From caf-talk Caf Aug 17 00:15:15 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org (Lars Soltau)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:49:29 GMT
Message-ID:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 1992 18:36:02 GMT, jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) said:
> Fine. I'll argue against your *opinions*. If you progress
> into all-out fictional glorification of rape (as Norman never
> has done), I'll want it censored. Note, *I'm* not going to
> censor it -- I'm just adding my $.02.
Note, *I'm* not going to burn that cross -- I'm just adding my $.02.
That statement is outright thoughtless and does not at all fit into the rest
of your argumentation. Leaders are nothing without followers. If you state an
opinion, you have to accept responsibility for the enactment of its
propositions. Remember Kant and the Categorical Imperative?
--
Lars Soltau bang: BIX: -- no bucks --
smart: space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org
Germany, Stuttgart-Zuffenha
From caf-talk Caf Aug 17 03:04:56 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3726@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 17 Aug 92 05:12:34 GMT
In article <1992Aug13.152104.3300@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>What infuriates me is the double standard.
>For example, in the _Globe and Mail_ story, Lionel Tolan, Simon
>Fraser's director of academic computer services, said "It's the same
>as if somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse. We don't have them in the
>university library." When in fact, _Playboy_ *is* in the SFU library.
I don't believe that there is a double standard. The material at hand
isn't Playboy or Penthouse material. The material that caused the problems
in a.s.b are hardly things that would be found in either magazine.
Furthermore, on a more general level, most universities have constitutions
or codes of ethics that require them to be more selective of material than
the law would necessarily require them to. Even in the USA.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 17 04:11:06 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug17.073629.27015@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Aug 92 07:36:29 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: kiefer@connext.ucs.sfu.ca (Theresa Kiefer) writes:
:
: >IMHO, the
: >issue here comes down to the question of whether it is legitimate for an
: >institution of higher education, that claims to be so strapped for cash that
: >they've cut back on scholarships this fall, ...
:
: It likely cost more to exclude the material that to include it. Cost
: likely had nothing to do with the decision to remove the material.
This is probably true of most censorship.
It is almost certainly most true with censoring netnews.
(considering that the process of delivery is automatic, if it was simple
to decide a censorship policy then please would someone show.
By posting the code for an AI which will do this)
:
: > IMHO, the exploitation of women through porn can't be
: >separated from advertising and other media in our culture ...
: [...]
: >The number of women
: >today suffering from eating disorders is proof enough of the extreme
: >difficulties many women experience trying to remake their bodies ...
: [...]
:
: I think advertising is 1000 times more to blame than pornography.
: After all advertising is 1000 times more prevalent and designed in
: many cases to woman dissatisfied with their bodies. Should we then all
: such advertising be banned?
Is not quite a bit of advertising aimed at making people think then
'need' something that they have no real need of.
In effect a way of infulencing peoples behaviour to do something they
would not otherwise do.
Are all these harmless??
:
: >However, at SFU, I think it is safe to say that the removal of the alt.sex
: >groups will not prevent anyone from having access to pornographic ideas if
: >these are of interest to them. All they have
: >to do is turn on the television,
: >if they want access to the ideas. Sexually explicit pictoral material is
: >available in many places. I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have
: >been cancelled, since these were often a
: >legitimate forum for discourse, and do
: >not intrude on people wandering through a given lab in the way that an
: >unencoded .gif file has a way of doing
:
: We agree on this. Rules against sexual harassment could ban display of
: sexually explict images in labs without banning all discussions of
: sex.
:
: One final point. You worry about paternalism. What could be more
: paternalistic that giving the University the authority to decide which
: topics can and which topic can't be discussed on campus? What could be
: more paternalistic than having the University decide that sex is
: something so shameful and dirty that it can't be discussed?
Especially considering the lack of places it can be discussed openly.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 17 04:22:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug17.074911.27112@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:49:11 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
: Subject: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Message-ID:
: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:14:31 GMT
:
: As a news administrator for a site relatively new to the Net, I have
: recently been giving _much_ thought to the issues surrounding certain
: controversial newsgroups.
:
: I am extremely opposed to censorship, and we are currently receiving
: everything we can get our hands (well, our lines) on. But since our
: news user population is growing rapidly, I expect that it won't be
: long before someone here tries to make a stink about the fact that
: there is pornography available on our computer systems. In preparation
: for that day I have formulated many good arguments against restricting
: the available material, which I'm sure I don't need to repeat here
: as this has been discussed countless times.
:
: However, while I think that it is easy to demonstrate that merely
: controversial material such as the postings to alt.sex.bondage and
: similar groups should not be restricted, much of the material posted
: to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica is _illegal_ and therefor quite hard
: to defend. (The illegality of this material stems from the fact that
: much of it is distributed in violation of copyright -- this means
: that it is illegal not only in the U.S., but in most of the world.
: There are other legal issues around the occasional depictions of
: bestiality and child pornography, but these appear to be rare enough
: that they are not as much of an issue.)
This has been mentioned before in the context of scanned images,
oddly though this issue is only raised with the sexuall explicit ones.
In fact a very large proportion of images available on the net possibly
breach copyright.
(The most blatently obvious example I have ever seen was a scan of
a record sleeve, including the copyright notice)
To make a fuss about erotica images is slightly hypocritical if you
do not also point the finger at the rest of these images, which
have EXACTLY the same legal status.
:
: Furthermore, I am somewhat personally offended that such a relatively
: large percentage of the total bandwith used by my news feeds and
: store are used for such morally questionable purposes by a presumably
: tiny fringe group of network users who appear to feel that it is their
: natural right to waste everyone's resources with their trash.
(morally questionable because of the subject matter of the images,
or because of the copyright violations?)
A policy mentioned on here a few weeks ago was to trash first those
newsgroups which were being read by no-one at the site, the idea
to keep disk usage down, with out censoring material which there was
actually a demand for.
:
: In summary, while I will fight tooth and nail against censorship in
: general when the issue comes up with the local powers-that-be, I am
: tempted to concede that newsgroups which are used to distribute
: demonstrably illegal materials not be carried. I am fully aware of
: the complications and problems with such a policy, but I would like
: to see some further discussion of this topic. I fear that if such
: discussion does not take place, the future of the entire Altnet is
: in peril as the Newsnet becomes more mainstream and gets exposed
: to greater scrutiny.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 17 04:44:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug17.080624.27229@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:06:24 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: From: werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig)
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Date: 13 Aug 1992 12:56:26 -0500
: Message-ID:
:
: raising "the legal question" (and, anyway, the analogy between
: "real life" and CyberSpace ends, as news-distribution isn't
: done in a way analogeous to someone abusing my tree or fence,
: but more like people sending me junkmail and ringing my doorbell
: and phone for "solicitation"... though by hooking up to the
: net, you are actually better off as you can filter out (most)
: of what you don't care for by not importing certain newsgroups.
: still there always be articles you may object to in newsgroups
: you generally care for... oh, well..)
Oddly on my system I must actually do something to read netnews.
Viz, login and type commands.
Junk mail lies on the door mat in the way, the door bell makes a noise
I don't just walk in and have a terminal start displaying, or have
the phone ring with an insistent modem on the other end.
:
: the problem of avoiding that people post "objectionable" material
In the netnews context 'objectionable' may mean posted to the wrong place
For example because people don't check to what newsgroups of sites they
are sending it to.
: from your site (or send it by email or make it available for FTP)
: is a "completely different animal" (which you'll have to handle
: administratively under considerations of "privacy" and "freedom
: of speech" and "criminal liability"); when it comes to people
: FTPing (or receiving in email) "objectionable material" to your
: site, the question of "privacy" becomes even stronger (as the
How are you going to find out what people are being sent in e-mail,
assuming that this information is requested/welcome to it's recipient?
What do you tell the judge if (or when) you get caught reading someone
elses mail or non world readable files?
: case to be made that you are criminally liable or that your
: reputation suffers (also) when "objectionable material" emanates
: from your site versus when someone receives it, is significantly
: different)
You support YOUR users if you have any decency.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 17 04:53:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug17.081008.27299@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:10:08 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Date: 13 Aug 1992 18:38:50 GMT
: Message-ID: <16ea7qINNg7u@network.ucsd.edu>
:
: I too am concerned about the content of some of the groups. It is not
: the bandwidth or moral issues that are the problem, but that indeed
: there are copyright violations taking place.
As other people have pointed out this issue has nothing really to do
with the sexual explicitness (or otherwise) of the material.
:
: I could wish that the pictures being sent took up less of the network
: bandwidth and disk storage, but the answer to that is better data
: compression, storage, and retrieval methods, not restricting posting.
:
: I believe that we who maintain the news software should be able to treat
: the material passing through our sites as though we were solely a
: carrier - much like the telephone system, UPS, and other common
: carriers. In that manner, our site would not be liable for illegalities
: committed by users of the system, since we do not assume to restrict
: their posting content.
And also presumably protected from (in a similar way) to unlawful interception
and such like?
: However, I do believe that anyone posting copyrighted material to the
: net in violation of that copyright can, will, and should be liable to
: the copyright owner. That's only fair.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 17 04:53:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug17.081916.27382@aston.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:19:16 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Message-ID:
: From: ward1@husc8.harvard.edu (Lester Ward)
: Date: 13 Aug 92 19:55:30 GMT
:
: There are two main issues brought up here, censorship and legality. I'm
: completely ignoring the censorship issue, as that did not seem to be the
: original posters main issue.
:
: As far as legality, a few comments:
: o Copywrites: Although the poster originally brought up images, which have
: accepted copywrite standards, many other types of posted data is still
: a bit hazy on exactly what a copywrite is. Can you copywrite algrothms
: for example. I'm speaking from a vaccuum here, so someone will correct
: me, no doubt.
:
: o Juristiction: A post from Germany shows up in the USA. It is illegal in
: the USA, but not in Germany. Is the poster breaking the law? There are
: probably not too many precidents for this (its not that likely), but I hope
: the point is clear. Suppose the post is illegal in both countries; how is
: the poster prosecuted? etc.
This is quite possible as US copyright law has the idea of derived work,
which is still owned by the original copyright owner.
Under other laws such as UK law a work derived from other copyright works
may have copyright owen by the person who acually created it.
e.g. taking a set of images from scanning, clipping and retouching them
may well give the person doing this copyright ownership under UK law,
from what I have read they might well find themselves in trouble in the
US.
Presumably one could use the Berne convention in this case, anyone know
what it actually says about this sort of case?
:
: o The law: Recent legal decisions have taken a somewhat counter-intuitive
: slant regarding computer crime. For example, there have been cases of
: administrators being brought to trial for reading "private" mail, but
: found not guilty because mail is not legally private. There may be
: similar cases where the administrator was found guilty. Which brings up
: another point: law is just starting to deal with computers and networks.
:
: I guess this is the real point: right now, we (the computer literate, network
: literate community) have the ability to steer the law one way or an other.
: The world at large (including most courts and lawyers) don't know much about
: computers. When dealing with legislating computers, they will have to get
: advice from the experts (us) in making their decisions, decisions which will
: set legal president to the day when everyone uses computers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 17 04:55:25 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug17.082721.27476@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:27:21 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: From: wengler@ee.rochester.edu (Mikey)
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Message-ID: <1992Aug14.140516.13020@ee.rochester.edu>
: Date: 14 Aug 92 14:05:16 GMT
:
: In article jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
: Aren't virtually all of the image-distribution groups violating
: copyright? Aren't most distributing images which have been scanned in
: from copyrighted material?
Maybe I sould see if the scanned record sleeve I found is still arround.
and maybe tell the record company concerned.
The boss of it might just invite the perpertrator ballooning :-)
:
: It is not clear to me why you single out pornographic groups for this
: charge.
:
: SImilarly, the other image groups use similarly large proportions of
: resources.
:
: You probably need to take a uniform policy toward all image groups on
: the basis of copyright or resource use if you don't wish to be involved
: in censorship.
But that would take an axe away from the poor censors, :-)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 17 05:11:18 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug17.083854.27604@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:38:54 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: From: neuhaus@vier.informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Neuhaus (HiWi Mattern))
: Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Message-ID:
: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:32:54 GMT
:
: Hi.
:
: This does not mean that anybody should read (private) email, by the
: way. Once a service like mail is offered, it must be available in a
: secure and unoppressive manner. For example, I believe it's OK for a
: University or company to cancel certain newsgroups, but students or
: employees must not be punished for reading any group once it's
: available, and tracing who reads which newsgroups must not be done.
I would go further and say that anyone who traces who reads what group,
or reads private e-mail or files should be punished. Unless they have
a VERY good reason for doing so.
Crackers are crackers, werther they have legit system privs or not!!
:
: In direct answer to the original poster, I believe you should not
: play God yourself and simply cancel the groups. You should ask for an
: official policy, if only to get your head out of the sling. If you
: cancelled newsgroups at your own will, that would be arbitrary and
: despotic, even if those groups carried copyrighted or otherwise
: illegally published material.
I think it is clearly implicity in all copyright law that the 'person'
to deal with the case is the copyright owner.
Your duty as a third party is to inform them and do nothing else
unless (and until) they actually ask you.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 17 05:11:21 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug17.083011.27545@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:30:11 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
: Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Message-ID:
: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:14:47 GMT
:
: In article ward1@husc8.harvard.edu (Lester Ward) writes:
: >There are two main issues brought up here, censorship and legality. I'm
: >completely ignoring the censorship issue, as that did not seem to be the
: >original posters main issue.
: >
: >As far as legality, a few comments:
: >o Copywrites: Although the poster originally brought up images, which have
: > accepted copywrite standards, many other types of posted data is still
: > a bit hazy on exactly what a copywrite is. Can you copywrite algrothms
: > for example. I'm speaking from a vaccuum here, so someone will correct
: > me, no doubt.
:
: I think the hazy areas are not under discussion right now... they are a
: separate issue that I as a news administrator don't really have to worry
: about until they are settled.
:
: >o Juristiction: A post from Germany shows up in the USA. It is illegal in
: >the USA, but not in Germany. Is the poster breaking the law? There are
: >probably not too many precidents for this (its not that likely), but I hope
: >the point is clear. Suppose the post is illegal in both countries; how is
: >the poster prosecuted? etc.
:
: This is a good point, but doesn't apply to the major issue under discussion,
: which is copyrighted material. Copyright laws are international.
The definition about how a piece gets to be copyright is non-standard,
most notably the 'derived work' clause in the US law, which is very
relevent here.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 17 05:22:37 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug17.084739.27744@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:47:39 GMT
sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:
:
: If I own a mail box, and mail gets delivered to it, by your
: argument, I have a right to open it and decide whether to pass it
: to its intended recipient or not. After all, if it's not important
: to me, it's only taking up space.
The only case I know where that is true is where you have mail adressed
to someone in some sort of formal capacity which you now hold.
e.g. J Blogs, Membership Secretary, Undewater Photography society.
If I am Membership Secretary of this organisation (or someone acting
in that capacity) then I can open the mail, even if I am not J Blogs
other than that I have no Business opening it for the purpose described
above.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Aug 17 11:29:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208171528.AA13356@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:28:52 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 17 11:29:04 1992
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:23:53 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Aug17.022353.5994@NCoast.ORG>
As quoted from <1992Aug15.213252.22415@sfu.ca> by kiefer@connext.ucs.sfu.ca (Theresa Kiefer):
> The question of censorship is a tricky one, however, because censors after all,
> exist to censor, and they don't usually act in the interests of women when they
> doit - they act as representatives of the state, and this is problematic to say
> the least.
Censors rarely if ever act in anyone's interest but their own, whatever that
might be.
> However, at SFU, I think it is safe to say that the removal of the alt.sex
> groups will not prevent anyone from having access to pornographic ideas if
> these are of interest to them. All they have to do is turn on the television,
> if they want access to the ideas. Sexually explicit pictoral material is
> available in many places. I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have
> been cancelled, since these were often a legitimate forum for discourse, and do
> not intrude on people wandering through a given lab in the way that an
> unencoded .gif file has a way of doing... Freedom of speech is not absolute.
> In a community, such as SFU, it is both relevant and important to consider the
> needs of the various constituants in order to provide a tolerant and inclusive
> environment for learning. This includes the unlearning of sexism.
I'd say that it includes your right to advocate the unlearning of sexism, just
as it includes the right of somebody else to advocate the contrary.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Aug 17 16:25:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208172025.AA15712@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 10:25:09 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 17 16:25:24 1992
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:58:19 GMT
gibian@talent.ljo.dec.com (Marc S. Gibian) writes:
>Forgery of email and news is rather simple. So while requiring
>accountability of the person sending the mail or posting the
>news may be a reasonable policy/rule/law, there is no reliable way
>to trace such an item back to that party, thus negating most if
>not all value of such policy.
Credit card fraud is also rather simple. So is passing a bad
check. One can modify your license plates and go speeding through the
photo-radar speed traps with impunity. One can also forge a signature
fairly easily. So what? The issue is that forgery can be detected,
though finding out exactly who forged it is nearly impossible, and hence
a forged post can be justifiably killed and the person who's name appears
on it can be aquitted of wrongdoing. I'm not after the forger so much
as I'm after protecting the person who's name appears in the header.
The sysadmin can kill forged articles to his heart's content,
but why shut down the access of the majority to "protect" against a
small minority who will forge posts?
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From caf-talk Caf Aug 17 21:14:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: WLU sys admins search out "nasty" filenames and passwords
Message-ID: <1992Aug18.004828.3867@colorado.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:48:28 GMT
In article <1992Aug13.185526.9397@uoft02.utoledo.edu> sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>: In his reply, he apologized (he didn't realize that
>: other users could see his command names via ps) and changed the name
>: immediately.
>:
> WHat are the privacy, & collaterally, academic freedom concerns
> regarding the ability of everyone on a system to see what you are
> doing?
Aren't you taking this to extremes?
While I agree that activity logs shouldn't be kept on academic or open
commerical systems (e.g., Colorado SuperNet), if the system is running
sluggishly somebody (possibly I) has the rights to run a 'ps' or its
equivalent to find out what is hogging CPU cycles. If I see a program
named 'shit' I'll probably be pretty pissed. (As in, "this program
ain't doing 'shit.'")
Likewise, you may consider a printout with a banner like KillThePrez
a cute joke, but don't expect no response if you print it a few days
before a presidential visit and leave it in the printer hopper.
At the same time, consider the people who take filenames seriously....
I can just imagine their response to some of the files in my academic
account: "satan," "satan1," etc. (They contain Usenet articles
debunking claims of satanic conspiracies).
Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 03:35:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: cchiu@crash.cts.com (Chuck Chiu)
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.31
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 01:37:00 GMT
To Whom It May Concern,
I was reading CAF-news, but I cannot understand what the numbers after the article are all about: i.e.
<9206250251.AA04855@nextsun.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Thanks in advance for your help.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 07:10:21 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: <1992Aug18.013859.709@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:38:59 GMT
Well, it was hard to resist the temptation to "respond" to
the guy who said "let's let pedophiles have material that
encourages them, and just execute 'em if they actually act on
their urges"... but I managed.
In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
> And who decides what is censorship of ideas, and what is the
>other kind? Why, the censors, of course :-).
Nope. It's the same people who decide what is "copyright
violation", "clear and present danger", "shadow of a doubt",
and so on. Lawmakers, judges, and juries. Or do you want to
subordinate those honourable processes to your dogma of Absolute
Freedom of Speech?
> Your statement avoids all the hard questions. Let's come back to
>alt.sex.bondage for a moment. Is it correct to state that it's good to
>censor it, given that it isn't "cleaned up"? Well, bang, there you are
>censoring ideas, by your own admission, since you admit that only a
>small percentage of what's there deserves censorship. There are ideas
>there, Jamie, opinions stated.
I'm sure there could be independent ideas in a text which
blatantly violates copyright, too. Take them out of that
context and they're OK. Leave them in and the whole work has to
be "censored".
> You've got a choice, Jamie. Either you bite the bullet and come
>up with a standard of what's censorable that's specific enough to
>answer questions like this, or else your argument comes down to allowing
>anything to be censored, by popular vote or other mechanism.
You want me to express it in detailed legalese and justify
its use w.r.t. the Canadian constitution and Charter of Rights?
So that you can quibble about details the way anyone can for any
law? No thanks. I'll leave that to my elected officials, like
the details of any other law.
> Let's be serious, here: if a person can be
>weak-minded or sick enough to rape because he read porn featuring rape,
>it's at least as likely that someone would rape because they read a
>well-written essay extolling the virtues of rape for keeping women in
>their place.
It seems like you're trying to slide this into a discussion
of hate literature laws, which I don't want to get into now.
Suffice it to say that if someone advocates damage to an
identifiable group of people, or spreads "false news" that
obviously supports such a position, it should be censored on
other grounds. And that *is* about the Nazis, unlike many
other threads on Usenet that purport to be about them.
> I suspect I know how porn affects people: it makes some bad
>people worse, some good people better, and most people it don't have
>much effect on at all :-). That's how most things seem to work, after
>all.
Yeah, like driving cars. When are you going to propose to
throw out those nasty traffic laws, Kenn? You know, the ones
that are going to lead the future Stalinist leader of United
Socialist North America to restrict where people can drive *to*.
> But you don't give porn the same benefit of the doubt.
Not now, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt for a long
time. I really suspect that you haven't read any of the studies
I was talking about before.
> For
>every study suggesting that vicarious violence encourages violence,
>another suggests that vicarious violence is cathartic.
Followups to alt.is.too.
> You're still trying to have it both ways, to prevent
>your "harm" without censoring ideas. But your whole modern case against
>porn is that it is _giving_ some men ideas.
You're just equivocating on the definition of "ideas",
Kenn. Reasoned argument and irrational prejudices can be
judged as distinct by juries.
> _Norman_ has never engaged in "all-out fictional glorification
>of rape"?????
> [...]
> Sorry, I'm back; had to clear my throat :-)
Well, not being a John Norman scholar like yourself, Kenn,
I could be mistaken. Do correct me. :-)
--Jamie.
jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 11:27:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.31
Message-ID: <1992Aug18.152737.1551@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:27:37 GMT
[...]
>To Whom It May Concern,
> I was reading CAF-news, but I cannot understand
> what the numbers after the article are all about: i.e.
><9206250251.AA04855@nextsun.INS.CWRU.Edu>
[...]
Hi! You were reading the abstract of CAF-News. Each numbered paragraph
is a paraphrase/summary of an full article in the full CAF-News. The
numbers are the message-id's of the full articles.
You can see the full CAF-News by reading alt.comp.acad-freedom.news,
^^^^
or by subscribing to the CAF-News email list, or by following the
instructions included with every CAF-News abstract on archive access.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
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/caf
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 caf
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 12:21:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208181620.AA20660@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:20:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 12:21:16 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <920817.275105147@foucault.postmodern.com>
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:57:59 GMT
In the referenced article, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> mcb@foucault.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
> [...]
> >I've stayed out of this so far, but I don't think you understand how
> >offensive I (and others) find the above paragraph. I have absolutely
> >no interest in any cooperation, no matter how slight, with any form of
> >state censorship. I believe that censorship is not merely evil but Evil,
> >and if your government gives you problems about that, I think you
> >should oppose them.
>
> For a person who is usually relatively well informed, this is a remarkably
> *stupid* and insulting remark.
I could say the same about your original article as well.
> In case you missed it, Canada is not only a democracy, but these laws
> enjoy the overwhelming support of the entire country. State censorship?
> Bullshit. The state is us. Evil? You're calling the entire country evil.
Yeah, right. Perhaps you've forgotten, but exclusion of Jews enjoyed
the overwhelming support of the German people in the 1930s. Tyranny
of the majority is always a problem. I know a fair number of
Canadians -- intelligent, well-educated people, all of them -- and
each of them find state censorship as offensive as I do, and are
embarrassed that their country would take such action in a misguided
attempt to prevent "harm".
> And why should I, or anybody else bust their butt to "save" crap like
> this? Crap who's only legacy is oppression, misery or even death [ie:
> Keegstra or Zundel].
Because free expression is inherent in the nature of a free society;
if Keegstra's and Zundel's words are suppressed because people
disagree with them or find them threatening, whose words will be next?
I think Keegstra and Zundel are scum -- but even scum should have the
right of free expression. By denying the Holocaust they defend and
attempt to exonerate people who participated in the murder of my
relatives (I am a Jew of Eastern European ancestry). Yet I would not
silence them, because I do not want to live in a society that
suppresses the free exchange of ideas.
> >I have no interest in giving even trivial respect
> >to Canadian laws that restrict freedom of expression.
>
> How about a little respect for the desires, laws and traditions of
> other countries?
Human rights transcend sovereignty. A majority has no more right to
be tyrannical in Canada than in the U.S. or elsewhere. Believe me, I
am not defending the U.S. government's record with respect to freedom
of expression issues. It is better than some, but objectively, it is
despicable.
> >So if censorship (and pressures to resist it, i.e., by cross-border sites
> >that send you "illegal" material) gives you a problem, get on your
> >MLA's case. Don't come whining to Americans telling us to cool it; I
> >think instead we should turn up the heat.
>
> So you have just gotta save us from ourselves.
>
> Save us from evangelical Americans who simply cannot accept that there are
> ways, *viable* ways, other than theirs.
No. Freedom of expression is too important a human rights issue to
allow politicians, censors, and their apologists to restrict it. I
am not arguing from an "American" point of view -- I find the
situation here intolerable as well, and have contributed time, money
and energy to anti-censorship causes and publications. In some ways
the situation here is worse, since we seem to pay lip service to
freedom expression as a Constitutional right, but it is so regularly
violated by everyone from the Supreme Court down to the Mothers for
Decency that it has become more of a sham than a right.
> It's attitudes like this that make the term "ugly american" so appropriate.
Oh, please. By the way, I am a first-generation American. My parents
were both born in ... Canada. (And I have spent considerable time in
Canada.)
> MLAs? More ignorance. MPs.
>
> MLAs are the term for some provincial politicians. This issue is federal.
I am perfectly aware of the distinction. (Unless you are a politician,
lawyer, or happened to work in one, I think it is a fair bet that I
have spent more time in Canadian provincial legislative buildings than
you have, being related to a few MLAs here and there. My experience is
limited to Manitoba and British Columbia, however.) My understanding is
that Canadian censorship laws are a mix of federal and provincial
enactments, and that one generally has better access to MLAs as they
are more numerous.
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@postmodern.com
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 12:21:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <9208181620.AA20652@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:20:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 12:21:41 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:20:46 BST
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> In case you missed it, Canada is not only a democracy, but these laws
> enjoy the overwhelming support of the entire country. State censorship?
> Bullshit. The state is us.
Even for those of us who advocate its elimination?
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 Aug 18 12:23:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208181623.AA20670@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:23:21 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 12:23:32 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <1992Aug18.084328.21533@nntp.nta.no>
Date: 18 Aug 92 08:43:28 GMT
In article , Dan Sorenson writes:
>
> Credit card fraud is also rather simple. So is passing a bad
> check. One can modify your license plates and go speeding through the
> photo-radar speed traps with impunity. One can also forge a signature
> fairly easily. So what? The issue is that forgery can be detected,
> though finding out exactly who forged it is nearly impossible,
No, in many of these cases the culprit runs a chance of being caught red
handed. (Not that I'd deny that there *are* things that can be done for
example to harass a credit card holder with almost no chance of getting
caught.)
> and hence
> a forged post can be justifiably killed and the person who's name appears
> on it can be aquitted of wrongdoing. I'm not after the forger so much
> as I'm after protecting the person who's name appears in the header.
Well, I hate to pick nits, but cancelling a post may not always remove all
copies of that message. And, archived copies are not deleted. And even if
an explanatory message is posted it may not reach all people concerned.
(The posters name may already be in a KILL-file, or the message is just
lost in the enormous flow of data.)
One solution to the problem would of course be to use digital signatures.
However, some countries have strict laws limiting the use of cryptography
at least for use in an international community like the news network.
---
Haakon Styri *** std. disclaimer applies ***
Norwegian Telecom Research *** I speak for myself and only myself ***
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 13:58:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <9208181757.AA21222@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:57:53 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 13:58:06 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <1992Aug18.150523.29036@news.columbia.edu>
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:05:23 GMT
In article malu@imdpy1.im.se (Mats Luthman) writes:
>
[talking about Playboy not sueing the net deleted]
>
>A man who had his car stolen said that he would probably never
>sue anybody, but would if the thief could be identified.
> The point is that, if victims of car theft don't sue, there is nothing
>wrong with stealing cars.
I think you grossly missunderstand laws. I'm sure that it is the same
in the US as in Sweden, but correct me if I am wrong.
Theft is a crime. Violations of civil laws are torts. Torts and crimes
are not quite the same thing. If your car is stolen, and the culprit is
arrested the crime will be tried as the State v. Accused, not You v. Accused.
In theory, the state can proceed with thier case even over your objection
if they feel they can prove the charges.
A better analogy is this: Image that I hit you with a baseball bat.
But it is such a context that nobody thinks it was a crime. It was an
'accident'. You have the _option_ of sueing me for damages. If you choose
not to sue me, then noone can say that I violated any laws. It is clearly
wrong to hit people with baseball bats, but if everyone agrees that there
was no intent to harm, and you believe it is not something to be pursued
in court, then there was _no_ wrongdoing on my part.
Back to the Playboy issue. The editors know about usenet. They know
what happens here. They most certainly know that they could take action.
Perhaps they could send letters (from a lawyer) to the first identifiable
site listed in the path. They could identify and send letters to those
who do not post anonymously.
None of these things would neccesarily stop people from violating thier
copyright, but it would show that they take the 'threat' seriously.
Why don't they worry about usenet? The reason is obvious: they don't
feel threatened by it. You would have to stretch a point very far to
suggest that a.b.p.e was cutting detectably into Playboy's income. And any
such effect would clearly be offset by the free advertising provided, and
certainly by any increase in acceptance of pornography provided by the
free flow of information as embodied by usenet. indeed, I feel it would
be the biggest mistake the industry could make to try to stifle usenet.
Anyway, the point is clear. Playboy has the option to take action
against usenet, and they are not pursueing it. I believe that those who
hedge at carrying a.b.p.e and the other picture groups solely for reasons
of copyright can be free of guilt or negative feelings if they decide to
carry it.
DanZ
--
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 17:32:42 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3kfyzf#@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:27:01 GMT
In article peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
In article <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> laidley@fraser.sfu.ca (Jennefer Anne Laidley) writes:
>And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with? Who's
>truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?
The reader or listener. Everyone has to decide their own truth, and they
can only do that when there's nobody else filtering their information flow
for them.
Except of course for the only moral absolute of Usenet: Censorship is wrong.
How is it that (seemingly) everyone accepts moral relativism, and
still holds unwaveringly to the idea that censorship is wrong? Just
trying to point out some flaws that I see in this ever-present
argument.
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu <><
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 18:55:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: FYEO[clari.news.law.drugs,clari.news.children,clari.news.gov.international,clari.local.florida,clari.news.top] Customs feels little sympathy for jailed teens
Message-ID: <9208182255.AA23262@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:55:19 GMT
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Date: 18 Aug 1992 19:31:57 GMT
CORAL SPRINGS, Fla. (UPI) -- U.S. Customs officials conceded Tuesday
it is unfortunate a teenage American girl and her friends were jailed in
Jamaica, but said it is hard to sympathize because the girls knowingly
tried to smuggle marijuana.
Kim Householder, 17, of Coral Springs, said she and five other girls
were lured to Jamaica in July with the promise of a free trip and then
were offered $5,000 to smuggle marijuana out of the country.
Householder was freed after an unidentified benefactor gave her
mother the money to pay a $3,628 fine. One of the girls remained in Fort
Augusta Women's Penitentiary near Kingston, Jamaica.
``It's very unfortunate that they were jailed in a foreign country,
but it's difficult to be sympathetic because they agreed to smuggle
drugs,'' said Michael Sheehan, spokesman for U.S. Customs in Miami. ``No
one is unaware of the fact that smuggling drugs is illegal.''
Sheehan said the incidents like that don't happen all the time, but
they are not unusual.
``It's not uncommon at all for someone to be offered a lot of money
to bring some drugs into the U.S. What is unfortunate is the fact they
would agree to do it,'' Sheehan said.
``I know I shouldn't have ever attempted to do it, but all I saw was
the money and the free cruise,'' Householder told the Fort Lauderdale
Sun-Sentinel.
Householder found about a free trip to Jamaica from a flier for Jack
Ruby Productions in Ocho Rios, Jamaica. It offered a free cruise to the
island and $500 to appear in a reggae video.
Householder went in June, had a brief photo session and returned
home.
``That's why I let her go again,'' said Householder's mother, Patti
Householder Bray. ``They've gone, had a good time, and nothing happened.
''
Householder and five friends decided to go again July 26 and left
aboard the cruise ship Seaward. When they arrived the woman who met them
said she would pay them $5,000 to put some marijuana in their bags,
carry it past a customs agent and hand it over to somone on a ship.
Later the plans changed and the drugs were taped to the girls' bodies
under baggy T-shirts. Jamaican police said they carried eight to 15
pounds each, but Householder said it was about five.
When they boarded the ship, they were arrested. They pleaded guilty
to drug charges and were sentenced to 18 months in prison or a $3,268
fine.
The girls were first held in Ocho Rios, where they slept on
newspapers on their cell floor and ate bread and cow skin.
The girls were then transferred to Fort Augusta, where they were
assigned beds and the food was slightly better. But they had 14
cellmates and one of them said she had eaten her own children.
``She didn't look like she was joking,'' said Householder.
After a few days, Householder's mother paid the fine and Kim came
home. One of the six girls, an unidentified 17-year-old from Margate,
remained in prison because her family does not have the money.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 18 21:52:04 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:52:01 GMT
Jim> == Jim Ault
Jim> Except of course for the only moral absolute of Usenet: Censorship
Jim> is wrong.
Jim> How is it that (seemingly) everyone accepts moral relativism, and
Jim> still holds unwaveringly to the idea that censorship is wrong?
Jim> Just trying to point out some flaws that I see in this
Jim> ever-present argument.
Perhaps it's from a (consistent) feeling that what you do to/with
yourself, or consenting adults, is your business.
If you wish to censor your reading, that's your business too. But why
should I let you censor what I read?
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
``Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ti Kwan Leep.
Approach me that you might see.'' -- The Master
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:31:05 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:00:51 GMT
In article <3kfyzf#@rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>In article peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> laidley@fraser.sfu.ca (Jennefer Anne Laidley) writes:
> >And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with? Who's
> >truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?
> The reader or listener. Everyone has to decide their own truth, and they
> can only do that when there's nobody else filtering their information flow
> for them.
>Except of course for the only moral absolute of Usenet: Censorship is wrong.
Obviously not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
--
`-_-'
Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:49:48 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <9208191449.AA25523@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:49:34 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:49:48 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:59:53 GMT
In article <1992Aug18.220105.8510@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> My argument is really based on two points:
>
>1) the binary picture groups do not harm any publishers to any significant
>degree, and the publishers know this.
This is certainly true. It is true now, that the total readership of NetNews
is still between 2 and 4 million, but will it be true when the total NetNews
readership is between 20 and 40 million? Maybe NetNews won't exist in it's
current form then... certainly this whole issue could well be a contributing
factor to forcing the Net's transformation.
>2) you shouldn't take something as 'wrong' (morally or legally) simply
>because someone _could_ sue you.
Also true, but irrellevant. I consider the trafficking of copyrighted
materials to be morally and legally "wrong" regardless of whether or not
someone is going to sue me.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:49:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <9208191449.AA25514@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:49:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:49:53 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:46:53 GMT
> Nope. it's not clear. If Playboy doesn't sue it's probably bacause it's
> not cost-effective. Proving who did the posting will be difficult, even
> if the message isn't anonymous. Nothing becomes legal, or ethically right,
> just because you've found a way to do it in an anonymous manner.
I thought the "innocent until proven guilty" principle in western
legal thinking was designed to take care of this. If what you are
doing doesn't bother anyone, then you are innocent even if some law
prohibits it.
"Guilty in the eyes of god" and similar principles are not what the
law is built on.
--
(Rmz)
Bj\o rn Remseth !Institutt for Informatikk !Net: rmz@ifi.uio.no
Phone: +472 453466!Universitetet i Oslo, Norway !NeXTmail: rmz@neste.ifi.uio.no
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:50:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <9208191449.AA25532@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:49:49 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:50:01 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <1992Aug19.123528.10045@nntp.nta.no>
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:35:28 GMT
In article <1992Aug18.220105.8510@news.columbia.edu>, Daniel Zabetakis writes:
>
> 1) the binary picture groups do not harm any publishers to any significant
> degree, and the publishers know this.
Before you can make the "no harm" statement you should be quite sure that
the "publishers know this" statement is correct. We sometimes forget the
fact that not all people have the same knowlegde about, or access to, new
technology.
> The argument for point 1 is simple. Nobody could really support the
> position that a.b.p.e is taking away any of the income of Playboy. Even
> if Playboy won a civil suit, they would certainly not be awarded any
> damages. And this is my point, they are not being hurt.
I wouldn't know Playboy's official view or policy. However, I seriously doubt
that Playboy is the only source of copyrighted material finding its way into
the news.
You should also remember that the news network (whatever *that* is) is an
international entity. It includes commercial sites. You should observe
international copyright law as well as domestic. Someone noted that the US
was pretty late in signing the Bern Convention, but remember that prior to
signing the Bern Convention the US signed the Universal Copyright Convention
(Geneva 1955 ?).
The question we should discuss is: What is infringement of copyright on the
network? (If anything is...) I guess the main problem in interpreting the
law is technology (in other words: define the "medium"). Another problem is
determining what is "fair use". In some countries we'll have to wait for
someone to bring the problem to court before we know the answers, in other
countries the law must be ammended.
> 2) you shouldn't take something as 'wrong' (morally or legally) simply
> because someone _could_ sue you.
I agree. My question, however, is whether it is ok to do something illegal
just because it's very difficult to *prove* it was you who did it. It's
not legal to rob a bank just because you found a really smart way of doing
it, is it?
> Who knows why Playboy doesn't sue or take some action?
I don't, but a previous poster have stated that they would if they could
identify some person. (For example a newsgroup moderator.)
> I understand that if you are
> a writer, and use the word 'xerox' to mean 'photocopy' you will get a letter
> from Xerox asking you not to do that.
There's no such warning in my Oxford Dictionary, but I guess the proper
American word would be `xerograph'. :-)
> Maybe
> Playboy encourages distribution of porn (it's pictures included) as long
> as it doesn't get abusive. Why should you decide for them what they will
> allow?
Nice argument, but I'm not interested in Playboy or what they'll allow.
They may be large, but they cannot dictate the interpretation of inter-
national law. :-) However, a single photographer/writer/artist would
probably not have the resources to protect their copyrighted material.
---
Haakon Styri *** std disclaimer applies ***
Norwegian Telecom Research
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:51:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <9208191450.AA25546@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:50:45 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:51:02 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <1992Aug19.140428.11115@nntp.nta.no>
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:04:28 GMT
In a previous article, I wrote:
>
> Nope. it's not clear. If Playboy doesn't sue it's probably bacause it's
> not cost-effective. Proving who did the posting will be difficult, even
> if the message isn't anonymous. Nothing becomes legal, or ethically right,
> just because you've found a way to do it in an anonymous manner.
In article , Bj|rn Remseth writes:
>
> I thought the "innocent until proven guilty" principle in western
> legal thinking was designed to take care of this. If what you are
> doing doesn't bother anyone, then you are innocent even if some law
> prohibits it.
You're twisting my statement. "If what you are doing doesn't bother someone"
is very different from bothering someone in an anonymous manner.
> "Guilty in the eyes of god" and similar principles are not what the
> law is built on.
That's your words, not mine. But you can consider the folowing aspect of
copyright law: If you produce a public performance of the "Phantom of the
Opera" musical written by Andrew Lloyd Webber without the knowledge of
The Really Useful Group Ltd. (the copyright owner) you're sure breaking
the law. (Anyway, The RUG have demonstrated that they bother when they
know. A Norwegian amateur dramatic society didn't believe that, and that
assumption did cost them.)
Before you start the flame-fest - there *is* a difference between "knowing"
and "bothering". No need for pointing out that fact. I've just argued the
opinion that you can be bothered and unable to prosecute because the
offender is anonymous.
---
Haakon Styri *** std disclaimer applies ***
Norwegian Telecom Research
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:51:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID: <9208191451.AA25555@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:51:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:51:40 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:49:52 GMT
In article <1992Aug13.213539.25629@utagraph.uta.edu> john@utafll.uta.edu (John Baima) writes:
>Just curious, how much disk space/band width are we talking about for
>alt.sex* as far as absolute amount and percent of the total?
alt.sex.* is not the issue here... alt.binaries.pictures.* is. And to
answer the question, alt.binaries.pictures.* accounts for around 10% of
of my total incoming news (in size, not in number of articles, obviously).
It takes up about 5% of my newsspool since I expire it faster than everything
else.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 11:57:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Copyright and alt.sex.pictures (was: copyright == ill...)
Message-ID: <9208191557.AA26115@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:57:24 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 11:57:38 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Copyright and alt.sex.pictures (was: copyright == ill...)
Message-ID: <1992Aug19.135306.398@news.columbia.edu>
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:53:06 GMT
This is a small bit of history about copyright, sueing and alt.sex.
pictures. Other people can tell the story better than I, so if any are out
there, I wish they would chime in.
The person who used to keep the FAQ on alt.sex.pictures (I think
his name was Brian Reid) said that he once sent letters to Playboy, Penthouse
and Hustler asking them about thier feelings and intentions about things
like a.s.p. He was at that time thinking of becoming the moderator of
a.s.p, an event that would have been very good for the net.
The response, as far as I understand it was that if he became moderator,
they might consider sueing to stop a.s.p. Otherwise, as long as there
was no organization, and no profit being made off thier pictures, they
would not pursue it.
This is the story I refer to when I say that publishers know about
a.b.p.e. Publishers certainly know about BBS's. The point I think is
clear. They don't care about a little free distribution of thier
material, but want to be able to stop it if it becomes abusive, or
too organized.
I'm sure Playboy would chock if you said that 4-5 images were all that
was valuable in thier magazine. In this context you might consider
a.b.p.e to be nothing mor than free advertising for PLayboy (and the others)
in violation of usenet practices :-)
DanZ
--
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 12:09:55 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.news, et al.] EFFector Online 3.2 -- Future of NSFNet
Message-ID: <9208191609.AA26204@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:09:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 12:09:55 1992
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: EFFector Online 3.2 -- Future of NSFNet
Message-ID: <1992Aug19.150341.18832@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:03:41 GMT
########## ########## ########## |
########## ########## ########## |
#### #### #### |
######## ######## ######## | THE FUTURE OF NSFNET
######## ######## ######## |
#### #### #### |
########## #### #### |
########## #### #### |
=====================================================================
EFFector Online August 19, 1992 Issue 3.2
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
ISSN 1062-9424
=====================================================================
GETTING A HANDLE ON THE FUTURE OF NSFNET
by Andrew Blau (blau@eff.org)
A Report on the July 23 Meeting
of the Communications Policy Forum
in Washington, D.C.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is responsible for the NSFNet.
Originally a network created to link a handful of supercomputing
centers serving the U.S. research and education community, NSFNet
became the backbone of the Internet in this country, now serving
millions of people and thousands of organizations. Since 1987, the
NSF has contracted with a partnership of Merit Network, Inc., IBM
and MCI to provide and manage these "backbone network services.
That contract will expire in November of this year.
In order to award a contract for the next phase of the NSFNet's
growth and management, NSF staff is preparing a solicitation that
will describe the network that the NSF wants and invite interested
organizations to bid to become the provider of those services.
However, before releasing the final solicitation that will be bid
on, the NSF released a draft and asked for public comment on it.
Comments were to be filed by August 3rd of this year.
In response to this, EFF, which administers the Communications
Policy Forum in Washington, DC convened a roundtable on July 23 to
bring together a wide cross-section of groups that would either be
bidding on the new contract or would be affected by its outcome.
Also attending the meeting were members of the NSF staff. The
meeting itself, in order to stimulate an open exchange of views, was
"off-the-record" in that while notes on the sense of the speakers
were maintained, no speaker was directly quoted.
The Proposed New Shape of NSFNet
The Draft Solicitation describes a new architecture for the NSFNet.
It specifies certain requirements for those who are interested in
providing these services.
Until now, the "backbone network services" that lie at the heart of
the NSFNet worked as a single package. This package was a trunk for
connecting regional or "mid-level" networks across the country. It
was provided by an organization that also controlled access to the
backbone and directed traffic on it. In recent years, this
arrangement created a sense of unfairness among competitors in the
independent commercial sector who are eager to provide network
services and Internet connections.
In order to address these and other concerns, the Draft Solicitation
proposes that the next generation will split this package into two
distinct units. The first unit would be a "very high speed backbone"
or "vBNS". The second unit would provide a number of "network access
points" or "NAPs." The entity responsible for providing the NAPs
will also be the Routing Authority that oversees network traffic.
The draft also specifies some requirements for the new architecture.
First the vBNS must operate at 155 mbps or higher. Second, it must
connect to all NAPs. Third, it must provide high speed interregional
connectivity. Fourth it must be restricted to research and education
traffic only. Fifth, the NAPs must operate at speeds of at least 100
mbps, may connect any number of networks to each other or the vBNS,
and are open to any kind of traffic. Finally, the vBNS provider and
the NAP manager must be two different entities.
Reactions at the CPF
Two major themes emerged from the nearly six hours of discussion at
the July 23rd CPF meeting.
First, there has been substantial lack of shared understanding about
some of the draft's key elements. Among items mentioned were such
basic questions as what is a NAP, what is the vBNS, how will they
relate, are there ways of connecting to the vBNS without going
through a NAP, how many NAPs will there be and where will they be
located, what will it cost to connect to a NAP and how will charges
be set?
Second, it became clear that there were many important issues about
which the NSF remained "intentionally silent." Most obviously, the
draft has no guidelines to suggest how bids will be evaluated. In
addition, the draft is silent about how this generation of the
NSFNet intersects with the development of the NREN. It does not
suggest how prices for NAP attachment will be set, and when. The
draft fails to address the procedure for starting a non-NSF
sponsored NAP and connecting to the vBNS. The draft also fails to
illuminate how the NSF determines when a technology is no longer
"experimental" and can be provided commercially without further
government funding.
Additional issues came from the various constituencies around the
table who brought with them very different concerns. For example,
the research and education community appreciated that the draft
seemed to make it easier to access commercial services through the
Internet, yet expressed concern that the new architecture would
disrupt the regional arrangements that allow costs to be shared.
These cost sharing arrangements, they argue, foster more widespread
connectivity, and disrupting them could reduce rather than increase
the number of networked institutions.
Commercial network service providers expressed a range of opinions.
Some supported the basic architecture, although suggested certain
modifications, such as that the Routing Authority be separate from
the entity that manages the NAPs. Others argued that the draft
continues to unfairly distort the marketplace for network services
by subsidizing standard connections such as e-mail.
Local telephone companies, who have not previously been involved in
the development of the NSFNet, pointed out that the NSF was
proposing a new commercial network without taking into account the
infrastructure and regulatory boundaries of the nation's local
exchange telephone companies. Since the breakup of the Bell System,
for example, the Baby Bells cannot transport traffic across certain
regional boundaries. If the NSF's architecture does not put a NAP
in every one of these regions, then these network providers are
automatically excluded from full participation.
Following the meeting, the EFF staff prepared a summary of the major
issues that arose during the course of the discussion and circulated
it to all those in attendance. The EFF also submitted it to the NSF as
a record of important concerns that the EFF believes should be
considered in preparing the final solicitation. In addition, the EFF
asked the NSF to resubmit a draft solicitation for public comment
before issuing a final version.
* * * * *
Want more information?
For more information about the NSFNet draft solicitation and bidding
process, contact our Washington office at eff.org. DC staff members
Danny Weitzner(djw@eff.org) and Andrew Blau (blau@eff.org), as well as
Jerry Berman (jberman@eff.org), the Director of the Washington office,
have all been working on this issue.
About the Communications Policy Forum
The Communications Policy Forum, a project administered by the EFF,
provides consumer and public interest groups, telecommunications
companies, computer industry groups and policy makers a common forum
in which to discuss telecommunications issues and exchange views in
a non-partisan setting. The CPF also undertakes non-partisan
research. It is co-sponsored with the Consumer Federation of
America and the ACLU.
-==--==--==-<-==--==--==-
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our quarterly newsletter,
EFFECTOR, our bi-weekly electronic newsletter, EFFector Online (if you
have an electronic address that can be reached through the Net), and
special releases and other notices on our activities. But because we
believe that support should be freely given, you can receive these
things even if you do not elect to become a member.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year for
regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish.
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never, under
any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We will, from
time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations whose
work we determine to be in line with our goals. If you do not grant
explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your membership
disclosed to any group for any reason.
---------------- EFF MEMBERSHIP FORM ---------------
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
155 Second St. #32
Cambridge, MA 02141
I wish to become a member of the EFF I enclose:$__________
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
$100.00(Corporate or company membership.
This allows any organization to
become a member of EFF. It allows
such an organization, if it wishes
to designate up to five individuals
within the organization as members.)
| I enclose an additional donation of $___________
Name:______________________________________________________
Organization:______________________________________________
Address: __________________________________________________
City or Town: _____________________________________________
State:_______ Zip:________ Phone:( )_____________(optional)
FAX:( )____________________(optional)
Email address: ______________________________
I enclose a check [ ] .
Please charge my membership in the amount of $_____________
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:____________________________________________________
Expiration date: ____________
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date:______________________
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ] .
Initials:___________________________
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
=====================================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141
Phone: +1 617 864 0665 FAX: +1 617 864 0866
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged
To reproduce signed articles individually,
please contact the authors for their express permission.
=====================================================================
This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
--
Rita Marie Rouvalis rita@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation |
155 Second Street | "Stop me before I post again."
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 |
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 13:37:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Any info on Indiana U Admin?
Message-ID: <1992Aug19.171941.4846@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:19:41 GMT
I hate to interrupt the flamewars, but UVa just hired Polley McClure,
who was most recently the dean of academic computing at Indiana U.
Anyone have any comments on her view on news, irc, and other such
topics? Email would be fine.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 18:51:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <199208191934.AA23572@dante.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:34:46 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 18:51:28 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3735@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:12:56 GMT
In article a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>In <3726@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>Furthermore, on a more general level, most universities have constitutions
>>or codes of ethics that require them to be more selective of material than
>>the law would necessarily require them to. Even in the USA.
>Actually, the code of ethics in most universities "require" them to be LESS
>selective of material than the law requires them to. I believe his to be
>generally ignored, but it is still the case.
The codes of ethics of many Universities provide for disciplinary
action against students that unduly harass others, or publish
material that is potentially harmful. (the language is often somewhat
archaic, referring to things such as "bringing discredit to the University")
For example, a student can usually be expelled for such things as (after
repeated warnings) posting signs saying "no means harder". Over the last
couple of months, several American examples of this sort of thing have been
described (after the incident at Queens U). As far as I am aware, no student
has been expelled from a Canadian University for such behaviour, but some
have been threatened with expulsion. I remember several examples of
expulsion in similar incidents reported while the Queens U thing was
being discussed.
Or, I really wonder how long Keegstra would last at an American college.
Not very long.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 19:06:05 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug19.200653.9785@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:06:53 GMT
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
[...]
>alt.sex isn't like playboy:
>
> - There ain't no editor, so nobody screens the material going in.
> Thus the risk of illegal material is very high.
> - It isn't a printed magazine, so customs can't have a look at it
> to ensure that no illegal material is in it.
[...]
By this reasoning, alt.censorship, rec.humor, alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,
and most other newsgroups should be banned, too.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 19:06:27 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug19.200347.7215@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:03:47 GMT
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
[...]
>The codes of ethics of many Universities provide for disciplinary
>action against students [...] publish
>material that is potentially harmful. (the language is often somewhat
>archaic, referring to things such as "bringing discredit to the University")
Students at state schools in the U.S. cannot legally be punished for
publishing material that is merely potentially harmful.
This university dropped it's unconstitutionally vague prohibitions
against "conduct deemed undesirable" around 1971 when the Chancellor
approved a Statement on Individual Rights.
>For example, a student can usually be expelled for such things as (after
>repeated warnings) posting signs saying "no means harder". Over the last
>couple of months, several American examples of this sort of thing have been
>described (after the incident at Queens U).
[...]
Such actions (for example, at Syracuse University, a private
school) are the exception and not the rule.
- Carl
References
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/regs2rights
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 19:08:53 1992
From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:47:19 GMT
Just in case anyone forgot, you should remember what kind
of a "society" we live in. The first sentence in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms says
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize
the *supremacy of God* and the rule of law:"
How do you like them apples?
And to refresh your memories...
"33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare i an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 ..."
and section 2 says...
"2. Everyone has the following freedoms:
(a)freedom of conscience and religion;
*(b)freedom of thought,belief,opinion and expression,includ-
ing freedom of the press and other media of communication;*
(c)freedom of peaceful assembly;and
(d)freedom of association"
Anyone want to move out?
Richard Pocklington
THERE ARE NO RULES IN UTOPIA
POCKLING@SFU.CA
p.s. if I spelled something in a manner that displeases you
TOO BAD
From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 19:19:51 1992
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorshp
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Aug19.201819.20093@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:18:19 GMT
[A reply to an article in news.admin]
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
[...]
>Canada has the very same types of laws, plus constitutional guarantees
>of free speech too. One difference being that the balancing act is
>explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
Agreed.
>The other more critical difference is the level of harm necessary.
>Canada chose the route of "reasonable person", juries, studies, and
>simply watching the USA - a case study in almost unrestricted free
>speech.
[...]
Put another way, Canada inherented from Great Britain the idea that if
a majority of the legislature says that some class of material is bad
and should be banned, then they are assumed to be correct.
In other words, the legislature can ban anything.
I certainly would not trust the Illinois or U.S. government with that
authority. (Personally, I wouldn't trust any government with that
authority.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Aug 20 03:46:45 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3742@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:53:37 GMT
In article <1992Aug19.201819.20093@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A reply to an article in news.admin]
>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Canada has the very same types of laws, plus constitutional guarantees
>>of free speech too. One difference being that the balancing act is
>>explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
>Agreed.
Then how could you say the below?
>>The other more critical difference is the level of harm necessary.
>>Canada chose the route of "reasonable person", juries, studies, and
>>simply watching the USA - a case study in almost unrestricted free
>>speech.
>Put another way, Canada inherented from Great Britain the idea that if
>a majority of the legislature says that some class of material is bad
>and should be banned, then they are assumed to be correct.
>In other words, the legislature can ban anything.
False. The final arbiter is *still* the Supreme Court of Canada -
the constitution and charter of rights is still the law of the land.
Legislatures can't make exceptions legal on their own. If a
legislature passes such laws, they are still subject to the Supreme
Court striking down such laws if they're too broad, or completely
unreasonable.
The situation is no different than the US. Where the Supreme Court
can and does permit exceptions to the constitution, even though there
are no explicit escape clauses. One only need look at the exceptions
that have resulted in the suspensions of due process in property seizures
permitted under the anti-drug and anti-organized crime legislation,
or the violations of two contitutional clauses by the seizure
of Dr. Alvarez Machain.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 20 03:46:47 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <3744@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:00:56 GMT
In article <3kfyzf#@rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
|In article peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
| In article <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> laidley@fraser.sfu.ca (Jennefer Anne Laidley) writes:
| >And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with? Who's
| >truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?
| The reader or listener. Everyone has to decide their own truth, and they
| can only do that when there's nobody else filtering their information flow
| for them.
|Except of course for the only moral absolute of Usenet: Censorship is wrong.
I musta missed the vote. On the other hand, is there a guideline
posting that shows how to vote on morals?
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Aug 20 10:17:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Any info on Indiana U Admin?
Message-ID: <1992Aug20.141720.4880@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:17:20 GMT
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>I hate to interrupt the flamewars, but UVa just hired Polley McClure,
>who was most recently the dean of academic computing at Indiana U.
>Anyone have any comments on her view on news, irc, and other such
>topics? Email would be fine.
One way to try to answer such questions is to do a full text search on
the CAF archive. (I did this. Polley McClure isn't mentioned. Not
incidents have been reported at Indiana U.)
Anyone who can ftp to eff.org can also do a fuzzy full text search on
the CAF archive using "wais".
If you already know what WAIS is, here is the comp-acad-freedom.src
record:
(:source
:version 3
:ip-address "192.88.144.4"
:ip-name "wais.eff.org"
:tcp-port 210
:database-name "comp-acad-freedom"
:cost 0.00
:cost-unit :free
:maintainer "wais@eff.org"
:description "Files relating to the Computers & Academic Freedom lists.
Includes computer usage policies, bibliographies, archives of old
discussion, and much more.
"
)
Some popular wais programs (clients) include "swais" and "xwais".
Your site may already have these installed. If not, you can
access a client at Thinking Machines via telnet. Just telnet
to quake.think.com. Login as "wais".
In addition to the "comp-academic-freedom" server, there are servers
for recent Supreme Court decisions, for FAQ's, for EFF, for the bible,
etc, etc.
Here is some additional information from alt.wais.
- Carl
=====================================
>From: brewster@quake.think.com (Brewster Kahle)
>Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.wais,alt.wais
>Subject: Re: WAIS FAQ part 0 of n: getting started
>Message-ID:
>Date: 8 May 92 23:04:35 GMT
In article <1992May6.140734.20789@klaava.Helsinki.FI> tolvanen@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Martti Tolvanen) writes:
Path: think.com!ames!olivea!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!tolvanen
From: tolvanen@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Martti Tolvanen)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.wais,alt.wais
Date: 6 May 92 14:07:34 GMT
References: <1992May5.205022.262@msen.com> <1992May6.105809.9153@rdg.dec.com>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 6
Xref: think.com comp.infosystems.wais:4 alt.wais:731
Where does one find the WAIS client that runs under UNIX (related to GNU
Emacs?)
--
Martti Tolvanen, Dept. Biochem., Univ. Helsinki, Finland
tolvanen@cc.helsinki.fi
it is in the unix release:
New Unix Internet Release (Beta 3 Release) Available
September 16, 1991
Thank you for the interest in WAIS. The servers on Quake (including the
directory of servers) has 70k requests from over 1100 different hosts all
over the world (18 countries) in a couple of months. There are now 70
servers including one in Norway, one in Australia, poetry, recipies,
comp.sources, as well as a Connection Machine serving all sorts of things.
There are are a few mailing lists on this subject that you might want to be
on:
wais-interest: only announcements like this (1 a month or so)
wais-discussion: moderated mailings every 1 or 2 weeks. Good
stuff including all on wais-interest.
wais-talk: unmoderated for implementors and interactive discussions.
Requests to wais--request@think.com. Archives available from
wais server: wais-discussion or anonymous ftp from quake.think.com.
A bibliography of available written materials and resources is available
from /pub/wais/wais-discussion/bibliography.txt@quake.think.com (ftp) or
WAIS server wais-discussion-archive.src, or on request from Barbara@think.com.
Jonathan Goldman pulled the most recent release together (with help from
developers all over the world, see below):
Highlights of modifications (see the release for the full report)
Overall: make it more portable, and small enhancements
Thank you to all that have contributed bug reports and suggestions. There
are no concrete plans for the next release.
Overview of components:
In this release is source code for:
* Server code: There is code to index text and picture files.
* Protocol code: based on Z39.50-1988 using the internet.
* Clients code: User interfaces for contacting servers
* GNU emacs interface
* simple shell interface
* Mac interface (in separate WAIStation file)
* tool kit for making your own interfaces
* X interface
* Directory of servers: This is be a network service that lists
existing servers and how to contact them.
* A Connection Machine server with some patent information, the CIA
factbook, and some Biomedical abstracts, info-mac, risks, etc
to serve as example servers.
Other components available elsewhere:
NeXT release: /wais/WAIStation-NeXT-1.0.tar.Z@think.com
Telnet access: telnet quake.think.com login wais
DOS: /pub/wais/UNC/wais-dos*@samba.oit.unc.edu
Motif: /public/wais/motif-a1.tar.Z@think.com
IBM RS6000: /pub/misc/wais-8-b3-dist.tar.Z@ftp.ans.net
SunView: /pub/wais/sunsearch.src.*.tar.Z@samba.oit.unc.edu
VMS: pub/wais/UNC/vms-client
The public servers that are currently advertized are:
Biology:
biology-journal-contents.src
biosci.src Molecular-biology.src
Usenet and internet archives:
comp.graphics.src comp.admin.src
comp.db.src comp.emacs.src
comp.multi.src comp.archives.src
rec.pets.src comp.sources.src
usenet-science.src
user-contrib-cookbook.src usenet-cookbook.src
homebrew.src
info-mac.src sun-spots.src
Frequently Asked Questions:
NeXT.FAQ.src unix.FAQ.src
ibm.pc.FAQ.src mac.FAQ.src
Connection Machine info:
CM-applications.src
CM-tech-summary.src
CM-fortran-manual.src CM-paris-manual.src
CM-star-lisp-docs.src CMFS-documentation.src
Books:
jargon.src
bible.src koran.src
sample-books.src
MIT-algorithms-bug.src MIT-algorithms-exercise.src
MIT-algorithms-suggest.src
Libraries:
online-libraries.src
tmc-library.src
Misc:
open_systems_calendar.src matrix_news.src
astro-images-gif.src astro-images-fits.src
nsf-bulletins.src
midi.src
unimelb-research.src (Australia!)
supreme-ct.src
NIH-Guide.src
UNTComputerDoc.src
US-Gov-Programs.src
UiO_Publications.src (Norway!)
cosmic-abstracts.src cosmic-programs.src
directory-of-servers.src
eff-documents.src eff-talk.src
empire.src empire20.src
internet-documents.src internet-drafts.src
internet-resource-guide.src internet-rfcs.src
patent-sampler.src
poetry.src
risks-digest.src
sample-pictures.src
unix-manual.src
wais-discussion-archives.src wais-docs.src
wall-street-journal-sample.src
weather.src
world-factbook.src
The first "Digital Librarians", I think it would be safe to say are the
maintainers of these servers:
Geir.Pedersen@use.uio.no
abc@banjo.concert.net
ang@theory.lcs.mit.edu
art@think.com
billy@unt.edu
biosci@genbank.bio.net
brewster@think.com
chris@cosmic1.cosmic.uga.edu
fullton@lambada.oit.unc.edu
ephraim@think.com
gordon@think.com
jcurran@nnsc.nsf.net
jonathan@think.com
jsq@tic.com
root@next2.oit.unc.edu
rvc@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU
uriw@microworld.media.mit.edu
wais@eff.org
wais@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU
waisp@quake.think.com
weather-server@quake.think.com
The release is available from Think.com via anonymous FTP in
/public/wais/wais-8-b3.tar.Z and WAIStation-0-62.sit.hqx.
Bugs to bug-wais@think.com or to me.
For the bug fixes, thanks to:
Garrett A. Wollman
Simon E Spero
kent@parc.xerox.com,
Michael Haberler (mah@parrot.prv.univie.ac.at) and to
gcardwel@uci.edu for bug fixes to the last release.
-brewster and the wais crew
"Paper and flesh are fleeting media for the treasures that are ideas."
Brewster Kahle Thinking Machines Corporation
Brewster@Think.com 1010 El Camino Real
Project Leader Menlo Park, CA 94025
Wide Area Information Servers 415-329-9300x228
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 20 11:19:55 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <4-hy-yq@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:16:34 GMT
Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:
How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
unconstitutional? If this isn't stifling free speech, what is?
Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.
Right?
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu <><
From caf-talk Caf Aug 20 11:51:47 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <1992Aug20.155140.6866@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:51:40 GMT
Mr. Ault directed follows to alt.censorship (IMO, a good idea),
without mentioning it (IMO, a bad idea).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 20 13:15:15 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID: <9208201714.AA02416@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:14:59 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Aug 20 13:15:15 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: copyright == illegal ????
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:37:29 GMT
In article <3998@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> luit1@info.win.tue.nl writes:
>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>Also true, but irrellevant. I consider the trafficking of copyrighted
>>materials to be morally and legally "wrong" regardless of whether or not
>>someone is going to sue me.
>
>Wow, hold it, right there.
>
>Uptill now I though you were concerned about the legal implications of
>carrying (aledged) copyrighted material. And wether or not you would get
>into trouble with your superiors.
>Now you're saying you find it 'wrong', no matter what ??
Where's the contradiction? I _am_ concerned about the legal
implications. I also happen to think that trafficking in pirated
material, be it software or other published materials such as images,
is wrong, i.e. unethical. There is no contradiction between my being
_against_ piracy, and _for_ USENET being treated as a common carrier.
>[...] Legally you're in the clear, as many have pointed out.
Not quite correct... legally it hasn't been established whether or not
I'm in the clear, but it seems the better judgement to act as if I were
until it is established (hopefully in favor of USENET being a common
carrier).
>Morally, you should not be the one to judge. After all, news is for the
>readers, not just for the administrator. Any censorship would mean
>restricting the free access of your users to the net. I am very much
>against any form of censorship that is based on such subjective views.
Now you're confusing two separate issues... I have every right to let
my personal oppinion about the ethics of the issue be known. It
seemed to me that the person I was replying to was saying "piracy is
ok so long as you don't get caught," and as I am of a differing
opinion I felt it to be my responsibility to say so. This doesn't
mean that I feel I have the right or responsibility to _enforce_ my
personal viewpoint of the ethics involved, and if you go back and
re-read my article (), you will see that
wasn't suggesting that at all.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Aug 20 13:21:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Message-ID: <9208201719.AA24718@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:19:36 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:
>
>How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
>Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
>unconstitutional? If this isn't stifling free speech, what is?
>
>Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.
>
>Right?
>
>Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu <><
>
Sorry, I'm not dismayed. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no
law infringing on the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the the free
exercise of religion, but it also prohibits the government from advocating any
particular religious pratices. The "Wall of Seperation" between church and
State is a good idea. Since the Framers didn't construct a hierarchy of
rights, merely an enumeration of some of them, sometimes rights will clash.
More specifically, what were the facts of the case? I presume the Court
banned prayers at _public_ graduation ceremonies only. In that case, it seems
there was a clear Establishement Clause violation. However, let's assume for
a moment that there is a Free Speech issue. What is it? The right of the
minister to pray in public? How does that balance with the right of listeners
to not listen id they so choose?
Without knowing either the specifics of the case, or the reasoning the Court
used to arrive at it's decision, or even the vote tally on the case, I must
lean by default toward saying it was O.K.
Cheers!
Bob
Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-B
Administrative Information Branch -- APCAPS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Aug 20 16:06:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:25:38 -0400
From: David O Hunt
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
> Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:
>
> How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
> Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
> unconstitutional? If this isn't stifling free speech, what is?
>
> Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.
If you want to pray at graduation, feel free. Nobody's stopping it. The
decision was to prevent _organized_ prayer. e.g. Valedictorian says
"Let us now thank the Lord who enabled us to graduate" type of thing.
Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.
What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
(purposefully or by default).
David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University | <<
