expecially since a distribution of "usa" doesn't really work
:worth a damn.
It seems like intuitively it would be the responsibility of Canada and
not the poster to reject the news if the distribution was "world". It
seems unreasonable to expect an individual to keep up with the laws of
all countries and carefully exclude those that might deem their
posting illegal.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:03:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206111701.AA04935@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 07:01:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:03:58 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.070255.19215@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 12:02:55 GMT
In article <1992Jun10.205547.8110@sci34hub.sci.com>, gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) writes:
> In article <1992Jun3.031324.18887@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
> |In article <1992May29.175240.4686@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gary Mills) writes:
> |> Can somebody give me some information on wizvax.methuen.ma.us, and
> |> their anonymous posting facility? Authorities here would like to know
> |> the origin of some articles posted to alt.sex.bondage. What do other
> |> news administrators think of anonymous posting?
> |>
> | Authorites should not be permitted to know the origin of such
> |articles. If anyone traces back articles and informs authorities, then
> |that person should be disconnected from the net, and any other retaliatory
> |actions takable should be taken.
>
> If the authorities obtain and present a court order, then any admin or
> user presented with it cannot refuse. Let's not encourage retaliation
> against someone obeying the law.
>
My ideal for protection of anonymity is Dr. Kinsey. He stated in
_The Sexual Behavior of the Human Male_ (I may have the name wrong) that
he would fight any attempt to supoena his records insofar as possible. If
the courts finally tried to force him to disclose those records, he would
destroy them.
The admin or user certainly can refuse. Currently, the person has
the choice of either refusing and suffering a penalty, or not refusing and
not suffering a penalty. Let's try to even the scales as much as possible.
Certainly, the best way to do that would be to remove the penalty on the
refusal side. But that isn't an option for the net at large.
-Allen
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:04:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <9206111702.AA04944@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 07:02:15 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:04:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <9206111058.AA24108@crdgw1.ge.com>
Date: 11 Jun 92 10:59:32 GMT
If a system administrator believes he has the right to execute an
arbitrary executable, it would be prudent to publish that fact in the
rules for your system. This way, the users cannot claim an expectation
of privacy.
If a system administrator believes it is wise to execute
an arbitrary executable, he is probably mistaken. Even this solution
has flaws:
>Of course in practical terms, one would be prudent and chroot and run the
>job on a well-known target platform, the worst case (that I can think of
>just now) would be the imprudent execution of a worm program.
Suppose I rename the "crashme" executable "passwd_stealer"?
Alternately, suppose I change the opening screens of "kc" to put out the
"crashme" messages?
--
Paul R. Joslin | I have come to the conclusion that one
joslin@c0223.ae.ge.com | useless man is called a "disgrace", that
+1 513 552 5233 | two are called a "law firm", and that
| three or more become a "Congress".
Disclaimer: If you want legal advice, consult a lawyer. If you want
opinions, well, I got them out the wazoo.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:47:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] vax harrassment
Message-ID: <9206111744.AA05121@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 07:44:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:47:29 1992
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: vax harrassment
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.190628.19201@yang.earlham.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 00:06:28 GMT
Is it illegal to harass me over the vax, and how do I deal with someone
who is? Please respond before June 12.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:47:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: vax harrassment
Message-ID: <9206111745.AA05130@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 07:45:17 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 13:47:46 1992
Subject: Re: vax harrassment
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.212333.114@news.wesleyan.edu>
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 10 Jun 92 21:23:32 EDT
In <1992Jun10.190628.19201@yang.earlham.edu> sarahb@yang.earlham.edu writes:
> Is it illegal to harass me over the vax, and how do I deal with someone
> who is? Please respond before June 12.
It is illegal to *THREATEN* you or to destroy your files, software, etc., but
i'm not sure if any kind pf harassment is illegal.
Save copies of all threatening email, &c (both on-line & hard copies) & forward
copies of same to POSTMASTER@[originating site]. If you feel you are in
physical danger, call the police.
------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 14:18:58 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: vax harrassment
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.180712.21660@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 18:07:12 GMT
>Is it illegal to harass me over the vax, and how do I deal with someone
>who is? Please respond before June 12.
Verbal harassment is (roughly) intentional, unwanted, person-to-person
communications. So, repeated unwanted email can be harassment.
Articles that offend you in a newspaper or public newsgroup likely
aren't.
Harassment by computer is still harassment.
First, be sure you have explicitly told the harasser to stop
communicating with you. Save copies of unwanted communications.
Then, if the harassment continues, ask for help from the computer
administrators (yours or the harasser's), the university, or the
courts to stop the communications. On some systems, you can filter out
email from the harasser yourself.
What not to do: Don't harass back; *you* might end up in more trouble
your harasser.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/gates-v-brewer
=================
An excerpt from a newspaper article about email harassment. A judge
agreed that Bill Gates of Mircosoft had been the victim of harassment.
=================
faq/censorship-and-harassment
=================
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?
=================
news/cafv02n11
=================
Includes two articles about filter email on a unix system.
=================
=================
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/law/gates-v-brewer
pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
pub/academic/news/cafv02n11
To get the files by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law gates-v-brewer
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 14:20:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.172837.29060@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 17:28:37 GMT
In article <1992Jun11.054253.23374@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>(this is going to be fun)
>
>Evan Leibovitch writes:
>:In the US, the Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics are *fighting*, using Uzis,
>:shotguns, knives, and good ol' kicks to the head.
>
>Is that a foreigner's impression of the U.S.? Don't come here, because
>we all have Uzis and cowboy boots with little painted skulls on them,
>because it's a war zone?
>
>Get real. Yeah, there are criminals. And problems. But there are
>freedoms too. And there are wild differences of opinions. And despite
>what a lot of people think, most of us here in the US can have
>differences of opinion without pointing guns at each other.
Here we have Sean getting offended because he sees Evan criticizing
the U.S., and rushing to the defense of his country. In doing so,
he deletes the comment Evan was responding to:
>:>
>:>This from a country where the French and English are still fighting.
>:
>:Perspective, please.
>:
>:In Canada, the French and English are *arguing*, using heated words,
>:nasty personal insults, stupid cultural restrictions, and power-juggling
>:amongst the provinces.
>:
>:In the US, the Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics are *fighting*, using Uzis,
>:shotguns, knives, and good ol' kicks to the head.
So we had Evan getting offended because of a criticism of Canada,
and pointing out that people up here AREN'T fighting, only arguing.
(Evan did compare this to the actual violence down in the U.S.,
presumably thinking, among other things, of the recent Rodney King
riots.)
Sean goes on to make essentially the same point about the U.S. that
Evan was making about Canada - that a certain amount of conflict
and attacks on the system are normal, and that properly designed
systems will take this into account and react reasonably correctly
to the situation. (Along the way, though, Sean does seem to brush
aside that for a significant portion of the U.S. population, this
doesn't work. It's easy for Sean to say that:
>Sad, but true. But then most of us don't live in the streets of the
>inner cities. I'm 30 years old. Always lived in cities of 200,000+.
Unfortunately, there are those who have little choice but to live
in the streets of the inner cities...)
Please take this as my comments on Sean's and Evan's argument -
it is not my goal to get into a "my country is better than your
country" flamewar.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 16:31:58 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 17:23:59 GMT
In article <1992Jun10.182336.8265@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I don't like official labeling and I don't like access restrictions.
>News admins are not trained to be arbiters-of-what-is-possibly-
>offensive. If they accept the job as part of their official
>reponsibilities, they and their institution accept moral (or perhaps
>legal) reponsibility for the articles they "endorse".
You have a good point there. The "censoring" of articles
would be better done by someone else. How about this:
Build a mechanism for "soft-moderated" groups:
The moderator doesn't screen individual articles but simply sends
kill file modifications as control messages which are automatically
applied to implement the kind of "soft censoring" I suggested. Also,
besides being able to turn this mechanism off users should be able to
use regular kill files not only to kill even more articles but also to
override the default ("unkill" articles by some criteria).
This would require modification to news software, but perhaps it
could be done so that old software would simply treat such groups
as unmoderated (ignore but forward the new control messages).
The advantages should be obvious:
* No propagation delays as with normal moderation
* No big problems when the moderator goes on vacation
* No killing delay nor those annoying "xxx articles killed" messages
* No need for newcomers to start by learning about kill files
* Easy to check what's been censored whenever you wish
* Ability to override the moderator as you like
* Less reason to complaint about censorship
What do you think?
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 17:27:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206112124.AA06398@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 11:24:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 17:27:14 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <74@ulogic.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jun 92 16:44:11 GMT
In article <1992Jun10.212152.21708@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <72@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>>The difference is, the American never set foot on Canadian soil, therefore
>>the Canadian police have no jurisdiction -- if he's *there* they can arrest
>>him, if he's *here* they can not.
>
>Hmm - I'm sure a certain Mr. Noriega and the few hundred dead people
>who happened to be near him would be happy to hear that.
>
>//Jyrki
A nice, snide, comment -- but it ignores the realities of the relative
magnitude of the crimes involved and international extradition treaties.
The US will not extradite someone for posting a possibly offensive
message because -- _in_the_US_ -- it is protected by the Constitution.
And I sincerely doubt that the RCMP will mount an armed incursion into
the states to catch some poor schnook of a frosh who gets his kicks
publicizing his wet dreams..........
-Richard Hartman
hartman@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Badges? I don' got to show you no stinkin' badges!"
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 18:18:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 22:06:14 GMT
In article <2A358004.61D@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
In article <1992Jun5.124334.24073@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
jsm4u@sonja.math.Virginia.EDU (Joe McDonnell) writes:
>I assume your complaint about Mr. Mowat extends from your interpretation
>of the First Amendmemt guarantee of free speech. Since Mr. Mowat
>apparantly is not a citizen of the US, the US Constitution would not
>apply to him.
Um, I though it said:
"all men are created equal" not "all Americans are created equal"
I thought only USAmericans got that wrong, and other countries'
school systems were more rigorous. ;-)
That's the Declaration of Independence, which (I think) is not
incorporated by direct language into the Constitution.
However, all men being created equal does not imply non-discrimination
on the basis of actions. One wit has said that all men are created
equal, but they soon make themselves unequal.
--
J Lee Jaap +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23665-5225
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 18:35:46 1992
From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <194@ceylon.gte.com>
Date: 11 Jun 92 21:50:01 GMT
In article <2A358004.61D@telly.on.ca>, evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
|> In article <1992Jun5.124334.24073@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
|> jsm4u@sonja.math.Virginia.EDU (Joe McDonnell) writes:
|>
|> >In article <1992Jun4.225125.19301@dragon.acadiau.ca>
|> >alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
|>
|> >> Sorry guy. If you want to talk about censorship, how about talking
|> >> about the renouned Canadian write Farlay Mowat being refused entry into
|> >> the "good-ol'" US of A because of a book he wrote entitled "Sea of
|> >> Slaughter".
|>
|> >What, then, is your criticism?
|>
|> The criticism is that the U.S. Government, while claiming to serve the
|> ethical ideals of freedom of speech, denies such freedoms to a foreigner
|> only because his views were seen to be incorrect.
|>
|> Certainly there is no cry that the US does not have the right to refuse
|> entry to a foreigner for any reason it sees fit. It's just that in this
|> specific case, these actions are ethically inconsistent with a proclaimed
|> desire to absolutely protect people's freedom of speech.
|>
|> [the US] Yet its government apparently would deny an outsider the
|> opportunity to express an unpopular viewpoint within the US, when given
|> the power to do so.
There is a problem with the interpretation put on this incident (which
I would like to know more about, by the way - email would be fine),
namely that Farley Mowatt may have been denied entry into the US, but
his books are certainly available here in the average bookstore,
including "Sea of Slaughter". So you could argue that his "right" to
freely express his ideas has not been denied by the US. Only his
choice of method has been restricted.
--
============================================================
Curt Fennell [ "Get DOWN off that cross, honey! ]
chf0@gte.com [ Somebody needs the wood!" ]
============================================================
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 21:06:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <9206120103.AA06882@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 15:03:58 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 21:06:30 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Message-ID: <2A3748C2.63DD@telly.on.ca>
Date: 11 Jun 92 12:36:17 GMT
In article <1992Jun07.183019.15970@pavnet.pcn.org>
pep@pavnet.pcn.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) writes:
>It was stated in a previous article that no one knows how to stop it.
>Well,
>**********************************************************************
>********* Suggestion for ALL SITES CONNECTING TO A CANADIAN SITE:
>Stop providing alt.sex.*, rec.arts.erotica, and any others I don't
>know of. Fine, it is legal for us to do it here in the US. But
>now we all know that it is ILLEGAL for certain material to be passed
>into Canada.
Ah, the bliss of ignorance.
At least in the case of rec.arts.erotica, if an article goes through it
properly, it's kind of impossible to post it without it without the
article making at least one trip north of the border.
I found out at a meeting yesterday that the University of Toronto has
issued an explicit statement saying it will *not* prohibit any
newsgroups.
For what it's worth, the kind of non-consentual stuff causing all the
flak in Manitoba would not be approved to go out over r.a.e. This has
been an explicit policy in place since day 1.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
Dan Quayle is to politics as Ted Baxter is to broadcasting.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 02:02:57 1992
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.210453.2239@eco.twg.com>
Date: 11 Jun 92 21:04:53 GMT
In article , tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
|>You have a good point there. The "censoring" of articles
|>would be better done by someone else. How about this:
|>
|>Build a mechanism for "soft-moderated" groups:
|>The moderator doesn't screen individual articles but simply sends
|>kill file modifications as control messages which are automatically
|>applied to implement the kind of "soft censoring" I suggested. Also,
|>besides being able to turn this mechanism off users should be able to
|>use regular kill files not only to kill even more articles but also to
|>override the default ("unkill" articles by some criteria).
Why should there be a mechanism so that someone else can determine
if something is fit for you to look at? You've already taken positive
action to read a group by subscribing to it and then reading the articles.
If you don't like the content, unsubscribe.
If you wander into the x-rated section of a video store and find you
don't like the content of the tapes in front of you, is that cause for
someone to stand in the doorway and ask you if you *really* want to go
in there? If you choose to go in, you've taken positive action to do so.
Your proposed mechanism would work only if your tastes match those of
the censor. If you're more accepting, you'll gripe that the censor is
cutting off article which shouldn't be censored, thus forcing you to
read those articles which you wouldn't otherwise read. If you're less
accepting than the censor, you'll complain that you're being forced to
read articles which should have been censored. Either way, only a few
people are aided, and the censor is damned either way.
I think the only way to handle the situation is to acknowlege that
adults are capable of deciding what they do and do not wish to read
on their own. Attempts by one group to impose their wills upon everyone
else because they are more 'moral' only serve to drive a wedge between
the groups.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 06:22:37 1992
From: mephron@tronsbox.xei.com (Mephron)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.051910.11882@tronsbox.xei.com>
Date: 12 Jun 92 05:19:10 GMT
In article <2A358004.61D@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>The criticism is that the U.S. Government, while claiming to serve the
>ethical ideals of freedom of speech, denies such freedoms to a foreigner
>only because his views were seen to be incorrect.
>
>Certainly there is no cry that the US does not have the right to refuse
>entry to a foreigner for any reason it sees fit. It's just that in this
>specific case, these actions are ethically inconsistent with a proclaimed
>desire to absolutely protect people's freedom of speech.
One of the wonderful things (NOT!) about the USA is the INS - Immigration
and Naturalization Service. THEY decide if someone can come in. If Mr.
Mowat was coming across the border for some kind of presentation in the US,
The INS requires some form of confirmation of artistic merit for his visit.
(Bloody hell to determine what Artistic Merit is from THEIR guidelines.)
The only reason I know about this is a friend who was working against this for
musicians from other countries, whose "Artistic Merit" was defined by record
sales in their native countries....some of which have no records of such things,
or don't have records but a tremendous following in their home country.
Mr. Mowat probably pissed someone off at INS. They're touchy.
>
>Using tools such as Voice of America, the US has had no ethical quarrel
>inflicting its views on freedom of speech upon others who may not hold
>the same views. Yet its government apparently would deny an outsider the
>opportunity to express an unpopular viewpoint within the US, when given
>the power to do so.
Of course not. It lacks "Artistic Merit".
>--
> Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
> evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
> Dan Quayle is to politics as Ted Baxter is to broadcasting.
I LIKE THAT! Can I steal it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey M. Depew mephron@tronsbox.xei.com
"Government is a four-letter word."
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 08:17:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was:
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.120421.8299@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 12:04:21 GMT
In article <1992Jun11.061626.19212@yang.earlham.edu>, allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
> In article , stssram@st.unocal.com (Bob Myers) writes:
> >>>>>> On 5 Jun 92 17:12:56 GMT, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) said:
> > Carl> By prohibiting government restrictions on free speech, the First
> > Carl> Amendment helps guarantee both the right to speak and the right to
> > Carl> listen. Even if the guarantee of a right to speak doesn't apply to Mr.
> > Carl> Mowat, the guarantee of the right to listen did apply to his audience.
> >
> > Huh? A right to listen? There is no such right.
> >
> How does the right to free speech not include the right to freely
> choose to listen? Second, the First Amendment, if the US government is
> involved, most definitely does apply to anyone (US citizen or not). It has
> no text limiting by citizenship or geographic area.
> -Allen
I think the ONLY thing involved in the First Amendment, and the
right of free speech is the right to listen. Think about it - can
the government (or anyone else) stop you from expressing your
opinions? Of course not. Perhaps in some future science fiction
world they can watch everyone 24 hours a day and nab you as soon as
an unapproved word passes your lips. They'd have to put a serial
number on every piece of paper and follow up on where they went. They
can't stop the production of these ideas, only the reception. They
can't stop me from writing what I want, they can only close off the
channels by which you read them. They can't stop me from saying what
I want - they can only prevent you from hearing.
The "right to listen" not only exists, it is fundamental.
marc colten
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 10:31:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.102023.26109@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 14:20:23 GMT
joslin@c0223.ae.ge.com writes:
>If a system administrator believes he has the right to execute an
>arbitrary executable, it would be prudent to publish that fact in the
>rules for your system. This way, the users cannot claim an expectation
>of privacy.
>
>If a system administrator believes it is wise to execute
>an arbitrary executable, he is probably mistaken. Even this solution
>has flaws:
>
On those extremely rare (thrice in 5 years) occasions when I have found
a "suspicious" executable, I have run "strings" on the binary. That
usually gives me enough information to confirm/refute my suspicions.
Oh, I also do that with the user present. When I find something sus-
picious, the first thing I do is archive it to a tape *without* exami-
nation; if I think it's *really* serious, I'll have a witness present.
That prevents the user from "denastyfying" the program (or substituting
an innocent program under that name, which one fellow tried to do).
You should have been there for this conversation:
User: You wanted to see me?
Me: Yes, I'm a bit concerned about a program you're running,
named "breaker".
User: Oh, that's nothing; it just prints out a VT100 graphic
of some waves; I'm playing with character sets.
Me: Would you mind if I take a look at it?
User: Oh, sure! There's nothing to it; kind of trivial, really.....
Me: OK, let me pull the copy from the backup tape I made a
few days ago.....
User: Huh?
Me: Oh, yeah, I copied it to a tape when I first noticed it.
Me: ...cpio -icdvm
Me: ...strings breaker...
System: plaintext of %s is %s
attacking password %s
password broken
password for %s is %s
User: Um, er, uh.....I was just fooling around!
Me:
User:
[I let him off with a stern warning]
[5 minutes pass]
Me: ...ps -eaf...
UID COMMAND
user -sh
user man strings
user lp
*sigh*
--Wes
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| MORGAN@UKCC
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 13:39:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <9206121737.AA00312@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 07:37:16 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 13:39:47 1992
From: bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.080343.10998@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 08:03:43 GMT
Some years ago there was a gal in the San Francisco bay area that used
Compuserve to facilitate the operation of a drug (cocaine as I recall)
distribution network. Compuserve used legal reasoning similar to that
of a hotel or hostel operator to examine all files, etc. I don't recall
if they initiated the complaint or merely cooperated with authorities in
its prosecution. (MarcVH, you'll recall NETI?) I happened to be in
charge of another commercial system that she had an account on where
our legal department got in touch with Compuserve to find out what they'd
done and then told us what to do. The reasoning was something like the
computer was like a hotel and the account a room in it. The files were
like drawers or coatracks. We had the right to enter and look at anything
as we owned the 'premises'. While most patrons of a hotel don't expect
to have hotel security barge in at 4AM to look things over, its merely
good business practices not law that generates that expectation. We
were advised to delete all references to her account including re-writing
backup tapes thus allowing for the statement 'there are no computer records
pertaining to her'. This was merely to avoid any expense of providing
records not to avoid any liability for them. I don't think that legal
reasoning has changed much even given the ECPA et al. Gene Spafford I
think said get a lawyer to give you advice. I second that, get it in
writing and have someone who's paid to put his/her ass on the line legally
do so. If wrong you have someone to point the finger at (and/or sue).
With that caveat I think the current reasoning is something like you can
look all you want as long as you own the hardware, you can use any
information you get *internally* for your own business practices but all
bets are off (the shit hits the fan) if you disclose specific information
to a third party that is *not* a law enforcement agency and used for law
enforcement purposes. This seems to exclude anyone selling a mailing list
of users. If you *don't* own the hardware and are merely a
user, you can snoop all you want to the extent the hardware or operating
system allows you to but you *can* potentially be found liable if you
disclose any information you find to any third party *unless* it is a
law enforcement agency and used for law enforcement purposes (you can't
tell your cop buddy someone is an easy lay based on snooped mail).
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 13:40:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <9206121737.AA00321@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 07:37:31 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 13:40:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <80182@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 92 13:13:57 GMT
Thanks, Brian, for a good article. There was one thing you said that
I'd like to comment on, though:
bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard) writes:
> [...] If you *don't* own the hardware and are merely a
>user, you can snoop all you want to the extent the hardware or operating
>system allows [...]
I'd add "whatever agreement you made when you got the account, and the
published policy of the site" to "whatever the hardware and operating
system allows". There are many things that the hardware and operating
system allow which will get you facing the University Judiciary
Committee at my site.
One example: finding a terminal where someone forgot to log out (or
where someone wedged the terminal and didn't know how to unwedge it),
and using it to access their account. Not prevented by the hardware
or operating system, but not allowed under our policy.
I see the protections built into the OS and hardware as being
fail-safes to limit the damage that can occur if someone starts
violating good manners and the site policy. The limitation on what
you are allowed to do is not the OS and hardware, it's the various
agreements that you made when you got the account. At a well run
site, these agreements will be explicit. The security built into the
OS and hardware are designed to impede a person who violates the site's
policies (accidentally or not).
***** WARNING: BAD USENET ANALOGY! *****
It's like renting a room at a hotel. The hotel provides you with a
lock on your door and a key to protect you and your privacy from other
guests. But you can get thrown out (and maybe worse) for going down
the hall checking each door to see if it's unlocked, sitting in the
hall with your ear up against another guest's door, deliberately
starting a fire, etc. It's assumed that you will respect the other
guests' privacy, safety, and convenience, and use the hotel room in
the generally accepted fashion. The locks are designed to stop or
slow down some of the worst sorts of violations, they don't define
what is allowed.
You wouldn't walk into someone else's hotel room and start looking
through their luggage if they left their door unlocked, would you?
***** END OF BAD USENET ANALOGY *****
Charles H. Buchholtz Systems Programmer chip@seas.upenn.edu
School of Engineering and Applied Science
University of Pennsylvania
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 13:57:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.174821.13782@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 17:48:21 GMT
[A followup to an article in alt.security - Carl]
bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard) writes:
>[...] The reasoning was something like the
>computer was like a hotel and the account a room in it. The files were
>like drawers or coatracks. We had the right to enter and look at anything
>as we owned the 'premises'.
[...]
> ... all
>bets are off (the shit hits the fan) if you disclose specific information
>to a third party that is *not* a law enforcement agency and used for law
>enforcement purposes.
[...]
I'm very skeptical of this advice. Does this mean that law enforcment
doesn't need a search warrent if my apartment landlord lets them in?
I don't think so.
Also, the original poster was at a university. I'm enclosing what my
university's code says about "rented rooms". It basically requires
either a warrent or 24 hours notice.
- Carl
===== excerpt from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/uiuc.code.excerpts ====
B. When the University seeks access to an office assigned or living
quarters leased to an individual to determine compliance with
provisions of applicable multiple-dwelling unit laws, ordinances, and
regulations, or for improvement or repairs, the occupant shall be
notified of such action not less that twenty-four hours in advance.
There may be entry without notice in emergencies where imminent
danger to life, safety, health, or property is reasonably feared and
for custodial service.
C. The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office
assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in
response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to
an arrest."
=========
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 14:43:35 1992
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID:
Date: 12 Jun 92 18:01:11 GMT
mephron@tronsbox.xei.com (Mephron) writes:
>One of the wonderful things (NOT!) about the USA is the INS - Immigration
>and Naturalization Service. THEY decide if someone can come in. If Mr.
>Mowat was coming across the border for some kind of presentation in the US,
>The INS requires some form of confirmation of artistic merit for his visit.
>(Bloody hell to determine what Artistic Merit is from THEIR guidelines.)
It's just another one of the "benefits" of our large government.
People beg the government to do more and grow more, then get surprised
with shit like this...
--
Gosh, that takes me back... or forward. That's the trouble with time
travel, you never can tell.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 14:58:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.184313.9488@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 18:43:13 GMT
>Evan Leibovitch writes:
>:In the US, the Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics are *fighting*, using Uzis,
>:shotguns, knives, and good ol' kicks to the head.
>
>Is that a foreigner's impression of the U.S.? Don't come here, because
>we all have Uzis and cowboy boots with little painted skulls on them,
>because it's a war zone?
Even better, the assumption that the US is far more dangerous than
Canada is flawed, to say the least.
See Centerwall's article in the Dec 91 issue of the American Journal
of Epidemeiology. Canada's a strange place; the murder rate doesn't
decrease with population density. And, if you look at comparable
populations, the murder rate in "peaceful" canada is higher than
in corresponding populations in the "violent" US.
We are fighting a drug war, and "collateral damage" and deaths of the
participants are to be expected. Eventually we'll decide, as we did
with Prohibition, that we can win by "surrendering".
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: andy@cs.stanford.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 17:22:59 1992
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.164605.6403@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 92 20:46:05 GMT
nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
|Here we have Sean getting offended because he sees Evan criticizing
|the U.S., and rushing to the defense of his country. In doing so,
|he deletes the comment Evan was responding to:
Here we have Rheal demonstrating what it's like to read but not
comprehend. I wasn't offended at all. Why would I be offended? When
did you think was taking offense?
What I was is surprised that someone would paint the US as being in a
terrorist state. It's not. I should know, I live here. I have friends
that have lived in war zones a large part of their lives. The US is
not a war zone. The average person does not live in fear.
If you've ever read things of mine in the past, you'll find that I'm
very quick to criticize the way US does things. I believe it's
healthy. "Rush to the US's defense?" Hahahahahahaha.
"You get what you settle for." -Susan Sarandon, _Thelma_and_Louise_
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 17:23:01 1992
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.165741.8147@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 92 20:57:41 GMT
|From: bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard)
|our legal department got in touch with Compuserve to find out what they'd
|done and then told us what to do. The reasoning was something like the
|computer was like a hotel and the account a room in it. The files were
|like drawers or coatracks. We had the right to enter and look at anything
|as we owned the 'premises'.
I think people are way too fast to come up with analogies and assume
they are valid. One person's hotel is another person's condominium.
Get legal advice before proceeding on the assumption of a correct
analogy.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 19:15:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: [alt.sex.bondage, et al.] Superman and Batman Illegal in Canada?
Message-ID: <9206122312.AA05944@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 15:12:11 GMT
In article <1992Jun11.044938.16746@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
writes:
: In article <9206091853.AA01912@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: [in Canada, illegal to:]
: :>163. (1) Every one commits an offence who
: :> (b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or who has in
: :> his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or
: :> circulation a crime comic.
: :>
: :>(7) In this section, ``crime comic'' means a magazine, periodical or book
: :> that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially
: :> (a) the commission of crimes, real or fictitious; or
: :> (b) events connected with the commission of crimes, real or fictitious,
: :> whether occurring before or after the commission of the crime.
:
: No history books in comic form! Wow!
:
: Sean
Also, no classic comics. For that matter, not much classical can be
performed in Canada. For example: Hamlet depicts murder & treason,
both crimes. Terminator 3 has many murders and assaults in it.
Risky Business depicts prostitution, as does Pretty Woman.
I guess the only things Canadians can read or see are news programs.
But wait, even those depict the commission of crimes. Not much
for Canadians to do/say/read, is there?
- Steve
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 20:50:30 1992
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [alt.security] Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.190617.7999@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Date: 13 Jun 92 00:06:16 GMT
: From: news_for@ae.ge.com
: Newsgroups: alt.security
: Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
: Message-ID: <9206111058.AA24108@crdgw1.ge.com>
: Date: 11 Jun 92 10:59:32 GMT
:
: If a system administrator believes he has the right to execute an
: arbitrary executable, it would be prudent to publish that fact in the
: rules for your system. This way, the users cannot claim an expectation
: of privacy.
:
: If a system administrator believes it is wise to execute
: an arbitrary executable, he is probably mistaken.
I've said it before, & I'll say it again:
If any user, including root, neglects even to
use the most basic methods to indicate that a
file is not to be accessed by just anyone, then
he has little, if any, legitimate recourse if
the file is accessed. The only situation where
this would not be the case is where files cannot
be locked, due to operating system restrictions.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 21:59:30 1992
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: would this be censorship?
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future
Message-ID:
Date: 12 Jun 92 18:33:50 PST
In <1992Jun11.210453.2239@eco.twg.com>, reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack) wrote:
> In article , tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
> |>You have a good point there. The "censoring" of articles
> |>would be better done by someone else. How about this:
> |>
> |>Build a mechanism for "soft-moderated" groups:
> |>The moderator doesn't screen individual articles but simply sends
> |>kill file modifications as control messages which are automatically
> |>applied to implement the kind of "soft censoring" I suggested. Also,
> |>besides being able to turn this mechanism off users should be able to
> |>use regular kill files not only to kill even more articles but also to
> |>override the default ("unkill" articles by some criteria).
>
> Why should there be a mechanism so that someone else can determine
> if something is fit for you to look at? You've already taken positive
> action to read a group by subscribing to it and then reading the articles.
> If you don't like the content, unsubscribe.
Because some people *like* critics. I'm somewhat critical of them, and
insist they be consistent - even if I disagree with everything they
say. In fact, some of the most reliable critics I've used I disagreed
with, meaning that if they panned something, I was sure of enjoying
it. Therefore, the above mechanism should have a "reverse" setting,
that filtered out all articles not on the "soft kill" list. I suspect
it'd be used by about as many people as used the thing in normal mode.
> Your proposed mechanism would work only if your tastes match those of
> the censor.
So? That doesn't mean it isn't usefull. And with the reverse
mechanism, there's a much better chance of a hit, because that makes a
negative match equally valuable.
> If you're more accepting, you'll gripe that the censor is
> cutting off article which shouldn't be censored, thus forcing you to
> read those articles which you wouldn't otherwise read.
So you don't like the critic - don't use them. BFD.
> I think the only way to handle the situation is to acknowlege that
> adults are capable of deciding what they do and do not wish to read
> on their own.
Yup. They are also capable of deciding they want someone else to
prefilter the garbage (or point out the good stuff, depending on how
you look at it) for them. That's exactly what this mechanism proposes.
> Attempts by one group to impose their wills upon everyone
> else because they are more 'moral' only serve to drive a wedge between
> the groups.
I couldn't agree more. People who try to prevent me from using some
tool - like a critic or censor - because they think it'll cause
problems annoy me no end. I wish you'd stop.
BTW, this discussion reminds me of some of the hypertext discussions.
I think a formal mechanism for critiquing usenet threads/posters/etc.
would be usefull a usefull addition (nuts - anything that helps people
handle the mass of information would be usefull!) to usenet. Of
course, critiquing the critics would *also* be usefull.
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 14:37:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jun 13 20:40:11 1992
From: miron@cs.sfu.ca (Miron Cuperman)
Subject: Request for public NNTP hosts to combat censorship
Message-ID: <1992Jun13.032144.12539@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 03:21:44 GMT
The newsgroup alt.sex.bondage was dropped from the computer services
network at Simon Fraser University. No other newsgroup was affected
at this time. This is a blatant act of censorship and discrimination
targeted at people of a particular lifestyle.
If you know of an NNTP server which is publicly accessible, please drop
me a note. I'd also like to find out about other methods of reading
news remotely.
Your help to combat censorship will be appreciated.
(The affected domain is sfu.ca. Polite notes about the value of
freedom of speech and the dangers of discrimination to root@sfu.ca
could have an effect.)
--
Forever, Miron Cuperman (NeXTmail ok)
Laissez faire.
From caf-talk Caf Jun 14 03:42:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Fundamentals of a Legal System
Message-ID: <920614170756.20204464@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 17:07:56 GMT
I came across an article which I thought Usenet readers (especially those in
the US) might find of interest!
It is extracted from the August 1989 edition of _Australian Law News_, with the
quotes taken from an article printed on pp13-15. The article is based on a
speech given by US Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:
Title: Lawyers must Understand Fundamentals of the Law, Judge Says.
The essense of the speech was Justice Kennedy urging lawyers to look beyong the
more immediate aspects of delivering legal services to understand and protect
the philosophical and ethical precepts on which the law rests.
To quote:
"Justice Kennedy said the four elements on which the law and a legal system
rested were:
. that government rested on the consent of the people
. that government protected a core of personal rights - today called human
rights
. that there must be an enduring structure which guaranteed the first two
elements
. that there be an obligation on each citizen to obey the law and to transmit
the rule of law to a subsequent generation.
"Justice Kennedy outlined the historical background to the concept of rule by
consent and said: 'The consent of which we speak is a very ancient one. It is a
consent to a system, it is a consent to a social order.'
He continued: "It does not derive from any contract that was created at some
particular historic time; it does not involve a contract at all, because in
American constitutional theory and in constitutional theories of most western
democracies, government does not exist as a party to make a contract with the
people; it is created by the people".
"So this consent is fundamental and it may not be withdrawn unless the
Government is not preserving the other elements of the rule of law...All of us
can identify laws that we dislike. This does not give us the right to withdraw
consent".
Kennedy discussed several truisms as he saw them surrounding the upholding of
the rule of law, one of which was that personal rights must be guaranteed
by the Government
He notes that it is dangerous for any one person or generation to compile an
exhaustive list of human rights. But nevertheless, the basics are as follows:
(a) There must be, at a minimum, protection for the rights of expression, of
conscience, of speech and belief, in all their forms.
(b) There must be freedom from arbitrary and evasive physical restraint by the
Government
(c) There must be freedom from classification based on race, creed,
colour, sex, national origin and religion
(d) There must be the right to own and acquire property.
He then goes on to comment that the Constitution of the United States was
written in the same style - it talks about life liberty and property.
Any comments?
From caf-talk Caf Jun 14 03:56:38 1992
From: stssram@st.unocal.com (Bob Myers)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratula
Message-ID:
Date: 14 Jun 92 07:46:13 GMT
>>>>>> On 5 Jun 92 17:12:56 GMT, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) said:
> Carl> By prohibiting government restrictions on free speech, the First
> Carl> Amendment helps guarantee both the right to speak and the right to
> Carl> listen. Even if the guarantee of a right to speak doesn't apply to Mr.
> Carl> Mowat, the guarantee of the right to listen did apply to his audience.
I wrote:
Bob> Huh? A right to listen? There is no such right.
>>>>> On 11 Jun 92 11:16:26 GMT, allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) said:
Allen> How does the right to free speech not include the right to freely
Allen> choose to listen?
The right to free speech means the right to speak in governmentally
unrestricted public forums. The existence of such forums is indeed
implied in the right to free speech, but that is not the same as a
"right to listen".
Maybe we're getting bogged down in semantics. If by "right to listen"
you mean that the government cannot restrict who listens or participates
in such public forums, then I agree. This is indeed a right to
freely choose to listen.
That doesn't seem to be what was meant by Carl Kadie, however. There
seemed to be some implication that the listener had some right to
compel the government to allow anyone to come to speak to him. Do I
have the right to have Charles Manson, Yassar Arafat, or Saddam
Hussein come and speak to a group? This is a much stronger statement
than the right to speak, you see.
I fail to see how not allowing someone else to enter the country is a
restriction of my free speech rights.
Allen> Second, the First Amendment, if the US government is
Allen> involved, most definitely does apply to anyone (US citizen or not). It has
Allen> no text limiting by citizenship or geographic area.
I don't recall any text in the constitution giving any foreigner or other
non-citizen the right to enter the country. There has not been any
restriction on Farley Mowat's writings, have there? I think it is
ridiculous to suggest that the right to free speech implies unrestricted
borders.
--
Bob Myers Unocal Science & Technology Division
Internet: Bob.Myers@st.unocal.com Seismic Research and Applications
Phone: [714] 693-6951 P. O. Box 68076
Anaheim, California 92817-8076
From caf-talk Caf Jun 14 12:46:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Tony Wallis)
Subject: Re: Fundamentals of a Legal System
Message-ID: <1992Jun14.160051.26342@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 16:00:51 GMT
Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University, writes:
> I came across an article which I thought Usenet readers (especially
> those in the US) might find of interest ..
(Also some of us worried about trends in Canada.)
> ..speech given by US Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:
> [.. lots of good old-fashioned commonsense deleted ..]
> ..
> (c) There must be freedom from classification based on race, creed,
> colour, sex, national origin and religion
> (d) There must be the right to own and acquire property.
>
> Any comments?
Yes. Under the well-intentioned-road-to-hell twin banners of combating
that modern version of witchcraft known as "racism" and of promoting
that modern version of religious orthodoxy known as "multiculturalism",
both the pseudo-conservative Federal government of Canada and the
(quasi-?)socialist government of Ontario pay lip-service to (c) but in
practice actually violate it. They do this by fashionably affirming
even the most subjective rantings of activists claiming to represent
blacks, women, aborginals, etc., whilst denigating attempts to balance
the picture by forces seen to be white, male, European, or traditionally
Judeo-Christian, regardless of whether the latter input is rational
and objective or itself subjective ranting.
[There are colleagues at my university who would read the above
paragraph and dismiss it as "redneck" or worse.]
In addition, there are plenty of indicators that the government of
Ontario is not much inclined to preserve (d) against assault from
segments of its perceived power base.
--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada
From caf-talk Caf Jun 14 12:51:48 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratula
Message-ID: <1992Jun14.114321.4260@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 92 15:43:21 GMT
In article Bob.Myers@st.unocal.com writes:
>> Carl> By prohibiting government restrictions on free speech, the First
>> Carl> Amendment helps guarantee both the right to speak and the right to
>> Carl> listen. Even if the guarantee of a right to speak doesn't apply to Mr.
>> Carl> Mowat, the guarantee of the right to listen did apply to his audience.
>
>I wrote:
>Bob> Huh? A right to listen? There is no such right.
>
>Allen> How does the right to free speech not include the right to freely
>Allen> choose to listen?
>
>The right to free speech means the right to speak in governmentally
>unrestricted public forums. The existence of such forums is indeed
>implied in the right to free speech, but that is not the same as a
>"right to listen".
>
>Maybe we're getting bogged down in semantics. If by "right to listen"
>you mean that the government cannot restrict who listens or participates
>in such public forums, then I agree. This is indeed a right to
>freely choose to listen.
I think the basic idea of the "right to listen" is really more fundamental
than that. The "right to listen" is intricately intertwined with the
fundamental right to pursue knowledge (education).
>That doesn't seem to be what was meant by Carl Kadie, however. There
>seemed to be some implication that the listener had some right to
>compel the government to allow anyone to come to speak to him. Do I
>have the right to have Charles Manson, Yassar Arafat, or Saddam
>Hussein come and speak to a group? This is a much stronger statement
>than the right to speak, you see.
The two ideas are not incompatible. Never has the SC spoken of (and never
have I heard Carl speak of) *absolute* rights that are subject to absolutely
no infringement by competing rights.
What you talk about is simply a matter of weighing an individual's "right
to listen" against other rights that the society as a whole (or other
individuals) may retain.
I have little doubt that in many (if not all) cases the SC would find that
the "right to listen" is not so great as to deny the government the right
to control who may enter the country.
>I fail to see how not allowing someone else to enter the country is a
>restriction of my free speech rights.
In the case of Farley Mowat, whether the action was legal or not, the
*sole* purpose for the exclusion was the administration's dislike of his
politics (as expressed in his writing). He was kept out using the
McCarren Act--a draconian piece of legislation that was passed during the
McCarthy era, and which allowed the government to refuse entry to anyone,
for any reason (even if whatever they did to annoy the govt. would have
been completely legal within the US).
As I stated in a previous post, there was a move in Congress to repeal this
act, about a year ago, and I believe that it was, in fact, repealed. (I'm
not sure, however; perhaps someone who knows can respond.)
The move for repeal was started after a (10 year, apprx.) permanent resident
of the US was refused re-entry to the country (after attending a conference)
because of his participation in anti-vietnam war protests *before* he had
immigrated to the US and become a perm. resident!!!
The Reagan administration apparently made a regular practice of refusing
entry to individuals under the act, and maintained a list of something
like 500,000 names of "undesirables." (I believe it was under Reagan that
the perm. resident was refused entry--but the repeal movement didn't
start until the SC refused to overturn the govt. action--a fairly good
indication of the current mood of the court regarding the govt's right to
control its borders...)
--
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 Jun 14 13:13:15 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratula
Message-ID: <1992Jun14.171213.8042@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 17:12:13 GMT
Re: The "right" to listen
stssram@st.unocal.com (Bob Myers) writes:
[...]
>Maybe we're getting bogged down in semantics. If by "right to listen"
>you mean that the government cannot restrict who listens or participates
>in such public forums, then I agree. This is indeed a right to
>freely choose to listen.
Then we agree on that much.
(Aside: in legal contexts "public forum" means a forum owned by the
government, for example, a public square. I would say the government
is also prohibited from restricting who listens or participates in
privately-owned forums.)
>That doesn't seem to be what was meant by Carl Kadie, however. There
>seemed to be some implication that the listener had some right to
>compel the government to allow anyone to come to speak to him. Do I
>have the right to have Charles Manson, Yassar Arafat, or Saddam
>Hussein come and speak to a group? This is a much stronger statement
>than the right to speak, you see.
[...]
>I don't recall any text in the constitution giving any foreigner or other
>non-citizen the right to enter the country. There has not been any
>restriction on Farley Mowat's writings, have there? I think it is
>ridiculous to suggest that the right to free speech implies unrestricted
>borders.
[...]
Such a suggestion would be ridiculous.
I don't think it is ridiculous, however, to suggest that the
government should not bar entry to a speaker solely because the
government doesn't want Americans to hear what the speaker says.
As far as restrictions on writing, I don't have a references, but I
think that the government does/did ban the import of films that it
classified as propaganda.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 14 15:10:36 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 02.20
Message-ID: <1992Jun14.190932.9670@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 19:09:32 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/cafv02n20".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n20
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending May 3, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are about the University of Nebraska at Lincoln's decision
to remove the alt.* newsgroups.
1. [_The Daily Nebraskan_] "Pornography was a factor in the UNL
Computing Resource Center's decision to stop supplying and entire
hierarchy of USENET news groups to UNL computers, the CRC director
said Thursday."
<9205040334.AA04565@cse.unl.edu>
2. [Student at UNL] "[T]he real reason that the alts were removed was
not due to resources. Rather, that issue has served as a justification
for the decision. ... [T]he computer responsible for taking care of
news has been running at well under capacity (41% when we checked)."
<9204281832.AA00992@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV>
Note 3 is about fighting words, the "right" not to listen, and the
"right" not to be offended.
3. The Supreme Court says that there is no right not to be offended
except when privacy is 'invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.
Any broader view ... would effectively empower a majority to silence
dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.'
<1992Apr27.143505.9602@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 4-6 are critiques of computer policies at Virginia Tech and
Princeton.
4. "The [Virginia Tech] policy shows good user participation and due
process. Privacy could be improved by detailing the procedure by which
searches are authorized. Freedom of expression could be improved by
removing vague speech restrictions."
<1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org>
5. Enclosed are excerpts from Princeton's "Guidelines for the use of
Campus and Network Computing Resources".
<199204292110.AA23705@eff.org>
6. Princeton bans computer speech that would be protected by the
Constitution if it were a public university. The good news, from my
point of view, is that it explicitly treats computer speech like
traditional speech.
<1992Apr29.213206.24214@eff.org>
Notes 7-8 are about freedom of expression in traditional media. Such
cases create formal and informal precedents that might be applied to
computer media cases.
7. The yearbook for the University of Southwestern Louisiana includes
a photo of a bare-breasted woman. University administrators say that
although they don't like the photo, they lack authority to censor it.
<1992Apr27.164301.27154@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
8. The Harvard Law Review parody violated "[o]ne of the exigencies of
decency and civility [:] _de mortuis nil nisi bonum_, '[Speak] nothing
but good about the dead.' "Still, un-Ivy behavior is normally not
grounds for all Hell breaking loose and the roof falling in on one,
even at Harvard."
<18573@smoke.brl.mil>
Notes 9-10 are about computer administration.
9. In reply to an article that said that it's OK to log the
destination of telnets and email just as it's OK for the phone company
to keep a record of calls: In some places, it is considered a
violation of privacy for the phone company to release phone records
even to the police.
<1992Apr28.112552.23369@nntp.hut.fi>
10. "I have a problem with outlawing cracking programs: ... Would it
be illegal to possess a paper on access security that contained the
source code for a cracking program? Where do they draw the line
between intellectual discourse and intent to break into someones
account?"
<1992Apr30.164835.1816@opac.osl.or.gov>
- Carl & Adam]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, or Carl
M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses
and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jun 14 15:20:17 1992
From: rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Congratulations! You've made the evening news.
Message-ID: <1992Jun07.115731.22628@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Date: 7 Jun 92 11:57:31 GMT
In article <1992Jun1.190327.23949@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jun1.005209.19959@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>And yet, in one of the first applications of the new definition all
>>discussions of sex in a university medium were banned.
>
> And why was that? Because there was no other way for the
>university to weed out the "Farmer Bob"-type stories. And why
>was that? Because so many people on alt.sex.* seem to feel that
>having Farmer Bob right beside the latest safe-sex information
>is crucial to the freedom of the net.
>
>> In Canada, the
>>slide down the slippery slope is not hypothetical; it has happened.
>
> Maybe temporarily, thanks to dogmatism on the part of the
>Absolute Freedom of Speechers.
>
>--Jamie.
----
It's you sheep that have no rights. Go back and fight for them,
suckers! Hahahahahaha! People who wish to whine when they didn't want
real rights in the first place give me a laugh.
- RSW
From caf-talk Caf Jun 14 18:36:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun14.222433.981@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 22:24:33 GMT
In article <1992Jun12.102023.26109@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
> Me: Yes, I'm a bit concerned about a program you're running,
> named "breaker".
>
>
> Me: ...cpio -icdvm Me: ...strings breaker...
>
> System: plaintext of %s is %s
> attacking password %s
> password broken
> password for %s is %s
>
>
Whenever I had a program called 'breaker' or 'xspy' or whatever, all
it contained were admonitions to the sysadmin about poking into my
files. This has a very interesting (and gratifying) effect on snoopy
sysadmins.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Jun 14 18:43:17 1992
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Message-ID: <1992Jun14.222632.1051@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 92 22:26:32 GMT
In article <1992Jun12.174821.13782@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A followup to an article in alt.security - Carl]
>
>bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard) writes:
>
>>[...] The reasoning was something like the
>>computer was like a hotel and the account a room in it. The files were
>>like drawers or coatracks. We had the right to enter and look at anything
>>as we owned the 'premises'.
>[...]
>> ... all
>>bets are off (the shit hits the fan) if you disclose specific information
>>to a third party that is *not* a law enforcement agency and used for law
>>enforcement purposes.
>[...]
>
>I'm very skeptical of this advice. Does this mean that law enforcment
>doesn't need a search warrent if my apartment landlord lets them in?
>I don't think so.
Wrong.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
