From caf-talk Caf Jul 27 01:11:43 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.025503.6884@druid.uucp>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:55:03 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
> What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"? It's a
>piece of violent erotica. You can't argue with it because it
>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.
Sexual buttons? What are those? Are you saying that there are certain
things that just viewing them causes rational thought to stop and some
sort of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde thing to happen? Is this something that you
are personally aware of or is it only those mythical "others" that this
happens to?
Just curious.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid.com) |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting | There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada | like no government!
+1 416 424 2871 DoD#0082 |
From caf-talk Caf Jul 27 02:43:44 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.24207.19130@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 06:42:07 GMT
scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
|Ok. Would you let your seven year old read it? Can a seven year old get into
|an adult book store? Do you call not letting a seven year old go into a
|adult book store censorship as well? I grew up in an very open family sex
|was NOT an issue to hide. We would talk about sex in a very open matter. I
|still do not belive that an seven year old can really understand what is
|going on. in alt.sex.* or reading penthouse ect.
Well if he doesn't understand it, my reaction is: So? Not
understanding something is not the same thing as being harmed by it.
Access to information is only going to get easier and easier. Parents
aren't going to be able to reasonably limit access. They might as well
start explaining things if they are worried about it.
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 Jul 27 03:10:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.30408.21341@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 07:04:08 GMT
rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
|>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
|>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
|>or military stockades (half a :)).
|No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
|who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
|making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
|disagree with.
Well, I'm all for dealing harshly with murderers and politicians who
don't properly represent, but why did he lump cocaine importers in
with those? Geez, importing cocaine is no worse than brewing beer.
You get bags of cocaine and take them from point A to point B. No
one's rights get trampled by that. Let's not compare them to murderers
and crooked politicians.
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 Jul 27 05:34:17 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:53:09 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.045309.4748@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
>The issue is the effect of the material on people.
We've all seen pictures on the news of cops carrying loads of magazines and
pictures out of a captured child molester's house. They tell you it's
sexually explicit material and pictures of children. What they don't tell
you is that a good deal of the time, the "pictures of children" is largely
or entirely things like pajama ads out of Sears catalogs and such.
Obviously, children modeling PJs in Sears catalogs has quite an effect on
some people - it turns them in to child molesters.
Or do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, certain people are drawn to certain
types of material, rather than your assertion that everyone in the world but
you is passively waiting for an inanimate object to "effect" them? Naah..
>it just affects you by pressing sexual buttons, which are not subject to
>rational thought.
Don't project your lack of control on the rest of us. Believe it or not,
most of us do not fear one day being unable to control or channel our urges.
I find this statement insulting and untrue. People who think it IS true
scare me a bit, though.
Thanks awfully,
Patrick
From caf-talk Caf Jul 27 07:43:43 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.105144.4544@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:51:44 GMT
doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
: >The issue is the effect of the material on people.
:
: We've all seen pictures on the news of cops carrying loads of magazines and
: pictures out of a captured child molester's house. They tell you it's
: sexually explicit material and pictures of children. What they don't tell
: you is that a good deal of the time, the "pictures of children" is largely
: or entirely things like pajama ads out of Sears catalogs and such.
:
: Obviously, children modeling PJs in Sears catalogs has quite an effect on
: some people - it turns them in to child molesters.
:
: Or do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, certain people are drawn to certain
: types of material, rather than your assertion that everyone in the world but
: you is passively waiting for an inanimate object to "effect" them? Naah..
You would never convince the censors of that.
Otherwise it would be one of their major arguments supporting their case
out of the window.
I wonder, in fact how anyone who wants to render writing, pictures or
whatever about sex can possibly be older that about 13 themselves.
(how old is sucessful IVF?)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Jul 27 07:49:48 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: six newsgroups banned at wilfrid laurier university
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.111930.4670@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:19:30 GMT
jboyce1@mamut.wlu.ca (jim boyce u) writes:
:
: The following article appeared in Laurier's student newspaper, The Cord, on
: June 14, 1992.
:
:
: Access to six newsgroups on Laurier's computing system has
: been restricted until the Senate Committee on Computing Ethics
: can meet and discuss their controversial content. All six were
: from the alt.sex hierarchy, a collection of groups that deals
: with topics ranging from bondage and bestiality to recovery from
: sexual abuse and a general discussion on sex. WLU President John
: Weir said he made the decision because, "in my opinion, and in
: the opinions of others, the material was offensive."
If that is the reason why restrict it to 6?
If this was applied across the board then only the purely technical
groups would still exist.
Though some of these might be threatend
hyperthetical argument: "I don't like apple, IMHO anything to do with apple
products is promoting apple and is thus offensive" (goodbye comp.sys.apple.*
comp.sys.mac.*)
: Newsgroups first began arriving at Laurier two months ago
: when the university started to switch from the "unix" computer
: system to the faster, "sequent" system. They enter through a
: computer network called ONET via the University of Waterloo, and
: include messages and information from computer users all over the
: world.
: While there are more than a thousand newsgroups available,
(nearer 2000)
: it is a handful which are raising moral and legal questions at
: several Canadian universities. Most of these are in the alt.sex
: hierarchy which are among the most popular newsgroups.
Maybe because alternative sources of obtaining information on these
subjects are difficult to obtain, incomplete or out of date
: In May, the alt.sex hierarchy and several other groups were
What were these other groups??
: banned at the University of Manitoba after a student sent some
: prinouts from alt.sex to a reporter at The Winnipeg Free Press.
He did (of course) comply with any copyright notices on the articles
in question.
: On July 2, The Kitchener-Waterloo Record ran a front page
: story about computer pornography at the University of Waterloo.
: It was reported that the newspaper had received newsgroup stories
It did, of course, check that these stories did come from netnews
and were not simply manufactured by the (anonymous) individual.
: and pictures anonymously, including, "a photograph of an almost
: nude woman hanging by her neck from a rope on a hook. Her mouth
(translation: woman wearing sufficent clothing to concel a flying harness)
: is open as if screaming." The Waterloo Regional Police Department
: was quoted as saying no investigation would be undertaken unless
: campus police requested help. The University of Waterloo, which
: banned the alt.sex hierarchy for several months in 1990, plans no
: investigation either unless a complaint about the material is
: received.
Odd that they have taken action without investigation...
: A week later, the Cord interviewed Langford, Ellsworth and
: Hart Bezner, Director of Computing Services. Bezner said he was
: "stunned by even the suggestion that people would be keeping it
: [alt.sex] out", and attributed the unavailablility of alt.sex to
: problems within the system.
: Bezner typified the content of alt.sex as "puerile" and said
: that he could not understand why students would be interested in
: reading "bondage" groups. He added that the situation would have
: to be considered in regards to the university switching over to
: the new computer system: "It's a matter of priorities, putting
: sex groups on is not as important as compilers... it's just like
: walking up to a half-finished apartment and asking why the
: bathroom isn't finished... we just haven't got around to it yet."
: Later, Bezner said the Cord interview "turned on our
: interest" and he decided to do something about the material in
: the alt.sex groups. He took one hundred pages of output from one
: of the groups to Don Baker, Vice-President Academic: "it was my
: personal decision... I looked at it and said to myself, `I don't
: want to be held legally responsible for that, let those guys [the
: administration] investigate the legalities of it'."
Hold on, here he took 100 pages of a newsgroup which wasn't getting through..
This sounds somewhat odd.
Where did HE get it from.
: On June 26, one of the newsgroups was restricted, and on
: July 2, another five met a similar fate. All six were from the
: alt.sex hierarchy, according to Ramji (Bezner referred us to her
: because he was not sure which of the groups were restricted).
: They included: alt.sex.bondage, bestiality, motss (members of the
: same sex), movies, pictures.d (a subgroup that discusses
: pictures), pictures.misc, and wizards (a less tame version of the
: generic alt.sex group).
: Don Baker said that the solution was "short term". He said
: that there were policies on language use at Laurier and laws on
: such issues as hate literature, and that while the university
: should try to be as liberal as possible, "we're mindful of the
: fact that language has consequences, and to the extent that they
: can be discriminatory or demeaning, we should have some concern."
I don't understand the connection to the 'hate literature'...
that argument would appear to be more in tune with a newsgroup
representing a political viewpoint or party.
: John Weir said that the decision was based on how offensive
: the material was and not any legal implications. He did not think
: the decision compromised the university in any way and said, "I
: think one has to always make judgement about the need to judge
: things as being offensive versus the right people claim to have
: to read anything they want to read... we could have, I suppose,
: allowed the thing to run and gave it to the committee as a
: problem such as that. We chose not to do that. We felt that we
: would prefer to have it off-line during the interim rather than
: on-line."
Sounds like the 'I don't like it...' argument.
Of course keeping the material off-line would make it more difficult to
mount a defence.
: Ruby Ramji disagrees with the judgement and, until the
: Senate Committee makes a decision, will have to access alt.sex at
: the University of Waterloo. She said that the newsgroups have
: educational content and discuss issues such as sexual hangups and
: relationships, and provide information on AIDS and other sexual
: diseases. They also have an academic purpose: "I was doing a
: study on alt.sex and I couldn't get access to it and I needed it
: as a primary source... I feel they [the administration] are
: hindering the flow of information into an academic institution
: that's supposed to uphold the freedom of information."
This raises the interesting question...
Do censors actually read what they wish to censor?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Jul 27 09:17:13 1992
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.112632.14790@deeptht.armory.com>
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:26:32 GMT
In article <1992Jul24.143852.7441@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.141212.27368@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>>
>>>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>>>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>>>or military stockades (half a :)).
>>-------------------------
>>No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
>>who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
>>making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
>>disagree with.
>
>Does putting people who kill people and traffic cocaine in jail mean we
>will get to jail George Bush for his actions as director of the CIA?
>Or was the CIA only trafficking in heroin when George was director?
-------------------------
Who cares, somebody besides me shoot him too. I've already shot enough
people this week. Do I have to do all the work? :)
-RSW
From caf-talk Caf Jul 27 11:21:40 1992
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.132338.16099@deeptht.armory.com>
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:23:38 GMT
In article <1992Jul27.30408.21341@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>|>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>|>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>|>or military stockades (half a :)).
>
>|No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
>|who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
>|making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
>|disagree with.
>
>Well, I'm all for dealing harshly with murderers and politicians who
>don't properly represent, but why did he lump cocaine importers in
>with those? Geez, importing cocaine is no worse than brewing beer.
>You get bags of cocaine and take them from point A to point B. No
>one's rights get trampled by that. Let's not compare them to murderers
>and crooked politicians.
>
>Sean Casey
----------------------------------
My god, you're totally right, Sean, I can't imagine what came over me.
I enjoyed Noriega getting his because he's such a fascist little
bastard, but I think we should legalize cocaine. That would take all
the crime and danger out of it, not to mention the profit. What would
the poor compasinos do then? I completely lost my head for a minute.
We had a drive-by shooting on the next block the other day over crack,
so I simply went into react mode instead of logic mode. Haven't done
that in ages. My apologies.
- Steve Walz
From caf-talk Caf Jul 27 12:53:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
From: brian@bkj386.uucp (Brian Jenkins)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 06:26:34 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.062634.7543@bkj386.uucp>
In article <1992Jul18.141212.27368@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>
>>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>>or military stockades (half a :)).
>-------------------------
>No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
>who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
>making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
>disagree with.
Sorry I missed the original reply to my response. But I
gather that it takes much this vein.
I guess as the idiot I am that the proposal above is to
arrest most of the military and the CIA involved in South
East Asia as not only did they support a bloody minded,
dictatorship in Vietnam, but the dealt almost exclusively
with the heroin drug lords in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand
to attempt to control the activities of the natives to the
area. I gather a certain western nation provided military
cover to these barons to get their drugs out through
"hostile territory" -- often via the support of corrupt
Vietnamese generals, now living comfortably in the US.
I do not know if saturation bombing and free fire zones
would count as human rights violations but I would guess
so. Definitely a violation of the Geneva convention.
As is systematically pushing the enemy from helicopters
and drowning them in buckets of water. Or caging them
in small cages for years.
I think that also it is imperative that you start
proceedings against US government officials who supported
and ran the particular drug baron that you are so upset
with in Panama. Can you run for president from jail?
Would it not be nice if the world was so perfect? But the
stockades would be mighty crowded. I would settle for a
little civilization.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the basement of brian@bkj386.uucp
Brian Jenkins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jul 27 13:26:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: weisstr%lavc3.dnet@smithkline.com (Terry Weiss)
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <9207271659.AA20570@smithkline.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 08:59:22 GMT
>>Well, I'm all for dealing harshly with murderers and politicians who
>>don't properly represent, but why did he lump cocaine importers in
>>with those? Geez, importing cocaine is no worse than brewing beer.
>>You get bags of cocaine and take them from point A to point B. No
>>one's rights get trampled by that. Let's not compare them to murderers
>>and crooked politicians.
>>
>>Sean Casey
>----------------------------------
>My god, you're totally right, Sean, I can't imagine what came over me.
>I enjoyed Noriega getting his because he's such a fascist little
>bastard, but I think we should legalize cocaine. That would take all
>the crime and danger out of it, not to mention the profit. What would
>the poor compasinos do then? I completely lost my head for a minute.
>We had a drive-by shooting on the next block the other day over crack,
>so I simply went into react mode instead of logic mode. Haven't done
>that in ages. My apologies.
>- Steve Walz
As usual, Steve, your sarcasm skews the issue. People don't kill each
other for drugs, they kill each other for money. The issue is freedom-
what I want to do with my body is up to me, if it involves ONLY my body.
Any paternilistic system, that seeks to regulate your rights under the
assumption that they know better creates that sort of violence because it
inherently is violent in that it violates a person's rights and sensibilties.
You don't escape the violence by making the drugs illegal (the evidence for
that is any urban area), or even by eliminating the drugs altogether by a
"war on drugs". Don't be fooled, it's smoke; drugs were never the issue -
poverty, empowerment, and truth are.
-Terry
From caf-talk Caf Jul 27 17:05:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: lfa1@cec1.wustl.edu (Lorrie Faith Ackerman)
Subject: holocaust revisionism and the net
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.205851.21557@wuecl.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:58:51 GMT
I attended an AIPAC (a pro-Israel lobbying group) leadership
seminar this weekend and was quite dismayed to hear a speaker
refer to the Internet as a forum for propagating Holocaust
revisionist theories. She also had a few choice words about
student newspaper editors who chose to print Bradley Smith's
ad. Having been partially responsible for the decision to print
the ad at Washington University, I offered her my point of view
in the Q&A session. She refused to hear my arguments and we
ran out of time before I could even begin to explain what the
Internet is (when she made the comment I heard mumblings in
the mostly computer-illiterate audience to the effect of:
what company runs this Internet thing? How can we stop them).
Anyway, I thought I would share this little anecdote with
everyone.
Lorrie
From caf-talk Caf Jul 27 18:56:01 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul27.184811.20064@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:48:11 GMT
In article <1992Jul27.025503.6884@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
>jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>> What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"? It's a
>>piece of violent erotica. You can't argue with it because it
>>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.
>
>Sexual buttons?
Yes, sexual buttons.
>Sexual buttons?
Yes, sexual buttons.
>Sexual buttons?
Yes, sexual buttons.
> What are those?
You'll find out some day, I'm sure.
> Are you saying that there are certain
>things that just viewing them causes rational thought to stop and some
>sort of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde thing to happen?
No.
> Is this something that you
>are personally aware of or is it only those mythical "others" that this
>happens to?
Yes.
>Just curious.
Glad to be of help.
--Jamie. ,
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (-:=
"Cool... clear... Usenet" ` (not)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 04:05:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: colin@eecg.toronto.edu (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: holocaust revisionism and the net
Message-ID: <1992Jul28.040131.17594@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 28 Jul 92 08:01:31 GMT
All I can say is that I've heard the b-cpu bunch. And I've heard refutations
by Barry Shein and others. And I know who *I* believe.
That is the joy of the net. (Besides, b-cpu isn't even *on* the internet.)
--
-Colin
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 15:13:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [Cu Digest] CPSR Recommends NREN Privacy
Message-ID: <9207281913.AA11355@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:13:46 GMT
[Forwarded from the Computer Underground Digest]
>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:25:57 EDT
>From: Dave Banisar
>Subject: File 10--CPSR Recommends NREN Privacy
CPSR Recommends NREN Privacy Principles
(PRESS RELEASE)
WASHINGTON, DC -- Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR), a national public interest organization, has recommended
privacy guidelines for the nation's computer network.
At a hearing this week before the National Commission on Library and
Information Science, CPSR recommended a privacy policy for the
National Research and Education Network or "NREN." Marc Rotenberg,
Washington Director of CPSR, said "We hope this proposal will get the
ball rolling. The failure to develop a good policy for the computer
network could be very costly in the long term."
The National Commission is currently reviewing comments for a report
to the Office of Science and Technology Policy on the future of the
NREN.
Mr. Rotenberg said there are several reasons that the Commission
should address the privacy issue. "First, the move toward
commercialization of the network is certain to exacerbate privacy
concerns. Second, current law does not do a very good job of
protecting computer messages. Third, technology won't solve all the
problems."
The CPSR principles are (1) protect confidentiality, (2) identify
privacy implications in new services, (3) limit collection of personal
data, (4) restrict transfer of personal information,(5) do not charge
for routine privacy protection, (6) incorporate technical safeguards,
(7) develop appropriate security policies, and (8) create an
enforcement mechanism.
Professor David Flaherty, an expert in telecommunications privacy law,
said "The CPSR principles fit squarely in the middle of similar
efforts in other countries to promote network services. This looks
like a good approach."
Evan Hendricks, the chair of the United States Privacy Council and
editor of Privacy Times, said that the United States is "behind the
curve" on privacy and needs to catch up with other countries who are
already developing privacy guidelines. "The Europeans are racing
forward, and we've been left with dust on our face."
The CPSR privacy guidelines are similar to a set of principles
developed almost 20 years ago called The Code of Fair Information
practices. The Code was developed by a government task force that
included policy makers, privacy experts, and computer scientists. The
Code later became the basis of the United States Privacy Act.
Dr. Ronni Rosenberg, who has studied the role of computer scientists
in public policy, said that "Computer professionals have an important
role to play in privacy policy. The CPSR privacy guidelines are
another example of how scientists can contribute to public policy."
CPSR is a membership organization of 2500 professionals in the
technology field. For more information about the Privacy Policies and
how to join CPSR, contact CPSR, P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto CA 94302.
415/322-3778 (tel) and 415/322-3798 (fax). Email at
cpsr@csli.stanford.edu.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 16:44:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.29
Message-ID: <1992Jul28.204349.11138@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:43:49 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n29".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n29
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending 21st June, 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.
===============================================================
[#28 is in production]
Notes 1 to 3 concern how universal the right to freedom of speech
should be - in particular whether it should be allowed to "fascists"
and "holocaust revisionists".
1. "Freedom of expression isn't a luxury to be denied until we reach a
perfect society; it is instead our best [way] of perfecting (or at
least improving) society."
<1992Jun16.220303.28270@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
2. Censorship is not the best way to combat the irresponsible and
untrue statements made by holocaust revisionists. Intelligent
refutation is far more effective - although the nature of the
statements themselves is as damning as any counter-argument.
<1992Jun19.061006.23999@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
3. "What good is fighting for ideals if you destroy those ideals in
the fight? If your idea of a "perfect" world doesn't include freedom
of expression I want no part of it... If we want the network to be
treated as a common carrier, then at least for pay services [we] have
no right to censor based on content alone."
<1992Jun19.084539.1206@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Notes 4 to 6 discuss how users should deal with being offended while
using the Internet, and how system administrators should respond to
users who can't deal with it.
4. A guide to dealing with offensive or abusive email and news
messages, with the emphasis being on tolerance, kill files and mail
filters.
<1992Jun17.052430.20515@uwasa.fi>
5. The "Standard Manager's Reply" (Revision A), to be sent to users
complaining about the content of the e-mail or newsgroup posting of a
subscriber to the manager's system, espouses the delights of freedom
of expression, clear thinking, and kill files.
<6980@public.BTR.COM>
6. Comments on and criticisms of the "Standard Manager's Reply".
Notes 7 and 8 concern the rights of system administrators to access
users' accounts.
7. "You are given an account with the understanding that you will not
use it to attempt to crack the system. But if you use that account to
learn the passwords of other users, then you are abusing the trust
placed in you by the system administrator, and he can remove your
access for it."
<1992Jun18.200126.486@newshost.lanl.gov>
8. "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'."
<1992Jun19.065554.8876@eff.org>
Notes 9 to 11, although unrelated, each address the issues of free
speech and censorship.
9. The New York Times of 6/10/92 reported that a Williams College
student has been subpoenaed after refusing refusing to talk with
Secret Service agents about a computer message he had written which
contained a "death threat" against George Bush.
<1992Jun11.001601.29258@morrow.stanford.edu>
10. As reported in the University of Toronto _Bulletin_, that
university is not planning to intercept or censor any of the files
available on the Internet that may contain violent pornographic
material.
<1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
11. "I do _not_ want to restrict anybody's right to post or read
whatever they wish, nor am I trying to accommodate or compromise with
those who do. I just want _for myself_ some additional means for
selecting what I want to read."
- Elizabeth]
--- 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, Mark C.
Sheehan 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 Jul 28 17:24:37 1992
From: lemon@unssun.nevada.edu
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Comp. privacy policies in diff countries? (repost)
Message-ID: <4215@equinox.unr.edu>
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:40:31 GMT
Hi,
I recently posted something of this nature to comp.org.eff.talk as well.
I am curious about what other countries, especially those in Europe, are
doing about computer privacy W/RE email, files, sysadmins searching files,
and stuff like that. I know the USA's government and judicial system
seems to be having a hard time deciding what to do in terms of extending
our bill of rights to the electronic medium. But are other countries'
governments having the same troubles? If so, why? If not, what are they
doing about it (laws, amendments, policies)? Oh, and for that matter, is
the privacy "thang" considered by computer users in Europe to be _as_
important as it is to users here in the USA? Or do we in the USA just
tend to hold more stringently to the ideal of privacy? Does anyone forsee
a problem with the EC and differing thoughts on privacy from within Europe?
Just that I can't recall seeing anything related to this topic come out
of Europe, and it makes me wonder....
Anyhow, if anyone has any insights as to the above, or, i'm sure, can direct
me to a prior-work/FAQ-like-thingy on this subject, much obliged. ;^)
I'm not only interested in this now, but i think i'm going to do a public
policy paper on it. ;^) So i really need to find out sources of info for
foreign countries as well as USA, as this paper should be comparative in
nature. Our library seems a little outdated in this case. :(
John
Ps: Followups to alt.privacy.
John A. LeMon "Good my Lord, put your discourse in some frame
U. Nevada, Reno and start not so wildly from my affair."
lemon@unssun.nevada.edu --Shakespeare
"My voice will rise and be heard, even if it kills me (or my mbox)!" -- Me.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 17:28:43 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,soc.libraries.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul28.212836.12305@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:28:36 GMT
[Follow up to a newspaper article reposted to
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, news.admin, et al. - Carl]
The Toronto _Globe and Mail_ article says:
>"I said it was not an issue of censorship," said Lionel Tolan, Simon
>Fraser's director of academic computer services.
[...]
>Mr. Tolan said the decision to stop access to the sex groups of Internet
>"seemed timely" because of the growing protests of women's groups, the
>fact that public funds supported the university's computer operations,
>and because the university made Internet available to schools in British
>Columbia.
>"It's the same as if somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse. We don't
>have them in the university library. If somebody wants them they can go
>to a bookstore and buy them. Anybody wants access to the sex groups
>on the Internet, they can buy access through a local company."
[...]
Many (most?) academic libraries *do* subscribe to _Playboy_. Can
some check if S.F. gets _Playboy_?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 17:47:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Survey on user privacy
Message-ID: <9207282147.AA12254@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:47:00 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 17:47:14 1992
From: sears@tree.egr.uh.edu (Paul S. Sears)
Subject: Survey on user privacy
Message-ID: <1992Jul23.215931.13522@menudo.uh.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:59:31 GMT
Today we have a very interesting and sensitive situation arise -- a user
passed away and now the user's parents would like access to the user's
account.
This is a situation that I have not had to deal with before. There are some
ethical considerations that need to be understood. I am wondering how other
Administrators/Managers have handled similar situations.
1) I consider a users's account to be "private" and that privacy would only
be compromised by their own choice (i.e., lend their password to a friend, not
acceptable under our computer usage policies, btw, but it does happen) or in
the event of a system/security problem. Is privacy still an issue when the
user is deceased?
2) The account of the deceased user may contain information that could be
considered "sensitive" or "revealing." And then it may not. I am not in the
position to determine what is sensitive. However, there may be information in
that account that the user would never want anyone to see. But what about the
desire of the parents to claim his "personal" files, much like cleaning out
his office (this is being done also)?
3) Is there legal recourse for the parents or relatives of the user if access
is denied?
4) The current policy of Academic Computing is that the only person who can
*legally* access an account is the one who signed the account application,
which means that the parents cannot be given access. In essence I agree, but
shows a lack of compassion. One manager suggested that I move all the users
files to removable media and then give the media to the parents and then
archive the account. It is fairly obvious after searching through policies
and talking with various administrators and managers that this it not a common
problem. Has any organization's computing policy explicitly cover this
particular situation? If so and the policy was to completely deny access, was
that a decision that would legally hold water??
I would really appreciate hearing from those who have faced a similar
situation. I would like to see this issue resolved fairly and ethically to
all parties involved.
I will provide a summary.
--
Paul S. Sears * sears@uh.edu (NeXT Mail OK)
The University of Houston * suggestions@tree.egr.uh.edu (NeXT
Engineering Computing Center* comments, complaints, questions)
NeXT System Administration * DoD#1967 '83 NightHawk 650SC SSI#755020059
"Programming is like sex: One mistake and you support it a lifetime."
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 17:59:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Articles violatating newgroups charter
Message-ID: <199207282159.AA12724@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:59:11 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 17:59:22 1992
From: news@opencon.com (News Admin)
Subject: Articles violatating newgroups charter
Message-ID: <1992Jul13.223839.10459@opencon.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 22:38:39 GMT
As a reader of newsgroups, and as a administrator, few newsgroup violate
their Charter, for example soc.culture.indian, inclosed is the article.
Is there a way news administrators, especially in the universities, admin
to put up statements saying not to post any FLAMES, and if they see any
to warn the students/users/employees,etc. of such behavior. I thought, that
as educated (technical) people, on the net we would know better??
When a newsgroup is created it has a purpose, i.e., it's charter. If people
violate the charter, shouldn't something be done buy the "news" administrators,
even though the "group" by itself is unadministrated.
I have purposely not included the person who did the positing,
but rather where it originatied from, and the article.
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
>Subject: Pakisthani Cross Posters and AGENTS in soc.culture.indian
>Date: 8 Jul 92 00:45:16 GMT
>Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
>Lines: 35
>
>
> THESE *$@@@@*&^$%^^^^ PAKISTANI CROSS POSTER ARE HALF BREED.
> ===========================================================
>
> (Just replace #$%%^& symbols by UNPARLIMENTARY WORDS)
>
>
>Recently I saw lot of CROSS POSTING articles placed by muslims. (I
>am assuming these $&***^^ are Pakistani as there are very few if any
>Hindu or Sikh left in Pakisthan).
>
>
>Well for various reasons THESE #^*&^%$ Pakisthanis have thrown
>out HINDUS AND SIKHS from there provience which they call Pakisthan.
>Now if you do not like Hindus or Sikh then that is fine I am
>not asking to love them nor asking for tolerance.
>
> What I am asking is keep your ideas and views in your own
>SOC.CULTURE.PAKISTHAN For UN sakes keep your nose out of each other
>NET work this applies to INDIAN SOULS and SAINTS.
>
> THESE CROSS POSTER AS VERY SICK PEOPLE. #$^&**&^^% PAKISTHANI
>
>
>LONG LIVE HINDUSTHAN LONG LIVE KHALISTHAN
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>DEATH TO PAKISTHAN
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>================================================================
>Hey Do not send me any e_mail like coward or brave if you want
>to make any comments post it on the net work.
>
I am bascially looking for a way people, using there U.S. First
amendment rights, not to violate other people rights and also follow
the charter of the newsgroups. If any suggestions please do let me
know or postit so that other people will also be educated.
--
News Administrator
news@opencon.com
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:00:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Articles violatating newgroups charter
Message-ID: <199207282159.AA12781@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:59:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:00:04 1992
From: dixon@spot.Colorado.EDU (Life is real?)
Subject: Re: Articles violatating newgroups charter
Message-ID: <1992Jul16.183648.10200@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 18:36:48 GMT
Well, just my 2-bits worth, but I use a lot of unmoderated newsgroups and
have noticed that they seem to be self-regulating. That is, flamers
who get out of line as bad as the one mentioned in soc.culture.indian
usually get flamed to death in retaliation until everyone gets tired of
the whole thing and quits. Other times, people seem to just ignore the
phreek and since he didn't get any attention, he doesn't post much if
any anymore. Notice that the quicker result is ignoring the fool, not
retaliating to him. Bitching is no fun if nobody bitches back! It doesn't
really hurt anybody if a few fanatics exist in different places and that
they choose to limit their lives to unhappy subhuman levels by flaming
others and writing posts like the guy already mentioned did. Just ignore
him and get on with life and assume that you are smarter than he is...after
all, it's a safe assumption, right? Live and let live and ignore the
phreeks!
BD
--
===========================================================================
| Brian Dixon | "Good judgement comes from experience... |
| dixon@spot.colorado.edu | and experience comes from bad judgement!" |
===========================================================================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:00:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Articles violatating newgroups charter
Message-ID: <199207282200.AA12851@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:00:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:00:31 1992
From: news@cse.iitb.ernet.in (News Administration)
Subject: Re: Articles violatating newgroups charter
Message-ID: <1992Jul17.105553.2552@cse.iitb.ernet.in>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 10:55:53 GMT
In article <1992Jul13.223839.10459@opencon.com> news@opencon.com (News Admin) writes:
| As a reader of newsgroups, and as a administrator, few newsgroup violate
| their Charter, for example soc.culture.indian, inclosed is the article.
| Is there a way news administrators, especially in the universities, admin
| to put up statements saying not to post any FLAMES, and if they see any
| to warn the students/users/employees,etc. of such behavior....
[...]
Perhaps many sites have seen this article in news.admin. The interesting
point is that this article also had a "Control" field which said:
rmgroup soc.culture.indian
I am a new Usenet site administrator. I wonder, can one be so cavalier
about issuing "rmgroup" messages? I know it does no real harm, since it
only generates a mail message to the administrator, but I wonder what the
intention was in any case.
Also, I wonder whether what we saw in news.admin is authentic. There is a
message in my "control" area, which has a body which seems identical, but
whose headers are different. Here, I reproduce the header of the version
which was meant for human consumption, i.e. in news.admin. Note that there
is no name anywhere (in both versions) of any human. The "From:" header
doesn't help.
| Xref: jogin news.admin:1558 news.groups:3114 news.misc:243
| Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,news.misc
| Path: jogin!iitb!sangam!uunet!uunet!psinntp!opencon!news
| From: news@opencon.com (News Admin)
| Subject: Articles violatating newgroups charter
| Message-ID: <1992Jul13.223839.10459@opencon.com>
| Summary: Any way to control "Flame" messages
| Keywords: Controlling Flame/Hate Postings
| Organization: OpenCon Systems, Inc.
| Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 22:38:39 GMT
| Lines: 64
And here is what I found in my control area (I've split the "Path:" header
across multiple lines; otherwise it is as I found it). Note the "Path:"
header and the interesting (to me! :-) components in it. What, for
instance, is "malgudi.oar.net"? I will be very surprised if there is such
a place in the US. Malgudi is the name of a fictitious Indian village,
immortalised in the writings of a noted Indian novelist.
| Path: jogin!iitb!sangam!uunet!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!shamash!uc.msc.edu!
| noc.msc.net!umn.edu!paperboy.micro.umn.edu!
| magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
| malgudi.oar.net!caen!nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!
| snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!
| opencon!news
| From: news@opencon.com (News Admin)
| Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,news.misc
| Subject: Articles violatating newgroups charter
| Summary: Any way to control "Flame" messages
| Keywords: Controlling Flame/Hate Postings
| Message-ID: <1992Jul13.223829.10459@opencon.com>
| Date: 13 Jul 92 22:38:39 GMT
| Control: rmgroup soc.culture.indian
| Organization: OpenCon Systems, Inc.
| Lines: 63
| Approved: news@opencon.com
Looks like someone has probably forged a control message, using as far as
possible, the same header lines from an earlier posting by ... himself?
What could it be?
If we wish to trace the probable origins of such a message, with the
cooperations of the Usenet site administrators of the various sites, is it
possible? For instance, I know that the message originated somewhere
outside India, because our logs show that to be the case. (In the Path
header, "jogin" is my site, "iitb" is a site on my campus, "sangam" is the
national Usenet gateway machine ("sangam" means confluence :-), and "uunet"
is the only outward link to sangam.) If our logs show that the article
came into sangam from uunet, can we conclude that it originated in or
beyond uunet?
Hoping for some insight into how these things work...
Shuvam
--
--- Shuvam Misra ----------------------------------- news@cse.iitb.ernet.in --
--- Usenet Administration ----------------------------------------------------
--- CompSc&Engg, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay ----------------------
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:00:55 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin, et al.] Re: Articles violatating newgroups charter
Message-ID: <199207282200.AA12910@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:00:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:00:55 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,news.misc
Subject: Re: Articles violatating newgroups charter
Message-ID: <18937@fritz.filenet.com>
Date: 17 Jul 92 19:51:55 GMT
Written in article <1992Jul13.223839.10459@opencon.com>
by news@opencon.com (News Admin):
: As a reader of newsgroups, and as a administrator, few newsgroup violate
: their Charter, for example soc.culture.indian, inclosed is the article.
: Is there a way news administrators, especially in the universities, admin
: to put up statements saying not to post any FLAMES, and if they see any
: to warn the students/users/employees,etc. of such behavior.
: I thought, that
: as educated (technical) people, on the net we would know better??
HAH!
: When a newsgroup is created it has a purpose, i.e., it's charter. If people
: violate the charter, shouldn't something be done buy the "news" administrators,
: even though the "group" by itself is unadministrated.
Of course, you CAN do something about it. You have every right, as the
administrator, representing the owner of the machine, to make certain
restrictions. Having Freedom of Speech doesn't obligate anyone to Provide
the Soap Box. But it won't do you a whole lot of good in the long run.
Issues of free speech aside, there's really little you can do about it,
except post occasional friendly reminders.
If people choose to ignore your reminders, what can you do? If, as the
administrator, you manage to "kill-file" anything coming into or going
out of your site, folks will only manage to find other sites, or
sneakier ways of slipping past your kill file algorithms. It's more
trouble, but if they really want to spew hatred, they'll find a way.
You might as well try to out-law cross-burning on the private property
of burner. Sure it's disgusting, but unless you want to fine him for
air pollution, there's nothing you can do. So long as he's not burning
the cross on someone else's property, it's legal, as it should be.
If you pass a law against it, or try to force it to stop, they'll only
put up a full-size picture of a burning cross. Not quite the same
impact, but it gets the point across. Forbidding that, they'll send
hate-mail to select groups through the postal service. In other words,
you can't stop them from hating somebody by stopping them from express-
ing their hatred. They'll simply find other, possibly more insidious,
methods of expression.
My point is that there really nothing you can or should do about it.
Just post reminders now and then, send e-mail now and then, and hope for
the best.
--
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility.
And vice versa.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:12:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Penn State CENSORS my usenet!
Message-ID: <199207282211.AA13246@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:11:51 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:12:04 1992
From: The Velcro-Man!
Message-ID: <92204.205956DED110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Penn State CENSORS my usenet!
The admin's refuse to carry gropus that they don't want to. Simple as
that. Not only will they not carry such disk-hogs as alt.binaries.erotica
etc. but will not even carry alt.flame.abortion! Why? Because they say so!
Well I for one am not taking this crap. I am embarking on the uncharted and
perilous journey (dramatic pause) of gaining complete access!!! Well, not
quite. I *am* trying other ways to read and post to the.net. For example:
some kind individuals shared with me method of posting to both alt.sex and
alt.sex.bondage via 2 daemons at other universities. Not exactly fabulous
knowledge, but progress nonetheless. I am continuing to ask netters for all
the info they can give me in the hopes that I will be able to publish a
sumary of these techniques for general consumption. I am told by friends at
vasrious other sites that Penn State is not the only offender, and is even
more liberal than some! So, I now throw down the gauntlet and ask any and
all of you netters out there to follow me to the fray! Well, you don't really
have to do that, but it would be nice if you could drop me some E-mail telling
me any neat little techniques and tidbits you've learned about the usenet
concerning reading, posting, FTP'ing, telnetting, etc. as long as it's in some
way relevant to the issue at hand. I'm not asking for hints on how to hack
into NASA's supercomputers, or anything, just info you may have happened upon.
I'll try to neatly compile the responses and post them, and maybe set up an
FTP site for those w/o any usenet access. Thanx in advance; let's get 'em!
"Velcro is your friend!" Ask me why!
Dan D'Ambrosio, President J.R.C.
Box 722 Behrend College Available only at
Erie, PA DED110@PSUVM or
16563 DED110@psuvm.psu.edu and fine stores....
Home: (814) 587-3080
J.R.C. Office: (814) 898-6297 (Call collect, Penn State's paying!)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:12:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Penn State CENSORS my usenet!
Message-ID: <199207282212.AA13307@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:12:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:12:25 1992
From: john@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (John Blasik)
Subject: Re: Penn State CENSORS my usenet!
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.051430.29361@rtfm.mlb.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:14:30 GMT
The Velcro-Man! writes:
>more liberal than some! So, I now throw down the gauntlet and ask any and
>all of you netters out there to follow me to the fray! Well, you don't really
>have to do that, but it would be nice if you could drop me some E-mail telling
>me any neat little techniques and tidbits you've learned about the usenet
>concerning reading, posting, FTP'ing, telnetting, etc. as long as it's in some
Here's a simple 4 step method.
i) purchase a computer
ii) purchase a modem
iii) purchase (or acquire free) news software
iv) purchase (or acquire a free) news feed
-- john
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 07:15:15 1992
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.sex,tor.general
Subject: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Message-ID: <1992Jul28.200735.11951@deeptht.armory.com>
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:07:35 GMT
In article <1992Jul27.062634.7543@bkj386.uucp> brian@bkj386.UUCP (Brian Jenkins) writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.141212.27368@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>>
>>>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>>>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>>>or military stockades (half a :)).
>>-------------------------
>>No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
>>who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
>>making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
>>disagree with.
>
>Sorry I missed the original reply to my response. But I
>gather that it takes much this vein.
>
>I guess as the idiot I am that the proposal above is to
>arrest most of the military and the CIA involved in South
>East Asia as not only did they support a bloody minded,
>dictatorship in Vietnam, but the dealt almost exclusively
>with the heroin drug lords in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand
>to attempt to control the activities of the natives to the
>area. I gather a certain western nation provided military
>cover to these barons to get their drugs out through
>"hostile territory" -- often via the support of corrupt
>Vietnamese generals, now living comfortably in the US.
>
>I do not know if saturation bombing and free fire zones
>would count as human rights violations but I would guess
>so. Definitely a violation of the Geneva convention.
>As is systematically pushing the enemy from helicopters
>and drowning them in buckets of water. Or caging them
>in small cages for years.
>
>I think that also it is imperative that you start
>proceedings against US government officials who supported
>and ran the particular drug baron that you are so upset
>with in Panama. Can you run for president from jail?
>
>Would it not be nice if the world was so perfect? But the
>stockades would be mighty crowded. I would settle for a
>little civilization.
>from the basement of brian@bkj386.uucp
--------------------------------
I admit that I almost put a smiley on that "idiot" remark, but I was
irritated and wished to show it. I wish there was a smiley for that.
Maybe a tongue, oh well. As far as Geneva Conventions go, saturation
bombing in a combat area is not a violation. SCUDding Israel was.
Hiroshima and Dresden were violations, but so was the bombing of
London and the death camps. I would settle for a little civilization
too, but not at Neville Chamberlain's cost.
And I was mistaken to even mention cocaine, as I am in favor of
legalization of everything so that it is not profitable. Organized
crime can be shown to have backed anti-drug candidates right down the
line in the past. A legalized market and a "drug war" dividend could
pay for rehab centers and drug education, the best role of a
government. But I did like seeing that little fascist from Panama get
what's coming to him. He was killing his own people down there and
threatening ours. Anybody who does that with the 82nd airborne a four
hour flight away is a nut. The treaty that would have relinquished our
right to retract it hadn't even gone into effect at the time he
started acting badly. And that was foolish. If he had kept the canal
running and became a hideous dictator after we signed off on our
ownership of the canal and the final right to ownership of Panama, a
country which WE named and carved out of the jungle where no native
people's ever lived because of the malaria till us, since most
Panamanians are descended from people's in the north central america
and columbia. If he had only waited he could have had that country and
we wouldn't have had any right by treaty to stop him, as long as he
kept the canal open.
And yes, I'm no republican lover. By all means go after the people who
were acting beyond their charge in government, and for all we know,
serving those who make money from drugs right at the top. And go after
presidents who tacitly support "strong men" fascisti anywhere in the
world, just because they keep the third world industies going for our
rich. We're together on that. I could do with some civilization, but
it is my claim that we have never known it yet in the history of the
world, except in isolated pockets for short periods of time. And even
those are questionable to me.
- Steve Walz
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 07:43:18 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] Penn State CENSORS my usenet!
Message-ID: <1992Jul29.104958.18290@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Jul 92 10:49:58 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:59:56 EDT
: From: The Velcro-Man!
: Message-ID: <92204.205956DED110@psuvm.psu.edu>
: Newsgroups: alt.censorship
: Subject: Penn State CENSORS my usenet!
:
: The admin's refuse to carry gropus that they don't want to. Simple as
: that. Not only will they not carry such disk-hogs as alt.binaries.erotica
: etc. but will not even carry alt.flame.abortion! Why? Because they say so!
: Well I for one am not taking this crap. I am embarking on the uncharted and
Try looking on alt.internet.services
A list is posted there frequently, and you just might find a few things on
it interesting.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 10:02:57 1992
From: mathew
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9NcooB24w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 14:00:55 BST
evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
> I wonder, in fact how anyone who wants to render writing, pictures or
> whatever about sex can possibly be older that about 13 themselves.
I wonder how anyone over the age of about 13 could want to look at pictures of
people playing football, but millions do.
mathew
--
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
sense of rampant impropriety." -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 10:07:25 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Survey on user privacy
Message-ID: <1992Jul29.100142.21482@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:01:42 GMT
In article <1992Jul23.215931.13522@menudo.uh.edu> sears@tree.egr.uh.edu writes:
>
>Today we have a very interesting and sensitive situation arise -- a user
>passed away and now the user's parents would like access to the user's
>account.
>
>This is a situation that I have not had to deal with before. There are some
>ethical considerations that need to be understood. I am wondering how other
>Administrators/Managers have handled similar situations.
>
One of my coworkers recently discovered that one of this University's
systems still had an active userid for her father, who passed away in
1988 (OK, so the bookkeeping isn't quite up to par).
She will be approaching this situation from the legal standpoint of
'executor's privilege'. In most states, the Executor of an estate
has, by law, access to ALL portions of the estate. I would strongly
suspect that this access would extend to online resources of the estate.
After all, what if the deceased was working on a patent, book, or article
that could have monetary value to the estate? In such an example, the
executor would have both the need AND the legal obligation to investigate
those resources.
Check with your local counsel; your mileage may vary.
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 10:27:16 1992
From: tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,soc.libraries.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul29.142429.6503@u.washington.edu>
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:24:29 GMT
In article <1992Jul28.212836.12305@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> [Follow up to a newspaper article reposted to
> alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, news.admin, et al. - Carl]
>
> The Toronto _Globe and Mail_ article says:
>
> >"It's the same as if somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse. We don't
> >have them in the university library. If somebody wants them they can go
> >to a bookstore and buy them. Anybody wants access to the sex groups
> >on the Internet, they can buy access through a local company."
> [...]
>
> Many (most?) academic libraries *do* subscribe to _Playboy_. Can
> some check if S.F. gets _Playboy_?
>
> - Carl
From SFU's online catalog:
-------------------------------------------------------
172 S.F.U. Libraries ONLINE PUBLIC CATALOGUE ALL *TITLE SEARCH
Citation 3 of 6
TITLE: Playboy. --
IMPRINT: Chicago.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: v.
NOTE: SUMMARY HOLDINGS: BVAS v.14-[19]-[22-24]-[26-27]-[29-31]-[34]-[36]-v.39,
no.2. 1967-[1992]. LOCATION: STORAG; Index for 1953-1966 in STORAG;
SHELVED UNDER: Title. * SUMMARY HOLDINGS: BVAS [C. 2] : v.6, no.6, 7,
12, 1959; v.12, no.1, 1965. LOCATION: CLC.
CONTROL NO.: SFU Serial no.: 705600000
ISN: ISSN: 00321478
-------------------------------------------------------
Looks either like they're getting it or like their subscription ended in 1992.
They don't show Penthouse in their catalog.
Thomas Dowling
University of Washington Libraries
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 11:16:20 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,soc.libraries.talk
From: cbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Syed)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:10:30 GMT
In article <1992Jul29.142429.6503@u.washington.edu> tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.212836.12305@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>> [Follow up to a newspaper article reposted to
>> alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, news.admin, et al. - Carl]
>>
>> >....[quote from the article] If somebody wants them they can go
>> >to a bookstore and buy them. Anybody wants access to the sex groups
>> >on the Internet, they can buy access through a local company."
>> [...]
>>
Ah, the old fee or free equal access or access for the rich
only thing...:-)
But seriously...
Those of you who remember the short-lived SUZY system in Canada
will recall that there was a _moderated_ service on SUZY which
was run by two resepcted sexologists out of Vancouver. They
used the network to answer "reference" type questions, and to
post articles about real issues of concern mostly to young people.
I'd hate to see this, uh, reactionist, wave swamp useful services like
that.
--
---
"We cannot think without imagining." -- Thomas Aquinas
cbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Brown-Syed)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 11:35:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID: <1992Jul29.153530.24912@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:35:30 GMT
In article , jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
[...]
> I recently put the lyrics to "Cop Killer" by Ice-T in my .plan file so
> that it shows up when someone else does "finger jbw@cs.bu.edu".
[...]
> I am seeking arguments to use against a possible attempt to censor me.
[...]
jaw@is.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>Here's where you need to be careful. There is an important distinction
>to be made in your case. You do have the right to personal expression
>as delineated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You
>*do not* have the right to demand that someone else supply you a venue
>for that expression.
[...]
Depends. The First Amendment is not the only document that protects
free speech. The student code (and even the computer code) at some
universities does to. These are contractual rights as contrasted with
the First Amendment's constitutional rights.
Get a copy of your student code and see what your contractual rights
are.
As a student, many believe you also have a moral right to free
expression. This is outlined in documents such as the Joint Statement
on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/constraints.contractual
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).
=================
policies/bostonu.edu
=================
Ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
(Critiqued)
=================
policies/bostonu.edu.critique
=================
Critique of the ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology
Summary: 'In the name of protecting privacy, the policy attacks
privacy. It says the University has the power to "without notice, ...
inspect ... any data [or] file". It imposes speech restrict[ion]s that
would be ridiculed if applied to the campus as a whole. It says the
user may not "mak[e] accessible offensive [or] annoying material"'
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/law/constraints.contractual
pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu
pub/academic/policies/bostonu.edu.critique
pub/academic/banned.1991
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send acad-freedom/law constraints.contractual
send acad-freedom/policies bostonu.edu
send acad-freedom/policies bostonu.edu.critique
send acad-freedom banned.1991
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 11:39:03 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Request: Info about ECPA (was Freedom of Information Act)
Message-ID: <1992Jul29.153856.25087@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:38:56 GMT
aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>There have been some inquiries at my university concerning the Freedom
>of Information Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
>Specifically, I would like to know to what extent the FOIA applies to
>a private university, such as ours. The director of our computer
>center is aware that people consider their email private, and wants to
>know if this assumption can be supported.
[...]
Unless your university has its own FOIA, no FOIA will apply. The
ECPA might, however apply.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986
pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986.godwin
To get the file(s) 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 ecpa.1986
send acad-freedom/law ecpa.1986.godwin
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 11:46:52 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul29.151631.19622@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:16:31 GMT
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
: > I wonder, in fact how anyone who wants to render writing, pictures or
: > whatever about sex can possibly be older that about 13 themselves.
:
: I wonder how anyone over the age of about 13 could want to look at pictures of
: people playing football, but millions do.
You have taken what I said out of context.
The point was that anyone older than about 13 cannot be the product of an
IVF program, therefor their parents must have had sex.
Thus the potential censor is a product of the activity they wish to be hidden.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 12:57:46 1992
From: kelly@nmt.edu (kelly)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul28.223903.628@nmt.edu>
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:39:03 GMT
In article <1992Jul27.184811.20064@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
|In article <1992Jul27.025503.6884@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
||
||Sexual buttons?
|
| Yes, sexual buttons.
|
|| What are those?
|
They're a new subset of the Athena Widget set. It's got buttons,
levers, and other gushy things. There's even a special XG_Spot()
routine.
--k
PS: :)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 15:36:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: philip@SMU.StMarys.CA (Philip Howard (Computer Services))
Subject: RE: "Computers graphic...", letter to the Globe
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:46:59 GMT
The following letter was faxed to the Globe today. Not 30min. later I got a
call from Peter Moon, the reporter who wrote the article. He was still
chuckling... He admitted, though, that the Internet is a hard concept to
grasp (no ribald pun intended).
610-5681 Rhuland Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia
The Editor,
The Globe & Mail
Toronto, Ontario
Fax: (416) 585-5085
Dear Sir or Madam,
The following response to your front page "expos‚" of the Internet is
written in the style of a network article, or "post." On "the Net", quoted
passages are preceded by the '>' symbol (inserted automatically by software
when replying to a post). Puns or tongue-in-cheek remarks often end in a
"smilie", a sideways happy-face symbol made up of keyboard characters; eg,
:-). Critical remarks are known as "flames." Postings are usually far more
casual than is common with written correspondence. Acronyms like IMHO (In
My Humble Opinion) and BTW (By The Way) are used freely to the distress of
those new to the system, the "newbies." Postings usually conclude with
information about the poster. These signature lines, or "sigs", may include
sarcastic disclaimers along the lines of "The opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of my employer."
(Note: For correct spacing, reproduce the following in a mono-spaced font
like courier, 80 column page width.)
----------------------Cut Here-----------------------------------
X-NEWS: husky1 can.globe&mail.sex: 50
Relay-Version: VMS News - V6.0-3 14/03/90 VAX/VMS; site husky1.stmarys.ca
Newsgroups: can.globe&mail.sex
Subject: Computers graphic when it comes to porn
From: phoward@husky1.stmarys.ca
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:46:50 -0400
Organization: St. Mary's University, Halifax, N.S., Canada
Lines: 50
In article<1992July20.frontpage@globe.to.ont>,"Computers graphic when it
comes to porn", Moon@globe.to.ont<"Peter Moon"> writes:
>Pornographic photographs and obscene stories... are available to
>virtually anyone in Canada with a computer and a telephone link.
Uh, well, nooo... unless one has purchased the network service, access is
not *publicly* available, Peter... as you confess later in the article. But
then that would not have grabbed your readers' ...uh... attention, right?
>Canadian universities enter the computer system that includes the
>controversial sex bulletin boards through Internet.
Peter, I think you really missed the mark on this one. Of the almost 3,000
*Usenet* (to be accurate) discussion groups with worldwide distribution,
you mentioned the three or four sleazy ones. In fact, Usenet discussion
groups or "netnews" is only one feature of this "network of networks."
Electronic mail, the speedy transfer of vast data files, and Internet
accessible library catalogs and databases make up a far greater portion of
network traffic. The Internet is a tremendous knowledge resource and your
article only covered the worst of it.
It was as if you had visited a foreign land and spent your entire visit at
the garbage dump! You overlooked the language and the culture. The Internet
is becoming, to employ a common phrase, a "distinct society." Its ethos is
people helping people, sharing information and computing resources, working
together in a way that outsiders cannot fully appreciate. We are not the
computer hackers of common lore. We come from all disciplines because every
field of endeavour benefits from improved access to information.
Future, faster networks like the Internet have been called "the critical
infrastructure of information superhighways" by one supporter, American
Vice Presidential candidate Sen. Albert Gore. IMHO the subject deserved
fuller coverage than that very narrow article which could only have been
meant to appeal the most prurient interests of your readers.
BTW, these comments will have been available to tens of thousands of people
by the time you get around to deciding whether or not to include them on
the Letters to the Editor page. They will circle the globe in can.general
and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk :-)
Please direct any flames to my email box since I am not a regular reader of
can.sex.globe&mail... *wink* ;-)
-----
Philip M. Howard | internet: phoward@husky1.stmarys.ca
Technical Support Analyst | voice: (902) 420-5481
Saint Mary's University | fax: (902) 420-5115
Halifax, Nova Scotia | "Maintaining regularity
C A N A D A B3H 3C3 | without drugs or medication."
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 17:41:41 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: User services was: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:33:18 GMT
In article <14i95lINNdmu@nigel.msen.com> emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
>The whole question of what services a user without any special priveleges
>is allowed to provide to the rest of the internet is a tough one.
>Consider that e.g. an unprivelged user can run a WAIS server, a gopher
>server, and thus allow some amount of access to whatever files are on
>the system (good, bad, useful or "obscene"). The finger .plan file
>is a very small piece of what all else people might do if they were
>sufficiently motivated and skillful.
Funny you should mention that. We just drafted a rough policy file,
adn one thing we put in is that providing public services is the
responsibility of the administrators and must be approved by us.
This is 95% for practical reasons; our particular site is very
starved for resources, in particular network load. Making sure that
resources are reserved for their intended purpose is part of our job.
"General interesting exploration" is one intended purpose of the
system, but coursework , faculty research, and systems work all
outrank it.
Besides, I may be showing my ignorance here, but I don't think an
unprivileged user can offer wais or gopher access offsite....
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 18:09:40 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:56:25 GMT
In article <1992Jul21.142535.21786@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>If other students have humorous or otherwise irrelevant text in their
>.plan files and have not been told to remove them, then you should document
>this (print out a session where you get the time & date, and finger
>a bunch of other students). This would show that the university is
>telling you, and only you, to remove your .plan based on the content,
>and not on disk space, or using .plan for what it is intended (does
>anyone use .plan for what it is intended?) That would clearly make it a
>first amendment case, and the U would almost certainly lose.
I still don't see why. What's unconstitutional about our policy of
setting an obsenity standard, for example? Our policy is that all
finger info and public X-terminal screens should be of roughly PG-13
offensiveness or less. We ask users to remove obscene or blatantly
sexual .plan files. For example, last week a user had an "ansi art"
.plan which repeatedly blasted a four-letter word acrss the screen.
Prior to him, another user was asked to remove a crude sexual
limerick. Both users complied without complaint... I don't think they
really felt that strongly about it. I get complaints from professors
when we allow these to remain.
It seems to me that we are applying acommon "community standard"
to this material.
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 18:09:42 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Survey on user privacy
Message-ID: <1992Jul29.215819.15965@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:58:19 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
}sears@tree.egr.uh.edu writes:
}>Today we have a very interesting and sensitive situation arise -- a user
}>passed away and now the user's parents would like access to the user's
}>account.
}She will be approaching this situation from the legal standpoint of
}'executor's privilege'. In most states, the Executor of an estate
}has, by law, access to ALL portions of the estate. I would strongly
}suspect that this access would extend to online resources of the estate.
}After all, what if the deceased was working on a patent, book, or article
}that could have monetary value to the estate? In such an example, the
}executor would have both the need AND the legal obligation to investigate
}those resources.
I think there are two questions here, because the original poster didn't
saw what "access" was:
access == use of the account
access == (a copy of) the files in the account
I doubt my heirs would have any claims on the use of my account (and rightly
so). If it was something I paid, say, an annual fee for (at a public access
site or some such), then perhaps they would (or a refund).
As to whether they have claim to any of the files in my account is a stickier
question. It would not be unreasonable for an employer to claim that anything
in my account was their property not mine (they bought it with my salary),
hence my heirs would have no claim. Now, if my employer graciously allowed
me storage of personal files, then I would expect that my heirs would have a
claim on those. But they would have no more claim on the Ultrix source here,
for example, then they would have on the desk in my office. The question of
the who/how/when of this division of property would be more difficult than the
physical property in the office, I would think (it's pretty clear who owns the
desk, the boombox, etc., but what the devil is "xyz.17jun92"?).
John
--
John Hascall ``Live with it pink-boy!''
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 19:56:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Steve_Gilbert@gatormail.educom.edu (Steve Gilbert)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic F
Message-ID: <199207292355.AA04089@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:55:16 GMT
Reply to: RE>Computers and Academic Free
What do i do to read such a thing? do i need any special software>?
--------------------------------------
Date: 7/28/92
To: Steve Gilbert
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff
See enclosed file of D.smtp.in.8548
From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 22:28:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: User services was: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.022822.5866@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:28:22 GMT
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
[...]
>Funny you should mention that. We just drafted a rough policy file,
>adn one thing we put in is that providing public services is the
>responsibility of the administrators and must be approved by us.
[...]
What criteria will you use? You will likely be pressured to use your
new authority to censor your users.
If you don't want to become a censor, you may want to look at how
librarians select material. I'm enclosing references.
You may also want to consider liability. If the school's approval
process involves "editorial" decisions, you likely increase the
schools potential liability. (References enclosed)
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/freedom-to-read.ala
=================
The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association
and Association of American Publishers.
It says in part: "We trust Americans to recognize propaganda, and to
reject it. We do not believe they need the help of censors to assist
them in this task. We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice
their heritage of a free press in order to be "protected" against what
others think may be bad for them. We believe they still favor free
enterprise in ideas and expression."
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that
materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This
includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues."
=================
library/selection-workbook.ala
=================
Full text of ALA's selection policy workbook.
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/censorship.def.ala
=================
The American Library Association's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
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/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
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 document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/student.freedoms
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala
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/netnews.liability
pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom student.freedoms
send acad-freedom/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/library freedom-to-read.ala
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/library selection-workbook.ala
send acad-freedom/library int-freedom.ala
send acad-freedom/library censorship.def.ala
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 netnews.liability
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 Jul 29 22:51:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.025150.6252@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:51:50 GMT
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.142535.21786@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
[...]
>I still don't see why. What's unconstitutional about our policy of
>setting an obsenity standard, for example? Our policy is that all
>finger info and public X-terminal screens should be of roughly PG-13
>offensiveness or less.
This is not an "obscenity" standard; it is a PG-13 standard. The word
"obscene" has a specific legal meaning. It only refers to the hardest
of the hard core and only then if it has no other value.
_Penthouse_ magazine, for example, is not obscene. (see references)
[...]
> It seems to me that we are applying acommon "community standard"
>to this material.
[...]
Your policy may be justifiable, but not on these grounds. Community
standards has to do with obscenity, not PG-13.
If the policy is justifiable, it is because the display of sexually
offensive pictures in a public terminal room might violate your
university's sexual harassment policy.
Be careful that you don't overstep your authority. For example, the
library computer system (LCS) at my school, U. of Illinois, contains
serveral books with the word "fuck" in their title. Does your policy
prohibit access to LCS or similar library computer systems?
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/miller
=================
The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_
test)
=================
law/penthouse-vs-meese
=================
Newspaper story about Edwin Meese's improper harassment of _Playboy_
and _Penthouse_ and his immunity from punishment. The story says
"[w]hile Penthouse and Playboy feature naked women, neither has ever
been found to be legally pornographic or obscene. Such material has
been granted full First Amendment protection by the Supreme Court."
=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.
=================
law/cohen-v-california.1
=================
Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended
The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_
and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court
saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive
expression.
=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/miller
pub/academic/law/penthouse-vs-meese
pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law miller
send acad-freedom/law penthouse-vs-meese
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Jul 30 04:00:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.074946.15202@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:49:46 GMT
In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
:I still don't see why. What's unconstitutional about our policy of
:setting an obsenity standard, for example? Our policy is that all
:finger info and public X-terminal screens should be of roughly PG-13
:offensiveness or less.
My first thought when I read this was: "I wonder how many of their
users are under 13?"
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 Jul 30 07:53:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Test
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.070512.28083@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:05:12 GMT
Test message.
--
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com | - Robert A. Heinlein
Thu Jul 30 01:20:45 1992 US Debt: $4,001,820,545,051 Per capita: $15,687
From caf-talk Caf Jul 30 07:54:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Test
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.072431.28703@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:24:31 GMT
Test message.
--
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com | - Robert A. Heinlein
Thu Jul 30 01:20:45 1992 US Debt: $4,001,820,545,051 Per capita: $15,687
From caf-talk Caf Jul 30 07:55:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: LIBERTYVILLE HIGH SCHOOL GROUP TO WORK FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.072717.29166@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:27:17 GMT
[Please pardon the humoungous crosspost. Note the Followup-To: line. Thanks.]
The Partnership for a Free America July 24, 1992
Contact: Sameer Parekh 708-362-9659 For immediate release
LIBERTYVILLE HIGH SCHOOL GROUP TO WORK FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
LIBERTYVILLE - A group of Libertyville High School students have formed
an organization in the Libertyville area to protect the civil liberties
of the people in the high school and community. The group, known as the
Partnership for a Free America, will educate the people about their
rights, provide a support resource for those people whose rights have
been violated, and abolish laws which the Partnership feels violate the
people's rights.
In order to protect the civil liberties of the people in the
community properly, the Partnership believes that it is necessary that
the people learn exactly what their rights are. Because of this, a
major facet of the Partnership's actions will be informing the people
about their rights. RThe government has been violating the peopleUs
rights, and the mass media have been telling them to accept it,S said
Partnership founder Sameer Parekh at the Cafe Kismet in Waukegan on July
24th.
The Partnership will provide a support resource for people who
feel they have been deprived of due process. RWhen the people are
united,S Parekh believes, Rit is more difficult to oppress them.S
The Partnership will also work to abolish the curfew laws in the
area because members believe that the government should not act as the
parents of the people, and that the laws violate the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution. RThe only people who have a right to set
a childUs curfew are his or her parents. This law is almost as
discriminatory as the Jim Crow laws of the early 20th century,S said
Parekh.
Other laws which the Partnership will work to remove are the
drug laws. This countryUs drug problem, members of the Partnership
believe, is the result of the laws themselves, not because of the drugs.
RThe black market itself causes the Tdrug-relatedU violence and,
according to a study done by The Cato Insitute, 80 percent of
Tdrug-relatedU deaths. A clean, inexpensive, supply available at any
Osco Pharmacy would eliminate these problems,S Parekh said, commenting
upon this aspect of the Partnership's actions.
The Partnership for a Free America qualifies under tax code
section 509(a)(2), and is thus tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3). The
Partnership is working to formalize this status. One-year memberships
are available for $15 to adults and $10 to students. This includes a
subscription to the Partnership's newsletter The Free Journal and a 10%
discount on promotional products. For more information, contact Sameer
Parekh at 708-362-9659.
---------------------------
The Partnership for a Free America
Membership/Mailing List Form
Name_____________________________________________________________________
Address__________________________________________________________________
City________________________________________State______Zip________-______
Phone Number (___) ____- ______ E-mail address___________________________
Membership benefits
* Guaranteed subscription to _The Free Journal_
* Notification of rallies, other action (whether sponsored by the
Partnership or not)
* 10% discount on all sales of promotional products
* Spiffy-looking membership card
* The knowledge that you are doing something to preserve the
country's freedom
* Priority access to the PartnershipUs information archive
(Nonmembers will have access, of course, but members have
priority in the event that copies are unavailable)
Mailing list benefits
* Subscription to _The Free Journal_
* Notification of rallies, etc.
> (Mailing list benefits depend upon the monetary resources of
the Partnership--if the Partnership does not have enough money,
then mailing list benefits will be suspended.)
( ) Mailing list (No fee) ( ) Student membership ($10) ( ) Adult membership
($15)
Sustaining Memberships:
( ) Patron ($25) ( ) Sponsor ($50) ( ) True Freedom Fighter ($100)
Sustaining members will receive recognition in the _Journal_ if they desire.
If you are a sustaining member and would like recognition, please mark here.
RECOGNITION:... (_)
Any additional donations would be welcomed
I enclose....................................................$_______._____
Send to:
The Partnership for a Free America
c/o Sameer Parekh
829 Paddock Lane
Libertyville, IL 60048-3743
Make check or money order payable to "Sameer Parekh"
How, or from whom did you learn about the Partnership for a Free America?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
--
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com | - Robert A. Heinlein
Thu Jul 30 01:20:45 1992 US Debt: $4,001,820,545,051 Per capita: $15,687
From caf-talk Caf Jul 30 08:33:16 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,soc.libraries.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.120448.1731@actrix.gen.nz>
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:04:48 GMT
In article cbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Syed) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.142429.6503@u.washington.edu> tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul28.212836.12305@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >> [Follow up to a newspaper article reposted to
> >> alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, news.admin, et al. - Carl]
> >>
> >> >....[quote from the article] If somebody wants them they can go
> >> >to a bookstore and buy them. Anybody wants access to the sex groups
> >> >on the Internet, they can buy access through a local company."
> >> [...]
> >>
>
> Ah, the old fee or free equal access or access for the rich
> only thing...:-)
>
> But seriously...
>
> Those of you who remember the short-lived SUZY system in Canada
> will recall that there was a _moderated_ service on SUZY which
> was run by two resepcted sexologists out of Vancouver. They
> used the network to answer "reference" type questions, and to
> post articles about real issues of concern mostly to young people.
>
> I'd hate to see this, uh, reactionist, wave swamp useful services like
> that.
The so-called "sex" groups are just people like you and me talking about sex.
No one is publishing for profit or exploiting anyone - not that I have ever
seen, anyway. They are discussion groups like any other - just some folk have
a hard time dealing with the topic.
As usual, what someone else wants to read is "unacceptable". The folk who want
to can these discussion areas don't read them. Why should they be allowed to
sit in judgement on others in this way?
This politically correct crap is getting out of hand. It started off as proper
and correct consideration of minority views and has ended up with a minority
imposing their views on all the other minorities (I say there is no such thing
as a Majority these days......:-))
I pity the folk who have prissy farts like this in control of their netowrks
censoring what they think is inappropriate.
--
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz | and bright in my eyes,
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz | And the stars going round in
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! **** | my head." R. L. S.
From caf-talk Caf Jul 30 09:53:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: User services
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.94721.2490@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:47:21 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Funny you should mention that. We just drafted a rough policy file,
>>adn one thing we put in is that providing public services is the
>>responsibility of the administrators and must be approved by us.
>[...]
>
>What criteria will you use? You will likely be pressured to use your
>new authority to censor your users.
I'm adding a similar paragraph to our policy (which, by the way, is
*still* generating email comments; thanks, folks!). My paragraph
will apply to admins and users alike, with wording like this:
Publicly accessible network resources will be installed
ONLY by ECC staff. Such resources must be directly re-
lated to the ECC mission, engineering education.
* The installation of recreational network resources, such as
* MUD, Netrek, or IRC clients/servers, are explicitly prohibited
* UNLESS these programs include use restrictions based on time of
* day and number of users. The installation of these resources
* may only be performed by ECC staff; however, users are welcome
* to submit programs for inclusion in this category.
24-hour access will only be given to those network resources which
directly relate to our mission. Anonymous FTP would be an example
of such a service; we don't have anything in our FTP archive that
isn't related to the work of the College.
The paragraph marked with "*" has been proposed as a compromise. If
it's 11:30 pm and there are only 5 people logged in, I don't think I'll
have a problem with MUD/IRC/whatever usage. During working hours, which
I'll probably set as 0800-2200, I have to preserve the system for the
(rather heavy) academic users.
I'm writing the code to implement these restrictions; the algorithm looks
something like this:
if(time > 2200 and time < 0700) /* limit subject to tuning */
AND if(users logged in < 30) /* subject to tuning */
AND if(recreational users < 15) /* subject to tuning */
allow access to game/MUD/IRC/whatever
I would place all recreational resources under the umbrella of a "play"
command; users might give the command "play irc" or "play nethack". This
scheme allows me to easily extract recreational users from the system
process lists.
If the system turns out to be over- or under-utilized, I'll modify the
"30 users" and "15 recreational users" limits accordingly. These limits
will probably "float" with the academic year; as finals week approaches,
the academic use goes through the roof (all-nighters for final projects,
et cetera).
I believe that this approach will give us the best of both worlds; the
recreational users can still have fun, but they cannot do so at the ex-
pense of the academic users (unless the academic users come in at 2 am).
I'm just happy that I finally have a system that can bear the recreational
AND academic users; it's a luxury I have not enjoyed in the past.
Comments?
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Jul 30 11:21:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: palmaa@phil.indiana.edu (Adriano Palma)
Subject: between July 31st/92 and August 20 1992
Message-ID: <199207301521.AA15323@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:19:49 GMT
I SHALL BE OUT OF THE COUNTRY (FRANCE, THAT IS)
ANOFF THE NETWORKS. YOUR MAIL REGARDING
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
WILL BE STORED HERE, READ AND ANSWERED WHEN I AM BACK;
adriano
p.s. to all C.R.E.A. people, you should send anything administrative to crea@poly.polytechnique.fr
I shall answer you when I come back.
to all others... have just a bit of patience.
to everybody have a good summer.
adriano
From caf-talk Caf Jul 30 16:25:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: User services
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.201428.8331@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:14:28 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
}The paragraph marked with "*" has been proposed as a compromise. If
}it's 11:30 pm and there are only 5 people logged in, I don't think I'll
}have a problem with MUD/IRC/whatever usage. During working hours, which
}I'll probably set as 0800-2200, I have to preserve the system for the
}(rather heavy) academic users.
}
}I'm writing the code to implement these restrictions; the algorithm looks
}something like this:
}
} if(time > 2200 and time < 0700) /* limit subject to tuning */
} AND if(users logged in < 30) /* subject to tuning */
} AND if(recreational users < 15) /* subject to tuning */
} allow access to game/MUD/IRC/whatever
}
}Comments?
Another common methodology is to use the load average (easier to
determine than `recreation_users'). It has the advantage of being
more automatic -- for example, if your finals week load lasts until
4 am, or if it's between semesters and hardly anybody is using the
system at 6 pm.
John
--
John Hascall ``Live with it pink-boy!''
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
From caf-talk Caf Jul 31 08:08:42 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: chapman@fraser.sfu.ca (John Chapman)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul31.094017.3764@sfu.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:40:17 GMT
>> Eh? Are you implying that people *can't* elect not to read or view
>>material they find offensive?
>
> No, I'm saying that offensiveness is not the issue.
>The issue is the effect of the material on people.
>
>> Or are you just one of those who proposes
>>censoring anything slightly challenging to his own ideas?
>
> What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"? It's a
>piece of violent erotica. You can't argue with it because it
>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.
Would you care to provide some proof for this assertion or is
it just an unctrollable emotional reaction not subject to rational
thought.
You know, the very first thing university's ought to teach undergrads
is how frequently "common sense" leads to incorrect conclusions. Perhaps
the second (just to anticipate the usual attempt at supporting the
quoted argument above) ought to be the difference between correlations
and causal relationships. The third might be some education on bullshit
research by people with an axe to grind. Nahhh, might lead to critical
thinking and we wouldn't want that.
>--Jamie. ,
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (-:=
>"Cool... clear... Usenet" ` (not)
From caf-talk Caf Jul 31 08:30:41 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: chapman@fraser.sfu.ca (John Chapman)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul31.103941.4186@sfu.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:29:09 GMT
In article <1992Jul24.001900.16908@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>>Ok. Would you let your seven year old read it? Can a seven year old get into
>>an adult book store? Do you call not letting a seven year old go into a
>>adult book store censorship as well?
>
> You miss my point. My point was that everyone has a line
>to draw; you simply seem to draw it to include censoring
>material given to children, but not any given to adults. I draw
>it to include censoring some material given to adults too. Where
>to draw the line is debatable, but the lines exist for everyone.
>
>--Jamie. ,
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (-:=
>"Cool... clear... Usenet" ` (not)
Well just so that people on the net don't think that this guy
represents the thinking at SFU, I'll make a comment or two.
No, the lines don't exist for everyone. You might want them to but that
is just wishful thinking as long as enough adults have enough spine to
demand the right to decide for themselves what they should be reading.
*politeness mode off*
Just who the hell do you think you are, that you think you can tell me
what to read, pup? You want the ability to draw lines? Fine. I suggest
we only let people with PhD's (or proven kernel hacking abilities -
just to be flexible :-) decide what can appear in newspapers, books,
movies etc. After all uneducated people say a lot of wrong things
that could lead other uneducated people into making incorrect, nay
*dangerous* decisions with harmful results to themselves and others.
So I insist that people like you stop posting immediately for the good
of all. In fact people who want to control other people seem especially
dangerous - perhaps we should have them confined until they learn to
see things the *correct* way......hmmmm?
From caf-talk Caf Jul 31 09:49:01 1992
From: igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.flame
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:28:27 GMT
>>>>> On 31 Jul 92 09:40:17 GMT, chapman@fraser.sfu.ca (John Chapman) said:
John> You know, the very first thing university's ought to teach undergrads
John> is how frequently "common sense" leads to incorrect conclusions. Perhaps
And then after that they should teach people how to form plurals from
singular nouns.
ian
From caf-talk Caf Jul 31 11:59:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: LIBSCI@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <199207311558.AA07804@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:58:20 GMT
subscribe Melissa Ritter
From caf-talk Caf Jul 31 20:14:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jerrys@truevision.com (Jerry Schwartz)
Subject: dxf converter
Message-ID: <1992Jul31.183430.23127@truevision.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:34:30 GMT
I'm looking for a dxf to gerber, gerber to dxf, converter program.
Freeware only!!!
Presently I am using Prance from Cadence which uses autocad for various
utilities.
This needs to run on a sun using 4.1.2 under openwindows 3 or X11R4, and
needs to read an ascii aperture file.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Jerry Schwartz
jerrys@truevision.com
"May the Schwartz be with you"
From caf-talk Caf Aug 1 14:22:57 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: chapman@fraser.sfu.ca (John Chapman)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul31.110423.4485@sfu.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:04:23 GMT
In article <1992Jul24.001900.16908@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>>Ok. Would you let your seven year old read it? Can a seven year old get into
>>an adult book store? Do you call not letting a seven year old go into a
>>adult book store censorship as well?
>
> You miss my point. My point was that everyone has a line
>to draw; you simply seem to draw it to include censoring
>material given to children, but not any given to adults. I draw
>it to include censoring some material given to adults too. Where
>to draw the line is debatable, but the lines exist for everyone.
>
>--Jamie. ,
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (-:=
>"Cool... clear... Usenet" ` (not)
Well just so that people on the net don't think that this guy
represents the thinking at SFU, I'll make a comment or two.
No, the lines don't exist for everyone. You might want them to but that
is just wishful thinking as long as there are enough adults have enough
spine to demand the right to decide for themselves what they should be reading.
*politeness mode off*
Just who the hell do you think you are, that you think you can tell me
what to read? You want the ability to draw lines? Fine. I suggest
we only let people with 2 PhD's (or proven kernel hacking abilities -
just to be flexible :-) decide what can appear in newspapers, books,
movies etc. After all uneducated people say a lot of wrong things
that could lead other uneducated people into making incorrect, nay
*dangerous*, decisions with harmful results to themselves and others.
So I insist that people like you stop posting immediately for the good
of all. In fact people who want to control other people seem especially
dangerous - perhaps we should have them confined until they learn to
see things the *correct* way......hmmmm?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 1 21:18:05 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 23:57:25 GMT
This non-"debate" is just amazing to me. There's now a
standard litany of extremizations, generalizations, and ad
hominem attacks that gets trotted out every time someone objects
to the Absolute Freedom of Speech party line.
The real "debate" content is about 1 percent. It is very
possible to disagree with me and truly make some sensibly-
constructed counter-arguments. To postings and email of this
kind, I always respond seriously. The rest of the postings and
email, I either ignore or respond to with the ridicule they
deserve.
Look. There are three main questions here, and I seem to
disagree with most people on these newsgroups (though not with
most people in the world) about their answers. Most of the rest
is just hot air.
* * *
(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
child sexual abuse?
I say "yes", many people say "no". No one can "prove"
this, *one way or the other*. The researchers are the first to
point out that their experiments don't "prove" anything. But at
some point we have to move from what the experiments show to
public policy. The decision to not ban, or unban, certain
material is just as much an experiment-based decision as the
decision to ban.
Read Donnerstein and Malamuth's studies, Zillman and
Bryant's studies, and books like _Take Back the Night_ (which is
anti-pornography) and _Men Confronting Pornography_ (which is
not exclusively anti-pornography). I defy anyone to still say,
after reading such material, that there is *no* erotic material
involving rape and sex with children which affects *anyone*
adversely.
I'm not saying you will be affected, I'm not saying me,
I'm not saying most people. But there are some who will be
affected, IMHO. Which leads to the next question.
* * *
(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
allow it to be available anyway?
I say "no", many people say "yes". I have no doubt that
the legalization of erotic material involving rape and sex with
children would lead to the creation of widely-accessible shops
and groups which distribute such material in such a way as to
reinforce, not break down, certain people's tendencies to commit
such acts. There are already such groups, underground since
such material is illegal (in Canada), and we can never eliminate
them entirely; but we can at least restrict their accessibility.
In fact, I have no doubt that alt.sex.bondage and
alt.sex.stories unwittingly serve such a purpose already, and
that there are rapists and child molesters who read the stories
and just ignore the discussions (too much of a turnoff). The
reinforcement of these people's tendencies, and the resulting
real human misery, is too high a price to pay for some dogmatic
ideal of absolute freedom of speech.
* * *
(3) Where do you draw the line?
This is almost a non-question, since lawmakers, judges, and
juries have been drawing lines like this for centuries. My
answer is that *I* don't draw the line, *they* do.
The existence of censorship laws is not going to lead to
Stalinist repression of ideas any more than the existence of
traffic laws has led to Stalinist restrictions on movement.
The existing censorship laws will always lead to debate, and will
always be on the dividing line between what some people think and
what other people think. That line has shifted a lot in recent
decades. It will probably shift some more.
I personally think the Canadian laws are not perfect,
insofar as they lump pro-rape erotica and consensual spanking
erotica together under "violence". But I'm unlikely to get a
law which I consider perfect. Neither are you. My opinions are
not an attempt by me to control your reading, they are an attempt
to contribute to public discourse on a legal point.
* * *
Those are the main points. The rest is just babble, and
the avoidance of these real discussions and the raising of the
standard litany of non-arguments is the mark of someone who
hasn't really thought things out.
The latest poster child of this kind is John Chapman, of
right here at SFU. I'll close with my comments to his postings,
tuned to the level of his discourse.
* * *
>Just who the hell do you think you are, that you think you can tell me
>what to read?
You must be thinking of someone else. I haven't been
telling you what to read.
> You want the ability to draw lines? Fine. I suggest
>we only let people with 2 PhD's (or proven kernel hacking abilities -
>just to be flexible :-) decide what can appear in newspapers, books,
>movies etc.
Fine, peace be upon you. Now go argue your position in the
House of Commons, and see how far you get.
> In fact people who want to control other people seem especially
>dangerous - perhaps we should have them confined until they learn to
>see things the *correct* way......hmmmm?
I think you should see the ship's counsellor about this
paradoxical self-hatred you have.
>> What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"? It's a
>>piece of violent erotica. You can't argue with it because it
>>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.
>
>Would you care to provide some proof for this assertion or is
>it just an unctrollable emotional reaction not subject to rational
>thought.
No. (Er, I assume that was a question.)
>You know, the very first thing university's ought to teach undergrads
>is how frequently "common sense" leads to incorrect conclusions.
Great idea. Second thing should be spelling.
> Perhaps
>the second (just to anticipate the usual attempt at supporting the
>quoted argument above) ought to be the difference between correlations
>and causal relationships.
Oh OK, spelling can be third. But didn't you learn the
difference between correlation and causation in university?
I sure did. No, come to think of it, I tell a lie. I learned
it in highschool.
> The third might be some education on bullshit
>research by people with an axe to grind.
Oh OK, spelling can be fourth. But John, I would never ask
you to accept any research like that. Now go read Malamuth and
Donnerstein and so on.
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 00:23:53 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: hurd@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1992 00:57:11 GMT
jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) wr
ites : [oops]
>(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
> would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
> child sexual abuse?
alt.sex.stories would carry this stuff, and still does, alt.sex.bondage
was a discussion group that dealt with the technical how to, how not to,
how not to injure, or infect, how to get the most enjoyment out of,
consensual sexual activities of a minority interest. The "erotic" material
that most people would find objectionable are in groups still readily
available there at sfu on nn. (I don't find most of the colliding body
net erotica to be a turn on, just to explain the scare quotes).
What was removed was a book judged by it's cover. I posted semi-regularly
on a.s.b., mostly to offer advice to those who asked for information about
body peircing. This is the spirit of the vast majoriy of what went on
in a.s.b., advice on how to do what people want to do. A.s.b. was by and
for those who enjoyed (from both angles, all angles) what they were discussing.
The aim was that everyone involved have the greatest time ever, and if
everyone wasn't enjoying themselves then they should all stop and go bowling,
or find a new hobby. The whole point to a.s.b. was to make the giving of
consent, and the open questioning of "normal" power relations inherant
in sex appear in the foreground as something to step back and question.
Is the removal of these groups going to have a beneficial or deleterious
effect in the immediate future, damn right I think. Aside from the larger
abstractions, I can tell you that people will try things, be it tying
up their consensual partner, or peircing their nipples. Like abortion,
it will be done, the question is only how much information and safety
will be available to those who decide to do it. The harmful effects of
cheap frat boy fantasy porn has not been avoided, it's still out there
in the bucket load, the harmful effects (the destruction of romance, and
the explicit ignoring of loaded power relations) that a.s.b. was all
about the challanging of, will be left there. Don't shut people out of
information, the more information we have the wiser we become, a mind
pushed over the edge to rape is one that hasn't questioned the mainstream
views on sex, and one that was bent way out of balance to begin with.
To make a clear debate point for you to consider, I propose that
the elimination of a.s.b. was an elimination of a group; comitted to the
dissemination of information with regards to a consensual activity, that
sought to avoid any damage to the psyche or body of it's practioners, that
activly sought to empower all the people who engaged in sex of a minority
interest style by acknowleging the wisdom and accepatbility of consenting
individuals exploring an alternative to the mainstream power abuse present
in the sexroles learned from such depraved and pornographic sources as
COSMOPOLITAN, GQ, FLAIR and whatever. Conversely the attitudes that
encourage the worst of mainstream sexual power assymmetries, abuse &c
are all cruising along as normal. Thirdly that thought, not information is
what produces attitudes, you do not raise pacifist children by keeping them
away from cartoons, but if they are to deal construcively with conflict
they must realize how stupid those cartoons are. I've read some very
good, thought provoking smut, dealing with responsability and weakness
and strength via the net, but in order to question myself with such things
I had to wade through a lot of cartoon sex, (I'm not saying it was worth it).
> Read Donnerstein and Malamuth's studies, Zillman and
>Bryant's studies, and books like _Take Back the Night_ (which is
>anti-pornography) and _Men Confronting Pornography_ (which is
>not exclusively anti-pornography). I defy anyone to still say,
>after reading such material, that there is *no* erotic material
>involving rape and sex with children which affects *anyone*
>adversely.
The adverse effect may be that the borderline porn of babies in makeup
advertizing, or the perfume ads with prepubescent kids, then strike the
individual as being deeply disturbing. I won't defend such trash, but
I wish you to realize that a.s.b. was NOT about such things, and such
things are still on the net, and that a group explicity about consensual
activities was removed in the guise of dealing with such material. To
debate such a point WRT a.s.b. is a total straw man.
>(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
> rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
> allow it to be available anyway?
Is a group like a.s.b. to be removed because the activities
it discusses have bad pr. Is it O.K. to censor someone because the
popular portayal of that person's beleifs are of something horrible.
You are asking whether, for instance, someone who is thinking of
putting a ring through their nipple, will have an avenue to information
about the propper care and cleaning, because someone else has called
it bondage, and a third person says that bondage means dragging children
off the street and tying them up and torturing them. There are
lots of really gross and scary things that people do to each other, and
it really disturbs me that people feel it is alright to force their
will on someone else. Dig that sentence? Someone once said that
censorship is mental bondage, it's say that to say such a thing is to
sully the name of something engaged in by caring consesual adults.
Is the risk of allowing the particulars of how to have anal
intercourse safely and painlessly so high that such information should
be kept secret? What information, what material, is really being
silenced here? I think it is that of one of the most caring, loving,
sexually open minded commuity of minority interested malcontents.
You seem to think that child rapist propaganda has been silenced, it's
as here as it ever was. What isn't is gay/lesbian/stright sexual
malcontents who aren't happy having the world tell them what is and
is not acceptable behaviour in their bedrooms, or what is and is not
acceptable accessories to use in their play.
> In fact, I have no doubt that alt.sex.bondage and
>alt.sex.stories unwittingly serve such a purpose already, and
>that there are rapists and child molesters who read the stories
>and just ignore the discussions (too much of a turnoff). The
>reinforcement of these people's tendencies, and the resulting
>real human misery, is too high a price to pay for some dogmatic
>ideal of absolute freedom of speech.
How many people can't find mainstream propaganda in glossy
magazines, or on tv or in popsongs advocating a truely unhealthy
attitude. But what has been silenced is a source of information
pertaining directly to the theory and practice of giving pleasure
safely in a scary world. The twisted minds have now triumphed by
silencing the discussion, while the cartoons continue endlessly.
Real human misery, is not being able to sexually please your partner(s)
in the way that they would like. I'm sorry that is way to strong,
there is real horror being perpetrated by monsters in inhuman ways,
and I do not wish to sound like I am excusing date-rapists, rapists,
sexists, homophobes, or any of their ill ilk. But why stifle attempts
to produce happiness in a severely misunderstood underground, when it
has no effect on the real villains?
> * * *
>(3) Where do you draw the line?
> The existence of censorship laws is not going to lead to
>Stalinist repression of ideas any more than the existence of
>traffic laws has led to Stalinist restrictions on movement.
Wrong! it has just happened before your eyes. The ideas just don't
happen to be yours so you may have a hard time seeing it. But the
idea that one can transfer responsability to a lover by consenting to
have your ability to directly move towards satisfaction has just been
zapped. What other ideas are gone with, I don't know, they might have
been ideas worth pondering, if only to reject them, but how will I
know?
> * * *
> Those are the main points. The rest is just babble, and
Hve you not here dismissed a view out of hand?
>--Jamie.
> jamie@cs.sfu.ca
>"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168
--
-- Pete Hurd, hurd@sfu.ca | Truth never set anyone free,
Behavioural Ecology Research Group | it is only doubt which will
Dept.Biol.Sci., Simon Fraser Univ. | bring mental emancipation.
Burnaby B.C. V5A 1S6 Canada | -- Anton LaVey
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 11:47:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Case Western Reserve University -- Computing Ethics Policy
Message-ID: <1992Aug2.154716.6746@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1992 15:47:16 GMT
Case Western Reserve University
Computing Ethics Policy
The general standards of conduct expected of members of an educational
institution also apply to the use of University computing resources.
These resources include:
Hardware: Physical equipment used for processing or data communications.
Software: Programs, programming languages, instructions, or routines
which are used to perform work in a computer.
Data: Information such as records or textual material stored on or
accessible through a computer.
Property Rights.
University computing and information resources are made available to
individuals to assist in the pursuit of educational goals. In order to
promote the most effective use of these it is expected that users will
cooperate with each other and respect the ownership of work and
information even though it is in electronic form rather than printed
form. Individuals and organizations will be held no less accountable
for their actions in situations involving computers and information
resources than they would be dealing with other media.
Though some of them are intangible, these computing resources are the
property of the University. Rules prohibiting theft or vandalism apply
to software and data as well as to physical equipment. Conduct which
violates the University's property rights with respect to computing
resources is subject to University disciplinary action. This conduct
includes:
1. Copying University-owned or licensed software or data to
another computer system for personal or external use without prior
approval.
2. Attempting to modify University-owned or licensed software or
data without prior approval.
3. Attempting to damage or to disrupt operation of computing
equipment, data communications equipment, or data communications
lines.
4. Using University computing resources for purposes other than
those intended by the University body granting access to those
resources; especially, using them for personal or financial gain or
allowing access to them by unauthorized persons even if they are
members of the University community.
5. Using any portion of University computing and information
resources to access non-University computing and information resources
for the purpose of:
a. Copying privately owned or licensed software or data without
prior written approval.
b. Modifying privately owned or licensed software or data without
prior written approval.
c. Attempting to damage or to disrupt the operation of computing
equipment, data communications equipment or data communications lines.
Confidentiality.
The University seeks to protect the civil, personal, and property
rights of those actually using its computing resources and seeks to
protect the confidentiality of University records stored on its
computer systems. Conduct which involves use of University computer
resources to violate another's rights is subject to University
disciplinary action. This conduct includes:
1. Invading the privacy of an individual by using electronic
means to ascertain confidential information, even if an individual or
department inadvertently allows access to such information.
2. Copying another user's software or data without permission of
its owner, even if it is readily accessible by electronic means.
3. Knowingly accepting or using software or data which has been
obtained by illegal means.
4. Abusing or harassing another user through electronic means.
5. Using the University's computing facilities in the commission
of a crime.
6. Gaining access to non-public information resources.
Accessibility/Use:
Some of the University's computer systems require that each user have
a unique identity, protected by password, to gain access to the
system. The computer identity is used to represent a user in various
system activities, to provide access to certain software and data
based on his credibility and purpose for requiring such access, and to
associate his own software and data with his identity. As such, this
computer identity is another instrument of identification and its
misuse constitutes forgery or misrepresentation. Conduct which
involves misuse of computer identities is subject to University
disciplinary action. This conduct includes:
1. Allowing another individual to use the computer identity
2. Using another individual's computer identity, even if the
individual has neglected to safeguard it.
Case Western Reserve University's computing environment is networked
on campus and to other universities. Data on networks is considered to
be private. Tapping the network for the purpose of examining data
other than that destined for the user's system is considered
unacceptable conduct and is subject to disciplinary action.
Campus Policies.
The management of the University computing resources is distributed
among many University bodies. Rules and regulations governing specific
resources are available through the individual managing bodies.
State and National Laws.
Conduct in violation of the principles set forth above with respect to
the use of University computing resources may be subject to criminal
or civil legal action in addition to University disciplinary action.
Original Issue: September 1986
Revised: August 1990
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 12:03:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: USENET Readership report for Jul 92
Message-ID: <1992Aug2.153731.20197@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1992 15:37:31 GMT
[Excerpts from news.lists. - Carl]
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes:
>This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Jul 92.
>Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
>
> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
> | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
> | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
> | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
> | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
> | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
> | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
> | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
> | | | | | | | | who read this group.
> V V V V V V V V
> 1 300000 4917 84% 1003 1943.4 18% 0.01 12.0% misc.jobs.offered
> 2 260000 4305 83% 1615 1872.1 34% 0.01 10.5% misc.forsale
> 3 240000 3985 89% 9 146.0 100% 0.00 9.8% news.announce.newusers
> 4 220000 3655 81% 69 153.6 0% 0.00 9.0% rec.humor.funny
> 5 220000 3613 67% 2677 6939.7 32% 0.04 8.9% alt.sex
> 6 200000 3264 82% 5 115.2 60% 0.00 8.0% news.answers
> 7 190000 3065 85% 1158 2179.6 11% 0.02 7.5% comp.windows.x
> 8 180000 2891 79% 1896 3669.9 12% 0.03 7.1% rec.humor
> 9 170000 2753 89% 1001 1981.8 13% 0.02 6.7% news.groups
> 10 160000 2701 71% 4226 6335.3 19% 0.06 6.6% talk.bizarre
[...]
> 263 48000 787 76% 205 470.6 24% 0.02 1.9% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
> 549 29000 480 57% 120 389.4 26% 0.02 1.2% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
[...]
> 666 25000 413 72% 3 55.8 100% 0.00 1.0% comp.org.eff.news
[...]
>1185 9000 148 50% 2 91.6 0% 0.01 0.4% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
>1940 61 1 1% 4 33.7 0% 0.01 0.0% scruz.sysops
>1941 61 1 0% 98 246.3 0% 0.03 0.0% nyu.sunmanagers
>1942 61 1 0% 85 1179.5 0% 0.29 0.0% ar.info-unix
>1943 61 1 0% 58 1685.5 0% 0.35 0.0% ar.space
>1944 61 1 0% 40 482.9 0% 0.16 0.0% ar.info-ada
>1945 61 1 0% 10 13.7 0% 0.00 0.0% ar.info-snmp
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
