From caf-talk Caf Sep 7 21:37:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: DKOVACS@Kentvm.Kent.edu (Diane Kovacs)
Subject: Intellectual Property Theft...Help.
Message-ID: <199209080137.AA01381@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:25:17 GMT
Well folks ... I am so angry my hands are shaking. I need advice and
I need it badly. What do I do when someone influential and powerful
in my profession is taking one of my projects and apparently trying to
pass it off as belonging to a particularly influential and powerful
organization in my profession (names hidden to protect me.).
This person is representing the project as belonging to the organization
because a disk copy was adapted for printing . When the printing took
place the carefully written description of the selection process and
attribution to original e-sources and network people was deleted.
My copyright statement remains intact. Yet this person wants to use
the disk copy to give away to people to run as a networked resources without
consulting with me or leaving the copyright statement intact. I am
disillusioned to say the least. I am a definite beginner in my profession
and have reason to worry that by fighting this I could put my career at risk.,
dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu
From caf-talk Caf Sep 7 22:34:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.023038.29805@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:30:38 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 7 22:34:08 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: newsham@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham)
Subject: policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep5.210849.26104@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:08:49 GMT
From wiliki!tim Sat Sep 05 10:58:55 HST 1992
Path: wiliki!tim
From: tim@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Tim Brown)
Newsgroups: info.policy
Subject: COE Computer Policy
Message-ID: <1992Aug20.190217.10863@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu>
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:02:17 GMT
Approved: tim@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Tim Brown)
Organization: University of Hawaii, College of Engineering
Lines: 580
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING COMPUTER FACILITY POLICY
ON COMPUTER USAGE AND USER RESPONSIBILITIES
University of Hawaii at Manoa
College of Engineering
GENERAL INFORMATION
The College of Engineering (COE) maintains an extensive collection
of computer hardware and software for use by its students, faculty,
and staff in fulfilling their educational and research duties.
Students will find these facilities essential for keeping up with
what is happening in the College and for completing their Engineer-
ing course work. The main concentration of this equipment is in
Holmes 244 and COE students, faculty, and staff can access this
equipment on a first come first serve basis by presenting a current
UH student ID card.
Each student and faculty member in Engineering and all staff
members whose duties require computer access are given an account
on Wiliki, the College of Engineering's HP9000/870 central com-
puter. These accounts also allow access to the COE's ten HP works-
tations in Holmes 244. Through these systems, users have the abil-
ity to use electronic mail and the COE's Information System (is),
access the Internet (a nationwide computer network), and run
Engineering packages such as Spice, Mapinfo, and ANSYS.
Wiliki and the workstations are multi-user computer systems and as
such require responsible behavior on the part of all users. This
document lays out your rights and responsibilities in having an
account on such a system. Those who cannot fulfill their responsi-
bilities as users of a multi-user system will have their accounts
suspended or terminated, thus it is essential that you understand
what is expected of you. Please remember that an account on Wiliki
is a privilege granted to you as a student, faculty, or staff
member in the College of Engineering, not a right, and its contin-
ued use is dependent upon responsible behavior on the part of you,
the user.
GENERAL USER RESPONSIBILITIES
In the practice of their profession, engineers must perform
_________________________
August 6, 1992
- 2 -
under a standard of professional behavior which requires
adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct on
behalf of the public, clients, employers and the profession.
Engineers shall be guided in all their professional relations
by the highest standards of integrity.
Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice which is likely
to discredit the profession.
--Code of Ethics for Engineers
As a shared resource among hundreds of people it is important that
Wiliki function as smoothly as possible with minimal disruptions of
service and fair access for all. This means that each user has the
following responsibilities while using this system:
1. Do not interfere with the work of other system users.
This means that you must not send unsolicited messages to
other users' terminal screens or engage in other activities
which prevent them from accomplishing their work. Second, you
may not attempt to obtain the passwords of other users or
alter their files in any way, even if they should accidentally
leave their accounts accessible either by failing to log out
or altering their protections. Any user found in possession of
other user's passwords, copying another's files without per-
mission, using another's account, or repeatedly interfering
with the work of others will have his/her COE access ter-
minated.
Should you find someone has left a terminal without logging
out of their account, please log them out and notify the sys-
tem manager of the user's name by sending electronic mail to
"sysman" on Wiliki. (You can determine who the user is by typ-
ing "whoami" at the terminal before logging them out).
Finally, when you are working in Holmes 244, work quietly,
keep conversations at a low volume, and help to maintain an
environment conducive to work.
2. Do not unnecessarily tie up system resources.
If you are running a program which makes very heavy CPU usage
(e.g. a large number crunching program) on Wiliki or the HP
workstations, you should lower the priority of this program so
that it does not slow down the system for other users, or you
should run the program between midnight and 7am when system
usage is light. (For details on lowering process priority type
"man nice" on Wiliki or see one of the Lab Monitors). System
management reserves the right to terminate any process which
affects the overall performance of the system.
- 3 -
Avoid excessive disk utilization. We have several hundred
users on Wiliki. If you have files you are not using and do
not anticipate a need for in the near future, please either
compress them down (type "man tar" and "man compress" on
Wiliki or see a Lab Monitor for more details) or copy them to
diskette and remove them from the system. If you receive mes-
sages from the system about being above quota, please try to
drop your disk usage below the level requested in the message
as soon as possible. We recognize that there are times when it
is necessary to exceed the limits temporarily, but if you do
so, you should return to your allowed quota in a reasonably
short period of time. If an individual user stays above quota
for too long, the system management may move some of his/her
files to temporary storage.
COE facilities are intended for educational and research pur-
poses and these have higher priority than other types of use
(e.g., game playing or reading electronic news). If you are
using a terminal for games or for reading news and there are
other users waiting, you are expected to yield the terminal to
them. As a matter of courtesy in situations like this, you
should give up the terminal voluntarily without having to be
asked.
3. Do not allow others to use your account and report unauthorized
access.
Your COE account is issued solely for your use. Under no cir-
cumstances should you allow ANY other person to access it. Use
of another user's account or loaning account privileges to
others is prohibited and will result in loss of your
privileges with the COE.
You are further required to notify the system management
immediately of any unauthorized access to your account (for
example, if you find your files missing or changed, or find
someone else logged into your account from another terminal).
You may do this by sending mail to "sysman" on Wiliki or by
seeing one of the Lab Monitors in Holmes 244 and asking them
to pass the information on to the system management. It is
essential that such access be detected and the responsible
person located to ensure that system security on Wiliki is not
compromised which could result in the loss of everyone's files
or interference with normal operation of the system. If you do
find someone has accessed your account, change your password
immediately and then check with the Lab Monitors on what other
steps you should take (e.g., checking network files, checking
protections on your files, etc.).
4. Do not make copies of any software from COE machines for use on
other computers.
Unless the documentation EXPLICITLY states otherwise, you may
NOT copy any software from COE machines for use on home
- 4 -
machines or any other machines on or off campus. The COE
operates most of its software and hardware under very restric-
tive licenses, the violation of which have serious conse-
quences for the College. Any user who copies licensed software
will be denied further access to COE machines and may be sub-
ject to legal action by the software manufacturers. Similarly,
the use of illegal or unauthorized software on COE machines is
prohibited.
5. Do not use your account for any commercial endeavors.
COE facilities, including hardware, software, and networks,
are intended exclusively for educational and research pur-
poses. Any commercial use of COE facilities is prohibited.
6. Guard your password carefully and change it frequently.
Passwords guessed or determined by watching users log in are
still the most common means by which accounts are penetrated.
Users can help to prevent this by the following measures:
a. Never give out your password to anyone else. NOTE: this
includes the system management. No legitimate system
manager will ever ask you for your password.
b. Do not type your password while someone else watches you.
c. Change your password frequently with the "passwd" com-
mand.
d. Never use a password based on personal reference data,
e.g., names of family members, birthdates, social secu-
rity numbers, etc.
e. Never use a password which would occur in a dictionary.
f. Use passwords with combinations of upper and lower case
letters and special characters. For example, cat9Frog, or
big!Apple. Pass phrases, made from the first letter of
each word of a phrase, with the addition of a special
characters are an especially good choice (e.g., "Lucy in
the sky with diamonds" becomes "!LitswD").
7. Always cooperate with requests from the system administrators
for information about
your computing activities.
From time to time, the system administrators may find it
necessary to ask you why you are consuming resources, whether
you were logged in at a particular time, or some other infor-
mation about your use of the system. If asked, please assist
them in whatever way you can. Their only reasons for request-
ing this information will be to pursue possible security vio-
lations, close security loopholes, and see to the fair usage
- 5 -
of the facility by all users.
8. Report any security flaws immediately.
All multi-user systems have security flaws. You may NOT
exploit such flaws in any way. The only acceptable course,
should you detect such a flaw, is to notify the management
immediately by sending email to "sysman" on Wiliki. Trying to
explore the flaw on your own, testing it out to see its extent
or effect, is unethical and unacceptable because the system
management has no way to distinguish curious exploration from
malicious exploitation. If you wish to help the system manage-
ment track down bugs, contact them and volunteer your ser-
vices.
MISUSE OF COMPUTING RESOURCES AND PRIVILEGES
Misuse of computing resources and privileges includes, but is not
restricted to, the following:
+ Attempting to modify or remove computer equipment,
software, or peripherals without proper authorization.
+ Accessing computers, computer software, computer data or
information, or networks without proper authorization,
regardless of whether the computer, software, data,
information, or network in question is owned by the Col-
lege (That is, if you abuse the networks to which the
College belongs or the computers at other sites connected
to those networks, the College will treat this matter as
an abuse of your COE computing privileges).
+ Sending fraudulent computer mail or breaking into another
user's electronic mailbox.
+ Violating any software license agreement or copyright,
including copying or redistributing copyrighted computer
software, data, or reports without proper, recorded
authorization.
+ Harassing or threatening other users or interfering with
their access to the College's computing facilities.
+ Taking advantage of another user's naivete or negligence
to gain access to any computer account, data, software,
or file other than your own.
+ Encroaching on others' use of the College's computers
(e.g., sending frivolous or excessive messages, either
locally or off-campus; printing excess copies of docu-
ments, files, data, or programs; willfully writing pro-
grams to tie up resources; modifying system facilities,
operating systems, or disk partitions; attempting to
crash a College computer; damaging or vandalizing College
- 6 -
computing facilities, equipment, software, or computer
files).
+ Disclosing or removing proprietary information, software,
printed output or magnetic media without the explicit
permission of the owner.
+ Reading other users' data, information, files, or pro-
grams on a display screen, as printed output, or via
electronic means, without the owner's explicit permis-
sion.
In addition, some of the above actions may constitute criminal com-
puter abuse, which may be punishable under State or Federal sta-
tutes.
Unless specifically authorized by a class instructor, all of the
following uses of a computer are violations of the University's
guidelines for academic honesty and are punishable as acts of pla-
giarism:
+ Copying a computer file that contains another student's
assignment and submitting it as your own work.
+ Copying a computer file that contains another student's
assignment and using it as a model for your own assign-
ment.
+ Working together on an assignment, sharing the computer
files and submitting that file, or a modification
thereof, as your own individual work.
SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES
The system administrators' use of the College's computing resources
is governed by the same guidelines as any other user's computing
activity. However a system administrator has additional responsi-
bilities to the users of the network, site, system, or systems he
or she administers:
+ A system administrator ensures that all users of the sys-
tems, networks, and servers that he or she administers
have access to the appropriate software and hardware
required for their College computing.
+ A system administrator is responsible for the security of
a system, network, or server.
+ A system administrator must make sure that all hardware
and software license agreements are faithfully executed
on all systems, networks, and servers for which he or she
has responsibility.
+ A system administrator must take reasonable precautions
- 7 -
to guard against corruption of data or software or damage
to hardware or facilities.
+ A system administrator must treat information about and
information stored by the system's users as confidential.
In the case where a system administrator has reasonable cause to
believe that system response, integrity, or security is threatened,
a system administrator is authorized to access the files and infor-
mation necessary to find and resolve the situation.
CONSEQUENCES OF MISUSE OF COMPUTING PRIVILEGES
Abuse of computing privileges is subject to disciplinary action. If
system administrators of the COE Computer Facility have strong evi-
dence of misuse of computing resources, and if that evidence points
to the computing activities or the computer files of an individual,
they have the obligation to pursue any or all of the following
steps to protect the user community:
+ Notify the user's instructor, department chair, or super-
visor of the investigation.
+ Suspend or restrict the user's computing privileges dur-
ing the investigation. A user may appeal such a suspen-
sion or restriction first with the system management
(send mail to "sysman" on Wiliki and request a meeting)
and, if this is insufficient to resolve the matter, may
subsequently petition for reinstatement of computing
privileges through the COE Assistant Dean.
+ Inspect the user's files, diskettes, and/or tapes. System
administrators must be certain that the trail of evidence
leads to the user's computing activities or computing
files before inspecting the user's files. The system
administrators shall maintain a written record of the
reasoning and evidence which justifies inspection of a
user's files.
+ Refer the matter for processing through the appropriate
University department. This would be the Dean of
Engineering or the Dean of Students in the case of stu-
dent abuse and the UH personnel office in the case of
staff or faculty abuse.
Disciplinary action may include the loss of computing privileges
and other disciplinary actions. It should be understood that these
regulations do not preclude enforcement under the laws and regula-
tions of the State of Hawaii, any municipality or county therein,
and/or the United States of America.
NOTE TO STUDENT USERS: Students whose accounts are suspended or
removed should be aware that this may make completion of Engineer-
ing coursework difficult or impossible. However, this will not be
- 8 -
grounds for restoration of an account. All students must read and
understand the policies in this document and understand that the
consequences of their violation include loss of computing
privileges which may seriously affect their ability to continue as
students in Engineering.
NOTE ON PRIVACY OF FILES: Under normal circumstances the system
administrators will NOT access a user's files. However, should
there be reasonable cause to believe that an account has been
compromised or is being used in a manner inconsistent with the
above policy, examination of files by the administrators is permit-
ted.
As a general rule, users of the system should be aware that files
and electronic mail are not secure on the COE systems or the Inter-
net. Even if the administrators do not access a user's files, there
is always the possibility of a security flaw that allows another
user access to anyone's files. Similarly, mail sent electronically
may be intercepted at any number of points along the way to its
destination and mail files at either end are not necessarily
secure. Users should keep this in mind and NEVER store confiden-
tial, sensitive, or potentially embarrassing information on these
systems. No one can give you a guarantee of the confidentiality of
files on COE systems and the College makes no such claims of confi-
dentiality.
Furthermore, in a multi-user environment of this type the College
can make no guarantees about the integrity or protection of pro-
grams and data stored on its systems. Users are cautioned to make
frequent backups of important files to diskettes or on other sys-
tems to which they have access.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
Any questions of interpretation of or comments regarding this pol-
icy should be mailed electronically to
"sysman@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu" or surface mailed to:
System Management
College of Engineering Computer Facility
2540 Dole Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This policy draws heavily on the policy of the UCLA SEASnet which
in turn was adapted from those of numerous other policies, includ-
ing but not limited to those of: the Columbia University Computer
Science Department, the California Institute of Technology, the
UCLA department of Computer Science Academic Honesty Policy, the
University of Delaware's Guide to Responsible Computering, and com-
ments from SUNY-Albany, University of Washington, Washington
University (St. Louis), Indiana University, Michigan State
University, the University of New Mexico and the Smithsonian Insti-
tute.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 08:10:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ldg@scott.skidmore.edu (Leo D. Geoffrion)
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Theft...Help.
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.120236.4910@scott.skidmore.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:02:36 GMT
In article <199209080137.AA01381@eff.org> DKOVACS@Kentvm.Kent.edu (Diane Kovacs) writes:
>Well folks ... I am so angry my hands are shaking. I need advice and
>I need it badly. What do I do when someone influential and powerful
>in my profession is taking one of my projects and apparently trying to
>pass it off as belonging to a particularly influential and powerful
>organization in my profession (names hidden to protect me.).
>
Ouch! That is indeed a deep mess!
First question to consider...
Do you want to fight or surrender? Only you can decide that and
don't let outsiders (including me) talk you in or out of fighting.
Assuming you do want to fight...
Step 1: keep a meticulous log of all contacts and conversations
regarding the incident. Include copies of your orignal work and
how the offender "doctored" it. Documentation is the single most
powerful weapon in making your case.
Step 2: Locate the correct complaint point
I'd take a long hard look at the organizational structure of the
school to see what your options may be. The key is to locate
possible allies who are positioned even stronger than your
offender.
For example, many schools have some form of "professional conduct"
board who's mission is to review such charges. In other cases, it
may be the Dean or VP for Academic Affairs.
Step 3: Make your case
Most schools are highly sensitive to intellectual property issues,
and if your case is solid, you stand a reasonable chance of a fair
hearing. I'd meet with the key individual(s) identified above and
discuss the case fully and carefully. Impress them with the
accuracy of your facts, dates, etc...
--
Leo Geoffrion, Skidmore College Computer Services, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
EMAIL: ldg@scott.skidmore.edu VOICE: (518) 584-5000 Ext. 2919
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 08:20:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Theft...Help.
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.121210.3628@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:12:10 GMT
Diane Kovacs (DKOVACS@Kentvm.Kent.edu)
> .. so angry my hands are shaking.
The "fight or flight" reaction. Appropriately stirring your mind
but also your _body_ (according to ancient biological programming) in a
modern situation which is mainly mental. Metaphorically, anger =
energy, somatic and psychic. Exercise off the somatic component (e.g.
long walks); the burning of psychic energy in thinking about the
problem will occur automatically.
> I need advice..badly. .. someone influential and powerful..is taking
> one of my projects and apparently trying to pass it off as belonging to
> a particularly influential and powerful organization ..
Distinguish between the strategic and tactical. Allow yourself
tactical emotionality only in private or with those you trust. As well
as naturally turning to people who are close for emotional comfort,
actively seek out other people who will give you the time to listen and
act as a sounding board and help you move into coolheaded strategic
planning. Emphasize the objective presentation of the facts as you
know them, separate from the emotional comforting function.
> .. by fighting this I could put my career at risk.
You also need to balance that with considering what you put at risk
by not fighting it.
--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 11:15:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Readership Report
Message-ID: <9209081515.AA00660@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:15:11 GMT
[Excerpt from a news.lists article. - Carl]
This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Aug 92.
Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.
+-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
| +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
| | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
| | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
| | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
| | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
| | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
| | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
| | | | | | | | who read this group.
V V V V V V V V
1 300000 6524 83% 871 1706.4 26% 0.01 12.1% misc.jobs.offered
2 270000 5912 82% 1513 1879.2 30% 0.02 11.0% misc.forsale
3 260000 5561 67% 2047 5205.5 33% 0.04 10.3% alt.sex
4 230000 4979 81% 64 89.8 0% 0.00 9.2% rec.humor.funny
5 200000 4416 81% 8 164.6 75% 0.00 8.2% news.answers
6 190000 4068 80% 2041 3419.5 11% 0.04 7.5% rec.humor
7 180000 3896 86% 942 1904.2 14% 0.02 7.2% comp.windows.x
8 170000 3740 89% 897 1860.2 13% 0.03 6.9% news.groups
9 170000 3577 70% 1 40.2 0% 0.00 6.6% rec.arts.erotica
10 160000 3498 88% 85 629.0 100% 0.01 6.5% news.announce.newgroups
[...]
252 52000 1115 78% 188 431.9 36% 0.02 2.1% comp.org.eff.talk
[...]
620 29000 634 57% 159 540.0 13% 0.03 1.2% alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
621 29000 633 78% 250 458.7 12% 0.03 1.2% comp.sys.3b1
622 29000 633 77% 207 306.1 1% 0.02 1.2% comp.windows.interviews
623 29000 632 74% 6 66.7 100% 0.00 1.2% comp.org.eff.news
[...]
1078 13000 272 49% 3 120.2 0% 0.01 0.5% alt.comp.acad-freedom.news
[...]
2011 46 1 0% 92 252.1 0% 0.05 0.0% nyu.sunmanagers
2012 46 1 0% 57 633.1 0% 0.31 0.0% ar.unix-wizards
2013 46 1 0% 55 960.8 0% 0.47 0.0% ar.info-unix
2014 46 1 0% 18 27.9 0% 0.01 0.0% ar.info-snmp
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 12:30:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.163018.8554@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:30:18 GMT
This is a critique of the computer policy of University of Hawaii,
College of Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa. The policy
seems to be a pretty good attempt at making the rules explicit.
Several parts of the policy, however, likely violates legal and moral
requirements for due process, privacy, free expression, and user
participation.
I. Due process
The policy asserts several times that computer use is a privilege not
a right. I don't know what this means. It might be an assertion that
the University can act arbitrarily, if so it is legally meaningless.
For while use of computers may not be a "right", due process is. This
right cannot be asserted away. The policy could be improved by
removing or clarifying these assertions.
The policy gives sys admins the authority to summarily suspend users
from the computer *before* establishing that the user has done
anything. The policy thus authorizes illegal violations of user's due
process rights and gives sys admins more authority than professors
have. It also violates a tenet of academic freedom:
"Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be
altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend
classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or
emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety
and well-being of students, faculty, or university property."
- From the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
The policy could be improved by being made consistent with the law on
due process and the principles of academic freedom.
II. Privacy
The policy allows a sys admin to search a users email and files at the
sys admins' own discretion: no higher authorization is required, no
notice must be given to the subject of the search - even after the
search.
The policy could be improved having the University treat searches of
assigned disk space the same as it treats searches of assigned office
space and dorm rooms. As it stands, the policy may be an illegal
violation of user's right to be free of "unreasonable searches".
[4th Amendment]
III. Free Expression
The policy prohibits the sending of frivolous message. The word
"frivolous" is too vague. The policy could be improved by removing it.
IV. User Participation
The policy was apparently created and is apparently enforced without
the participation of the user community. This is contrary to the
principles of academic freedom. It is also likely contrary do the U.
of Hawaii's policy making procedures. (It is also unwise.)
- Carl Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
statements/caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).
=================
statements/caf-statement.critique
=================
This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.
Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.
=================
law/due-process.french
=================
Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
from:
_The Redefinition of the Exclusionary Rule as to Student Procedural
Due Process in High Education_. A monograph from the Office of the
General Counsel [of Southern Illinois University] by Dr. Larry L.
French, General Counsel, 1977.
=================
faq/email.policies
=================
q: Do any universities treat email and computer files as private?
=================
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States
=================
policies/seas.ucla.edu
=================
Computer policy for UCLA's SEASnet (Critiqued)
=================
policies/seas.ucla.edu.critique
=================
Critique of computer policy for UCLA's SEASnet
Summary: "It seems like a pretty good policy. I especially like that
it covers both users and sys admins. Also, it lays out clear rules and
disciplinary procedures. And, it acknowledges the user's privacy.
I think it could be improved (perhaps with the participation of users)
by clarifying the prohibition against noncommercial personal use.
Also, procedure by which a sys admin is authorized to search user
files should be made clear and it should be made consistent with the
University's general search procedures (or its telephone search
procedures). Finally, users should not be punished for rule
infractions until and unless it is determined such infractions have
occurred."
=================
=================
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/faq/policy
pub/academic/statements/caf-statement
pub/academic/statements/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/law/due-process.french
pub/academic/faq/email.policies
pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
pub/academic/law/constitution.us
pub/academic/policies/seas.ucla.edu
pub/academic/policies/seas.ucla.edu.critique
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/faq policy
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/law due-process.french
send acad-freedom/faq email.policies
send acad-freedom/academic student.freedoms.aaup
send acad-freedom/law constitution.us
send acad-freedom/policies seas.ucla.edu
send acad-freedom/policies seas.ucla.edu.critique
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 14:41:20 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
Subject: [UPI] SFA free speech flap settled
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.183722.834@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:37:22 GMT
Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.local.texas. For more info on
ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
DALLAS (UPI) -- Conservative students at Stephen F. Austin University
and school officials have apparently reached a settlement in a free
speech dispute that stemmed from fliers the group posted a year ago.
Young Conservatives of Texas hung fliers featuring a startling quote
>from former Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater. It read, ``SEX and politics
are a lot alike. You don't have to be good at them to enjoy them.''
Officials at the Nacogdoches school called the fliers sexist and
tried to bar the group from posting them. But two Young Conservatives
members, Michael Bartlow and Guy Hatch, hung the fliers anyway. They
said the school's policy was a violation of their First Amendment rights
by requiring
Joe Cook, regional director of the American Civil Liberties Union,
said an undetermined amount of money is included in the settlement.
With the help of the ACLU, a favorite target of conservative attacks,
the students filed a federal lawsuit May 15, asking that the SFA sign-
posting policy be overturned.
Cook said, ``It's a significant free-speech case.'' He said that
under the policy, students were not allowed to post anything without
permission.
SFA general counsel Yvette Clark said the new policy agreed to under
the settlement would allow the poster that started the controversy.
The new policy, acceptable under First Amendment law as 'time, place
and manner`` restrictions, allows school officials to regulate how large
posters can be and where they are placed. It also says posters must show
the group's name, telephone number and contact person.
But the school may take down a sign that the president deems will
incite fights or ``imminent lawlessness'' - concepts defined strictly by
federal courts.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 15:28:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.34
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.192830.12109@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:28:30 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n34".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n34
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending July 12, 1992
[This week's guest editor is is John F. Nixon. A critique
of the Virginia policy given in article 12 is available
via anonymous ftp from
ftp.eff.org:pub/policies/virginia.pen.edu.critique.
- Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-3 are about a broadcast on CITY-TV (an independent Toronto television
station) concerning pornography on Usenet.
1. This is a transcript of a portion of a CITY-TV broadcast from 6
July. A reporter and a student (?) explore the alt.sex newsgroup. A
system administrator (?) states the University is not taking the
position of censor, and does not control the information an individual
may seek out. One female states that this material is harmful to
women, and a different female says that, although offensive, nothing
should be done to restrict the information.
<1992Jul7.150830.27316@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
2. The lack of a central control within Usenet may prove surprising to
reporters. "This lack of control is something that, in my mind, would
be very difficult for those in conventional media to grasp." Usenet
mechanisms may replace conventional media, and we should be aware this
may affect the behavior of the press towards Usenet.
<2A5A5D2D.32D7@telly.on.ca>
3. The misunderstanding of the Canadian background (political and
historical) to the CITY-TV broadcast is debated. "Most Canadians also
seem to support laws restricting certain materials which we deem
pornographic. I dare say that few Canadians perceive any significant
clash between these values and their fundamental rights." Most
Canadians support the "hate literature laws".
<1992Jul12.152040.9493@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Notes 4-9 are about sexual harassment on Usenet.
4. "Have there ever been any cases in the U.S. of sexual harassment
charges related to postings on Usenet?"
<9207082121.AA11628@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov.ocf>
5. "If some women find Usenet (or some other medium) hostile, what
should be done? Should they be protected by some authority?" "I think
'protection' from offsensive ideas is paternalism."
<1992Jul10.010025.6972@eff.org>
6. "...I think most mem do not understand the climate of fear in which
women live in this country. And that fear restricts their freedom of
expression." Men feel free to post notes requesting rides, for
example, while women do not. "I'm not saying we have to delete the
alt.sex groups from Usenet, but I would like to make men aware of how
I feel ... when attending lecture[s where] gratuitous references [to]
alt.sex.pictures [are made]."
7. "I have never seen any indication that women are subject to
violence for things which they say in a public forum." There is a
disparity between rates of violence for men and women, with men
subject to greater violence. "I find the assumption that violence
against women should receive some special attention not given to
violence against men rather sexist."
<1992Jul10.224407.23105@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
8. (Lars Bader:) "Sorry, my last post was too harsh. Patt Leonard's
remarks were a statement of frustration... not a demand for
censorship." [Ed. - I have included this in fairness to Lars]
<1992Jul11.020445.1227@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
9. "...the conputer-mediated environment is proving no more
enlightened than its analog counterpart." The majority of Usenet posts
are by men, and the majority of posts on women's issues are also by
men. "It is obvious that the rule-makers are going by the same old
rules."
Note 10 concerns a study by Syracuse University on the role of public libraries
in determining Internet/NREN policy.
10. "Syracuse University's School of information Studies announces the
availability of a year long study inventigating the role of public
libraries in developing and exploiting the next generation of national
networks embodied in the Internet/NREN."
<199207101342.AA16960@eff.org>
Note 11 presents Virginia's Public Education Network Acceptable Use Policy.
11. The "Acceptable Use Policy" for Virginia's Public Education
Network is presented, with guidelines and policy statements.
"Acceptance of the policies are automatic upon use of the network."
The Public Education Network is accessable to K-12 teachers and
students.
<199207071841.AA17968@eff.org>
Note 12 is about the Email policy of the State of Washington
12. "The state of Washington has an E-mail policy that divides email
records into 3 catagories: calendars, policy and non-policy
correspondence."
<199207081837.AA06941@eff.org>
- John F. Nixon]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 15:35:57 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.193517.12597@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:35:17 GMT
1992-1993 Guidelines for use of Campus and Network
Computing Resources
Princeton University makes available computing and
network resources which may be used by University
undergraduates, graduate students, faculty and
staff. The resources administered by the Office of
Computing and Information Technology (CIT) are
intended to be used for educational purposes and to
carry out the legitimate business of the
University. Appropriate use of the resources
includes instruction, independent study, authorized
research, independent research, and the official
work of the offices, departments, recognized
student and campus organizations, and agencies of
the University.
The computing and network resources of the
University may not be used by members of the
University community for commercial purposes or for
financial gain.
Those who avail themselves of the campus and
network computing resources are required to behave
in their use of the technology in a manner
consistent with the University's code of conduct.
As stated in Princeton University Rights, Rules,
Responsibilities:
"Respect for the rights, privileges, and
sensibilities of each other is essential in
preserving the spirit of community at Princeton.
Actions which make the atmosphere intimidating,
threatening, or hostile to individuals are
therefore regarded as serious offenses. Abusive or
harassing behavior, verbal or physical, which
demeans, intimidates, threatens, or injures another
because of his or her personal characteristics or
beliefs is subject to University disciplinary
sanctions...."
As also noted in Rights, Rules, Responsibilities:
"Unauthorized or fraudulent use of the University's
computing resources is a serious violation of
University regulations. Duplicating software which
is protected by copyright or trade secret law is a
violation of the law."
The University has subscribed to the statement on
software and intellectual rights distributed by
EDUCOM, the non-profit consortium of colleges and
universities committed to the use and management of
information technology in higher education, and
ITAA, the Information Technology Association of
America, a computer software and services industry
association:
"Respect for intellectual labor and creativity is
vital to academic discourse and enterprise. This
principle applies to work of all authors and
publishers in all media. It encompasses respect for
the right to acknowledgement, right to privacy, and
right to determine the form, manner, and terms of
publication and distribution.
"Because electronic information is volatile and
easily reproduced, respect for the work and
personal expression of others is especially
critical in computer environments. Violations of
authorial integrity, including plagiarism, invasion
of privacy, unauthorized access, and trade secret
and copyright violations, may be grounds for
sanctions against members of the academic
community."
The framework of responsible, considerate, and
ethical behavior expected by the University extends
to cover use of campus microcomputers and
workstations, general-use computers such as phoenix
and PUCC, use of campus network resources, and use
of networks throughout the world to which the
University provides computer access. The following
list does not cover every situation which pertains
to proper, or improper, use of the resources, but
it does suggest some of the responsibilities which
you accept if you choose to use a University
computing resource or the network access which the
University provides.
1. If you have any computer account, you are
responsible for the use made of that account. You
should set a password which will protect your
account from unauthorized use, and which will not
be guessed easily. If you discover that someone
has made unauthorized use of your account, you
should change the password and report the intrusion
to a CIT Information Center. You should change your
password on a regular basis, to assure continued
security of your account.
2. You must not intentionally seek information
about, browse, obtain copies of, or modify files,
passwords, or tapes belonging to other people,
whether at Princeton or elsewhere, unless
specifically authorized to do so by those
individuals. (Note: if an individual has explicitly
and intentionally established a public server, or
clearly designated a set of files as being for
shared public use, others may assume
authorization.)
3. You must not attempt to decrypt or translate
encrypted material, or obtain system privileges to
which you are not entitled. Attempts to do any of
these will be considered serious transgressions.
4. If you encounter or observe a gap in system or
network security, you must report the gap to the
Manager, CIT Information Centers. You must refrain
from exploiting any such gaps in security.
5. You must refrain from any action which
interferes with the supervisory or accounting
functions of the systems or that is likely to have
such effects.
6. You must be sensitive to the public nature of
shared facilities, and take care not to display on
screens in such locations images, sounds or
messages which could create an atmosphere of
discomfort or harassment for others. You must also
refrain from transmitting to others in any location
inappropriate images, sounds or messages which
might reasonably be considered harassing.
7. You must avoid tying up computing resources for
excessive game playing or other trivial
applications; sending frivolous or excessive mail
or messages locally or over an affiliated network;
printing excessive copies of documents, files,
images or data. You must refrain from using
unwarranted or excessive amounts of storage;
printing documents or files numerous times because
you have not checked thoroughly for all errors and
corrections; or running grossly inefficient
programs when efficient ones are available. You
must be sensitive to special need for software and
services available in only one location, and cede
place to those whose work requires the special
items.
8. You must not prevent others from using shared
resources by running unattended processes or
placing signs on devices to "reserve" them without
authorization. Your absence from a public computer
or workstation should be no longer than warranted
by a visit to the nearest restroom. A device
unattended for more than ten minutes may be assumed
to be available for use, and any process running on
that device terminated. You must not lock a
workstation or computer which is in a public
facility. You must also be sensitive to performance
effects of remote login to shared workstations:
when there is a conflict, priority for use of the
device must go to the person seated at the keyboard
rather than to someone logged on remotely.
9. The University presents for your use many
programs and data which have been obtained under
contracts or licenses saying they may be used, but
not copied, cross-assembled, or reverse-compiled.
You are responsible for determining that programs
or data are not restricted in this manner before
copying them in any form, or before reverse-
assembling or reverse-compiling them in whole or in
any part. If it is unclear whether you have
permission to copy such software or not, assume
that you may not do so.
10. If you create or maintain electronically-stored
information which is important to your work or to
the University in general, you are responsible for
making frequent backups of the information.
11. Messages, sentiments, and declarations sent as
electronic mail or sent as electronic postings must
meet the same standards for distribution or display
as if they were tangible documents or instruments.
You are free to publish your opinions, but they
must be clearly and accurately identified as coming
from you, or, if you are acting as the authorized
agent of a group recognized by the University, as
coming from the group you are authorized to
represent. Attempts to alter the "From" line or
other attribution of origin in electronic mail,
messages, or postings, will be considered
transgressions of University rules.
12. If you create, alter, or delete any electronic
information contained in, or posted to, any campus
computer or affiliated network it will be
considered forgery if it would be considered so on
a tangible document or instrument.
13. You must not create and send, or forward,
electronic chain letters.
14. You should be aware that there are Federal,
State and sometimes local laws which govern certain
aspects of computer and telecommunications use.
Members of the University community are expected to
respect these laws, as well as to observe and
respect University rules and regulations.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 15:38:43 1992
Newsgroups: mi.misc,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Subject: Wayne State University's Bad Behavior Continues Unabated....
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 17:18:58 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.171858.8639@tygra.Michigan.COM>
In article <1992Sep7.022305.23714@cs.wayne.edu> delledg@jake.cc.wayne.edu (De Vaughn Elledge) writes:
">
">I could tell you stories about WSU. I was a student there for 8 years
">Summary: They (the C&IT) treat the students like dirt, have no policy
">in place for students to challenge denial of access to university
">computing facilities. They were not nice people back then. I don't know
">if things have changed at all.
">
" Things have changed a lot since then. I've never been treated like dirt
" by the C@IT and there is a policy in place for denial of access to
" Computing Facilites. I've been here since '85 haven't had trouble with
" the C@IT...most trouble I've had is dealing with Profs/T.A.'s/etc who
" speak english with a heavy accent.
"
"
Well, actually, the case that I heard of recently, the C&IT denied a
student account to someone, and when that someone tried to get a judicial
hearing under the Student Due Process Policy, the C&IT (and university
attorneys) argued that the student wasn't being disciplined, but was
being denied access to "protect other users", so he didn't have any
rights at all. Here is a copy of the letter sent to that student. I've
deleted her name.
------------
September 23, 1991
Dear Ms. ,
Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1991. I believe that you
misunderstand the Student Due Process Policy. This policy applies
only when the University (or another charging party) seeks to discipline
a student. "Discipline" consists of expulsion, suspension, probation, etc.
At present, no one is seeking to discipline you. If the neccessity should
arise to do so, the Student Due Process Policy will certainly apply, since
academic disciplinary actions cannot be taken without compliance with
the Policy.
What has happened is that the C&IT has declined to facilitate your access
to the computer because of your past history of abusing the University
computing system. In light of that history, C&IT is not obliged to
continue to do business with you.
Yours Very Truly,
Wesley Steele
Manager, C&IT Security/Standards.
------< END OF LETTER>-----
As you can see, this all took place in 1991, so I don't think things are
any different.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 17:12:13 1992
Newsgroups: mi.misc,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Wayne State University's Bad Behavior Continues Unabated....
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.170740.5971@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:07:40 GMT
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>Here is a copy of the letter sent to that student. I've
>deleted her name.
>[...excerpted from C&IT letter...]
>What has happened is that the C&IT has declined to facilitate your access
>to the computer because of your past history of abusing the University
>computing system. In light of that history, C&IT is not obliged to
>continue to do business with you.
>[...end excerpt...]
If the student had already lost their access *through due process*, I
would think that future services could be denied to that student. A
parallel case in the 'real world' might be the restrictions on gun
ownership by convicted felons.
Of course, I am assuming that the previous withdrawl of service was carried
out under the 'due process' umbrella. If not, I'd appeal the original penalty.
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 17:22:40 1992
Newsgroups: mi.misc,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Wayne State University's Bad Behavior Continues Unabated....
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.212232.16054@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:22:32 GMT
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>------------
>September 23, 1991
>
>Dear Ms. ,
>Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1991. I believe that you
>misunderstand the Student Due Process Policy. This policy applies
>only when the University (or another charging party) seeks to discipline
>a student. "Discipline" consists of expulsion, suspension, probation, etc.
[...]
=================================
Ohio State University used the same kind of Humpty Dumpty redefinition
of words when they expelled Steven Brack from the computer. (We are
not authorized to punish you, therefore the stuff we did to you must
not be punishment.) I'm confident that if such a case every got the
court, the University would lose.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
=================
Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer,
et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court
says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter
is trivial or there is an emergency.
=================
law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
=================
Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.),
Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). It
reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process
is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency.
Also,
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
cases/brack@acs.ohio-state.edu
=================
All the early notes from CAF-talk related to Steven Brack, Ohio State,
and Academic Computer Services.
=================
cases/brack@ohio-state.edu
=================
The letters from Ohio State University to Steven Brack including his
letter of dismissial. Also comments on the letters.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/cases/brack@acs.ohio-state.edu
pub/academic/cases/brack@ohio-state.edu
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.fischer
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.mnookin
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/cases brack@acs.ohio-state.edu
send acad-freedom/cases brack@ohio-state.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 19:55:47 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.235540.18036@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:55:40 GMT
This is a critique of the most recent version of Princeton
Univeristy's Guidelines for use of Campus and Network Computing
Resources. The policy could be improved by detailing due process
procedures and privacy protection. Also, free expression for users
could be improved.
I. Free Expression
The policy imposes speech restrictions, but apparently these
apply to all of Princeton and not just the computer facilities.
The only computer-specific restriction is a prohibition against
friviolus messages. The policy could be improved by removing this
meaninglessly vague restriction.
II. Due Process
The policy does not address due process at all.
III. Privacy
The policy does not address user privacy and university searches at
all.
IV. Participation
The policy does not specify if users participated in its
creation and refinement.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================
On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes Expression - An
official statement of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)
It says in part: "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be
banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful
or disturbing that it may not be expressed."
=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
=================
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/academic/speech-codes.aaup
pub/academic/faq/policy
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/academic speech-codes.aaup
send acad-freedom/faq policy
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 22:35:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer)
Subject: Cornell Virus Case Results
Message-ID: <9209090235.AA07197@aster.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:35:30 GMT
Retyped without permission from the Cornell Daily Sun of 8 Sept 1992.
Typographical errors are my fault.
----
FORMER C.U. STUDENTS PLEAD GUILTY
Virus Defendants Avoid Prison With Plea Bargain Agreement
by Rhonda Stewart
Last Friday in Tompkins County Court, three former Cornell students,
David S. Blumenthal '94, Mark A. Pilgrim '94 and Randall A.
Swanson'94, pleaded guilty to releasing the "MBDF-A" computer virus.
In separate plea bargain agreements, all felony charges, fines and
possibiliies for jail sentences were eliminated.
The former students had faced 40 charges, including 16 felony counts,
for releasing a computer virus from a campus computer laboratory last
semester.
Since they have no prior records, DA George M. Dentes J.D. '76 [ie,
his JD was from Cornell in 1976] accepted guilty pleas instead of seeking
felony convictions in a common plea bargain agreement.
In lieu of administering fines or time in prison, Judge Betty D.
Friedlander ordered each defendant to pay restitution in the amount of
$2476 to three victims, including the University. Blumenthal and
Pilgrim were also ordered to forfeit their personal computer equipment,
which was used to create the virus.
In addition, Friedlander reserved the right to impose probation and
community service as alternatives to incarceration when she sentences
the three defendants on Oct 5.
The defendants are not currently registered with the University this
semester, according to Cornell officials. The officials would not say,
however, if the the three have been expelled from the University.
Pligrim and Swanson would not say Friday if they had been expelled or
if they chose to leave voluntarily. Blumenthal said he does not plan
to return to the University. He said he will continue his studies at
another institution and "wants to get on with his life".
The virus was developed by Blumenthal and Pilgrim, who were employees
at Cornell Information Technologies (CIT), and on Feb. 14, they sent
computer games containing the virus from Upson Lab via the VAX5 network
[a common Cornell link to the Internet] to Stanford public archives.
Although the virus spread worldwide, reaching as far as Japan, it
caused no serious permanent damage for users.
Dentes called Swanson "a lesser player in the offense," because he
only assisted in launching the virus.
Blumenthal and Pilgrim pleaded guilty Friday to computer tampering in
the second degree, a misdemeanor, while Swanson pleaded guilty to
disorderly conduct, a violation.
"This kind of thing is likely to recur considering the technological
age we live in and the tendency of students to be creative", Dentes
said.
In February, Blumenthal was charged with nine misdemeanors and eight
felonies. The most serious was a Class D felony, punishable by seven
years in state prison and a fine up to $5000.
Pilgrim and Swanson were each charged with nine misdemeanors and four
felonies. The most serious was a Class E felony, punishable by four
years in prison and a fine up to $2500.
Raymond M. Schlather, attorney for Blumenthal, called the case, "a
time consuming and expensive learning process for all of us."
Of the three attorneys working on the case, Schlather was the most
vocal in expressing his views on the state statute under which the
defendants were charged. The two other attorney, Paul D. Bennett and
Robert J. Holdsworth, Jr J.D. '81 declined to comment on the case.
In court on Friday, Schlather argued that the statue was too vague and
did not cover his client's individual actions.
Dentes said the case opened up certain complicated legal programs.
"In order to be considered a felony, damage must exceed $1000. For
example, does this mean market value or the cost to rectify the
situation?" Dentes asked. "There's some uncertainty as to what the
statue means in terms of the creators mental state, whether there
need to be malicious intent or not," he added.
"There is a proposal before the legislature to change the law. In
light of my experience with this case I will suggest further changes,"
Dentes said.
[Cornell University] President Frank H. T. Rhodes issued a statement
last Friday condemning this and any future computer tampering.
"We took these case very seriously. The University will continue to
inform all members of the campus community of the seriousness of
coputer tampering. These proceedings will send a message to all
concerned," Rhodes said in a prepared statement.
After the plea hearing last Friday, Blumental expressed his opinion
on University's computer policy, calling the virus "an experiment."
"I was very upset and dismayed when I realized it was causing damage.
Cornell's attitudes and policies are the exact opposite of what should
be done to prevent tampering. They rule their computers with an iron
fist. That's dictatorship," he said.
When asked if he will continue to work with computers in the future,
Blumenthal replied, "Of course."
M. Stuart Lynn, vice president of information technologies, said
Saturday that the University's policies were appropriate.
"Justice is being served. The University has completed what it
intends to do," Lynn said. "The fact that they pleaded guilty shows
the seriousness of what they did. If Mr. Blumenthal thinks it's okay
to unleash a virus on the world's computers, then he really doesn't
understand what he did. He hasn't gotten the message."
This was the second compuer virus released by Cornell students in the
last six years.
In 1986, Robert T. Morris, Jr. launched a virus [the "Internet worm"]
that spread nationwide and affected computers at NASA.
Morris was indicted under a felony section of the 1986 Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act.
----
Eric Scheirer -- Cornell U. -- (607) 277-1899 -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
"Small change can often be found under sofa cushions" -- Lazarus Long
From caf-talk Caf Sep 8 23:11:01 1992
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk
From: Jyrki Kuoppala
Subject: 2nd RFD: comp.society.acad-freedom.news, comp.society.acad-freedom.talk
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:57:10 GMT
This is a second request for discussion regarding creation of two
newsgroups for discussions and news on academic freedom on computers
and networks.
The groups currently exist as alt groups. The alt versions of the
newsgroups have estimated July readership of 29000 and 9000. (The
readership can be expected to increase as the Fall term starts in many
places.) About 390 folks get various versions of the mailling list.
Current charters:
Purpose: To discuss 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?
comp.society.acad-freedom.news News concerning academic freedom, moderated
CAF-News - The best notes from CAF-Talk as selected and abstracted by
a moderator. (Moderator of record Carl Kadie, kadie@eff.org.)
comp.society.acad-freedom.talk Discussions on academic freedom
CAF-Talk - A free-speech forum focused on, but not limited to, these
issues.
Alternative names for the groups are:
c.s.freedom.acad.talk, c.s.freedom.acad.news
c.s.freedom.academic, c.s.freedom.academic.best
c.s.freedom.academic, c.s.freedom.academic.digest
c.s.acad-freedom, c.s.acad-freedom.best
c.s.acad-freedom, c.s.acad-freedom.digest
(or variations thereof)
The discussion on this proposal will take place in news.groups.
Please see the pertinent postings in news.answers and
news.announce.newgroups for the rules that will be followed in
creating a newsgroup ().
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 02:58:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.204324.7934@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:43:24 GMT
In article <1992Aug27.150751.11322@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>MYGDALW@baylor.ccis.baylor.edu (William Mygdal) writes:
>
>>I discovered that Baylor (1) screens out all alt. and
>>rec. groups and who knows what else - we have 1213 newsgroups listed, and (2)
>>censors individual messages within newsgroups that are available. For
>>example, in looking through the Jewish culture newsgroup I found that
>>messages on the topic of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were listed in the
>>group, but when I tried to read one I got a message stating that that item
>>could not be accessed.
>
>It's unlikely that Baylor is screening articles one-by-one; such an
>undertaking would be very expensive. On the other hand, it is not
>unlikely that Baylor excludes newsgroups based on the school's religious
>doctrine.
It is likely that Baylor not only excludes newsgroups (so does P'ton --
alt.sexy.bald.captains.borg.borg.borg, for instance) but also excludes
articles cross-posted to them as well. Given the *overwhelming* volume
of crossposting of the WoodyMia threads, that might explain why they
were all gone.
A faily comprehensive list of newsgroups is periodically posted in
news.announce.newusers and news.answers, if you want to see what exactly
is being excluded.
Good luck.
marshall
--
============ 40 Linden Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540, 609-921-0962 ============
=========== 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379 ==========
===== c/o Jack Gelfand,Psych Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-2930 =====
= Original material(c) 1992, Marshall Flax =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 02:58:14 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep8.215238.13612@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:52:38 GMT
In article <1992Sep8.193517.12597@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 2. ... (Note: if an individual has explicitly
> and intentionally established a public server, or
> clearly designated a set of files as being for
> shared public use, others may assume
> authorization.)
This parenthetical comment was added, in part, to allow people to browse
through others' ~/pub and ~/Pub directories without fear of disciplinary
action.
> 3. You must not attempt to decrypt or translate
> encrypted material, or obtain system privileges to
> which you are not entitled. Attempts to do any of
> these will be considered serious transgressions.
According to a CIT representative, the phrase "to which you are not
entitled" modifies *both* "system privileges" and "encrypted material",
so one is allowed to decrypt material to which one is entitled. (You'd
think the lawyers would have picked up on the ambiguity!)
> 6. You must be sensitive to the public nature of
> shared facilities, and take care not to display on
> screens in such locations images, sounds or
> messages which could create an atmosphere of
> discomfort or harassment for others. You must also
> refrain from transmitting to others in any location
> inappropriate images, sounds or messages which
> might reasonably be considered harassing.
This seems reasonable: public clusters are shared, and people should
show some consideration and politeness. Notice that the tone of this
paragraph is less "imperative" than many of the others, and seems to be
an exact parallel to PU's regulations regarding printed matter. The
issue of USENET porn has been raised in campus newspapers last year.
> 7. You must avoid tying up computing resources for
> excessive game playing or other trivial
> applications; sending frivolous or excessive mail
> or messages locally or over an affiliated network;
> printing excessive copies of documents, files,
> images or data. You must refrain from using
> unwarranted or excessive amounts of storage;
> printing documents or files numerous times because
> you have not checked thoroughly for all errors and
> corrections; or running grossly inefficient
> programs when efficient ones are available. You
> must be sensitive to special need for software and
> services available in only one location, and cede
> place to those whose work requires the special
> items.
It should be noted that P'ton is liberal with disk space, makes games
available for Macs through public file servers, offers nearly unlimited
laser printing, and (regarding "grossly inefficient programs") offers
emacs in addition to vi.
> 8. You must not prevent others from using shared
> resources by running unattended processes or
> placing signs on devices to "reserve" them without
> authorization. Your absence from a public computer
> or workstation should be no longer than warranted
> by a visit to the nearest restroom. A device
> unattended for more than ten minutes may be assumed
> to be available for use, and any process running on
> that device terminated. You must not lock a
> workstation or computer which is in a public
> facility. You must also be sensitive to performance
> effects of remote login to shared workstations:
> when there is a conflict, priority for use of the
> device must go to the person seated at the keyboard
> rather than to someone logged on remotely.
This does raise the unattended terminal problem, but it's hard to arrive
at a platform-independent solution.
> 10. If you create or maintain electronically-stored
> information which is important to your work or to
> the University in general, you are responsible for
> making frequent backups of the information.
The University still backs up mainframes, but they have a point here.
> 11. Messages, sentiments, and declarations sent as
> electronic mail or sent as electronic postings must
> meet the same standards for distribution or display
> as if they were tangible documents or instruments.
> You are free to publish your opinions, but they
> must be clearly and accurately identified as coming
> from you, or, if you are acting as the authorized
> agent of a group recognized by the University, as
> coming from the group you are authorized to
> represent. Attempts to alter the "From" line or
> other attribution of origin in electronic mail,
> messages, or postings, will be considered
> transgressions of University rules.
These also seem to mirror the U's policy for written material.
> 12. If you create, alter, or delete any electronic
> information contained in, or posted to, any campus
> computer or affiliated network it will be
> considered forgery if it would be considered so on
> a tangible document or instrument.
This looks pretty good.
> 13. You must not create and send, or forward,
> electronic chain letters.
There is a school of thought which considers all of USENET to be a
single chain letter.
marshall
--
============ 40 Linden Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540, 609-921-0962 ============
=========== 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379 ==========
===== c/o Jack Gelfand,Psych Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-2930 =====
= Original material(c) 1992, Marshall Flax =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 09:19:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep9.131946.3175@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:19:46 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 09:19:58 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Re: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep9.094246.819@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:42:46 GMT
In <1992Sep8.193517.12597@eff.org> kadie@eff.org writes:
>...
> 1. If you have any computer account, you are
> responsible for the use made of that account. You
> should set a password which will protect your
> account from unauthorized use, and which will not
> be guessed easily. If you discover that someone
> has made unauthorized use of your account, you
> should change the password and report the intrusion
> to a CIT Information Center. You should change your
> password on a regular basis, to assure continued
> security of your account.
Why only 'should' in that place?
> 2. You must not intentionally seek information
> about, browse, obtain copies of, or modify files,
> passwords, or tapes belonging to other people,
> whether at Princeton or elsewhere, unless
> specifically authorized to do so by those
> individuals. (Note: if an individual has explicitly
> and intentionally established a public server, or
> clearly designated a set of files as being for
> shared public use, others may assume
> authorization.)
Note especially that this explicitly PERMITS users to set up public
servers. Very good!
>...
> 7. You must avoid tying up computing resources for
> excessive game playing or other trivial
> applications; sending frivolous or excessive mail
> or messages locally or over an affiliated network;
> printing excessive copies of documents, files,
> images or data. You must refrain from using
> unwarranted or excessive amounts of storage;
> printing documents or files numerous times because
> you have not checked thoroughly for all errors and
> corrections; or running grossly inefficient
> programs when efficient ones are available. You
> must be sensitive to special need for software and
> services available in only one location, and cede
> place to those whose work requires the special
> items.
This sounds good. But who is it to determine the border between
reasonable use and misuse? The whole policy does not state any means
of dealing with conflicts.
> 8. You must not prevent others from using shared
> resources by running unattended processes or
> placing signs on devices to "reserve" them without
> authorization. Your absence from a public computer
> or workstation should be no longer than warranted
> by a visit to the nearest restroom. A device
> unattended for more than ten minutes may be assumed
> to be available for use, and any process running on
> that device terminated. You must not lock a
> workstation or computer which is in a public
> facility. You must also be sensitive to performance
This means: 'If you must go to the restroom you HAVE to leave the
terminal open, so that other users can terminate your session if they
need the machine.' This is IMO simply unacceptable. Other policies
would REQUIRE to lock the terminal to prevent tampering with your
account.
> effects of remote login to shared workstations:
> when there is a conflict, priority for use of the
> device must go to the person seated at the keyboard
> rather than to someone logged on remotely.
Questionable. Which 'devices' are there to be conflicted about? CPU
and memory gets usually equally divided between users.
Just a few thoughts.
MfG,
Olaf
--
o Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
_ /<_ s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_) +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
What high-level language should one use for system programming? The only
reasonable candidate today is PL/I. - Fred Brooks (1975)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 12:09:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Algirdas.Pakstas@idt.unit.no
Subject: Lectures on Computer Technologies and Networking in Baltic Countries
Message-ID: <199209091604.AA01046@selje.idt.unit.no>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:04:31 GMT
Dear Colleagues,
Let us we will introduce ourselvs. We are computer scientists from
Vilnius, Lithuania (temporary staying in Trondheim, Norway). We both
are working in the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics of the
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. Main research topics are software
engineening for distributed computer systems, methods and tools for
development of distributed software configurations, networking, formal
methods, simulation of message passing systems.
We are going to visit USA in September-October, 1992 for conference.
We also are interested to visit american Universities and give some
lectures about our research results and more general lectures about
Computer Technologies and Networking in Baltic Countries.
Please, let us know if your organizations are interested in such
subjects and can be partial sponsors for our visit at least inside USA
(unfortunately, our host institute in Norway can't to provide full
funding). Our CVs and abstracts of possible lectures are available on
request.
Please, reply ASAP by e-mail or by FAX. Our address:
Dr.Algirdas Pakstas / Sonata Pakstiene
Division of Computer Systems and Telematics (IDT)
The Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH)
The University of Trondheim (UNIT)
N-7034 TRONDHEIM
Norway
PHONE: +47-7-594460 (secr.) or +47-7-594485 (direct in office);
FAX : +47-7-594466;
TELEX: 55637 NTHAD.N
Email: Algirdas.Pakstas@idt.unit.no
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Algirdas Pakstas, Dr., Senior Scientific Staff
Sonata Pakstiene, Junior Scientific Staff
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 12:18:57 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep9.121142.4840@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:11:42 GMT
There is an interesting article in the September 1992 issue of "Corporate
Computing". Entitled "E-mail Snooping", it's an overview of the current
controversy in email privacy. It included discussion of the Epson case,
comments from Eastman Kodak and several other firms, and an editorial by
William F Buckley. It's an interesting piece of reading material.
I called Corporate Computing, and they refused my request to post the
article or excerpts thereof. (I realize that they have a healthy business
in selling reprints, but this seems a bit extreme.)
I noticed something else interesting. The article includes an interview
with a director of the Electronic Mail Association. After digging through
several name servers (and nic.ddn.mil), I discovered that the EMA doesn't
even have a registered domain! Ya just gotta love it.......
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 13:04:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Message-ID: <1992Sep9.164705.17437@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:47:05 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 13:04:26 1992
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:54:07
Message-ID:
Getting in a little late here...just caught the summary of this on
a.c.a-f.news.
In article <3726@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>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.
In fact, there *is* a double standard, but the one I see is very
different. Most of the material that is posted in a.s.b is useful and
informative. If you want to start censoring ideas which are dangerous
to women, check out soc.men, soc.women, and, most recently,
alt.feminism. That's where I see hatred of women being generated, not
in some stupid story that is promptly objected to. In alt.sex.bondage,
if someone posts a story in which a woman is tortured, people object.
In alt.feminism, when someone says that all feminists are out to oppress
men or that women are taking away jobs from more qualified men, there is
a chorus of agreement.
>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.
Well, then, they should be honest about it, and actually *examine* the
material in *every* newsgroup, rather than just blasting any group with
"sex" in the name and saying "okay, we've done our job." Sex is *not*
inherently dangerous to women. The idea that a woman who gets a job
programming computers must have been hired because she was female and
couldn't possibly be competent is a heck of a lot more pervasive and
dangerous than some story, which many of us are able to recognize as
*fiction*, and, in most cases, not very good fiction.
I don't believe in censorship, so I'm not recommending this, but I would
believe you were honestly trying to help women if you censored
alt.feminism or soc.men. If you have *read* alt.sex.bondage, you'd know
that the attitude towards women is *great* there, especially compared to
most of the net. (I'm afraid I can't say the same of alt.sex, although
it's still not as hate-filled as other groups.)
Muffy
--
Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 13:06:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: slf@netcom.com (Sharon Fisher)
Subject: more on harrassment of women on the Internet
Message-ID: <9209091703.AA02440@netcom.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:03:43 GMT
>> I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think most men do
>> not understand the climate of fear in which women live in this
>> country. And that fear restricts their freedom of expression.
>> Violence against women is so prevalent in this society, women are
>> not able to act and speak with the dignity and freedom that all
>> persons deserve.
>1 in 20 black men is murdered in his life time. 1 in 100 white men is
>murdered. 1 in 400 white women is. The disparity in the figures is
>growing, not shrinking. But black men do not have a reputation for
>silence, and it is usually white, female feminists who most often
>complain of having been silenced. Am I missing something, or is this
>fear of violence just an excuse for seeking to muzzle views that make
>you feel uncomfortable?
I'm not sure where your figures come from. But leaving that aside, I
doubt that many women are particularly afraid of being murdered
because of posting to the net.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I know of a woman who has posted to
the net for any length of time who hasn't gotten some form of abusive,
threatening, or harassing email from guys. Simply for the sin of
having a female name, a woman can count on getting a regular supply of
messages inviting her, in the most crude ways possible, to have sex
with the sender.
Women who post to soc.women or soc.feminism, or on topics such as
child support and abortion, get even more hateful mail. Ask any woman
you know who posts. We hate this, but we accept it as the price for
making use of the net's resources, in the same way that we accept a
constant stream of whistles and catcalls for the price of walking downtown.
> I really don't see that
>violence against females is greater than violence against males.
How would you? Would you presume to tell a black man that your
experience as a white man invalidated his?
>It's
>just that men learn from an early age that they will experience
>violence. No special protection will be given to them against the
>rough and tumble of life. I find the assumption that violence against
>women should receive some special attention not given to violence
>against men rather sexist.
Agreed. I think that "wannafuck" messages sent to guys are just as
heinous as those sent to women. Tell me, how many have you gotten?
>I have never seen any indication that women are subject to violence
>for things which they say in a public forum. Almost all violence
>against women occurs in rape, robbery, or domestic conflicts. (These
>also make up a large share of violence against men.) For all the
>problems we have in this country, we are fortunate that violence based
>on political views is pretty rare. Where it has occurred, it has
>typically involved one man beating another -- no women involved.
>Worries about expressing one's political views because of violence
>aren't very rational.
Depends on how you define "violence." Email death threats and other
forms of harassment are not unheard of.
>>However, I _know_ that women are
>> fearful of posting messages like "I need a ride to the Michigan
>> Womyn's Music Festival." What kind of psychopath is going to
>> see that message, look up the poster's name in the phonebook,
>But the psychopath's actions (if indeed such a psychopath exists),
>would take place outside Internet. In fact, you would be better
>off letting such a psychopath blow off steam on the Internet, than
>muzzle him and have him track you down and....
I think perhaps you misunderstood Patt's original posting, because
your reply doesn't make any sense. What she's suggesting, if I'm not
mistaken, is that someone will make use of the information she posted
to track her down -- after all, anyone going to a women's music
festival is probably some man-hating dyke, right?
>Has anyone ever heard of a psychopath reading Usenet postings and
>wreaking vengeance?
Depends on how you define 'vengeance.' As I've said, I've heard of
harassing email, harassing phone calls, calls to a poster's mother, etc.
>> I'm not saying we have to delete the alt.sex groups from
>> the Usenet, but I would like to make men aware of how I feel when
>> I am attending a lecture by a visiting computer scientist, and
>> he throws in a gratuitous references alt.sex.pictures, and the
>He could make a reference to a pornographic magazine if the newsgroup
>didn't exist. Sexual crudity is hardly reserved to computer users
>or computer scientists.
Agreed. The point she's making, though, is that it's still
alienating. Now, I'm hardly in favor of zapping the alt.sex
newsgroups, but if the existence of the groups is used to denigrate
women, then perhaps the participants of those groups who would like to
see them become a safer place for women to post should do something --
like complain when they see a particular woman harassed.
>> men in that room, because they are so insensitive and unaware
>> of what their chortles say to me.
>Would you be happier if they were just as insensitive, but hid it
>from you? Don't you think it's better to know what attitudes
>you're dealing with, so you can criticize them?
Are those our choices? Men being insensitive is a given, and our only
choice is whether they're open about it or not? I would like to think
better of most men on the net.
:e
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 15:35:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep9.192753.20943@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:27:53 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 15:35:24 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:37:26 GMT
Olaf> == Olaf Titz
Princeton> 8. You must not prevent others from using shared resources
Princeton> by running unattended processes or placing signs on devices
Princeton> to "reserve" them without authorization. Your absence from a
Princeton> public computer or workstation should be no longer than
Princeton> warranted by a visit to the nearest restroom. A device
Princeton> unattended for more than ten minutes may be assumed to be
Princeton> available for use, and any process running on that device
Princeton> terminated. You must not lock a workstation or computer
Princeton> which is in a public facility.
Olaf> This means: 'If you must go to the restroom you HAVE to leave the
Olaf> terminal open, so that other users can terminate your session if
Olaf> they need the machine.' This is IMO simply unacceptable. Other
Olaf> policies would REQUIRE to lock the terminal to prevent tampering
Olaf> with your account.
MIT's Athena workstation policy is that you can lock it for no more than
20 minutes before someone can feel free to reboot it or otherwise
"forcibly unlock" it. The "standard" screenlocker has a displayed timer
of "how long I've been locked".
Perhaps Princeton could provide a similar one with a button (cleaner
than a reboot, especially since MIT Athena workstation can't have rlogin
users ;-) that would only appear after N minutes, saying "break lock and
kill X server". This would protect accounts while keeping workstation
resources available.
--
Christopher Davis | ]CALL -151
| *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 15:47:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.35
Message-ID: <1992Sep9.194713.4962@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:47:13 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n35".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n35
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending July 19, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[The editor of this issue is Adam C. Gross, ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu.]
Notes 1-3 are about the economic considerations of carrying alt.sex
1. "A quick look at the Arbitron stats'll show that alt.sex is one of
the most popular groups on usenet... .Know what'd happen to my site's
disk-space if alt.sex was killed, assuming that I'm the only person
reading it? Nothing. I could, can, and will find a way to gate the
newsfeed into my e-mail. "
2. "You seem to think that sites are being forced to pay for the newsgroups
you object to. This is not the case. Remember, Usenet is not an
official organization, but rather an informal congregation of sites that
share newsfeeds between each other."
<1992Jul13.001349.12315@nntp.uoregon.edu>
3. "If one want to keep the good stuff in alt.sex, and weed out the
offensive stuff, someone's gonna have to read everything and expire said
articles -- this person doesn't work for free."
<1992Jul13.133949.8564@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Notes 4 & 5 are about carrying alt.sex feeds across international boundaries.
4. A user objects to the idea that what should be permisable should be
determined by recognizing guidlines imposed by countries other than the
US. "Using this formula, the limits of what can be posted to USENET
would be the limits imposed by the strictest country who participates in
the net."
<1992Jul13.142103.15845@spdcc.com>
5. A Candian user argues that alt.sex is permisable by Candian law.
"Under the Charter this expression is protected, and has as much
right to access to the medium as discussions of neutrino emmision or
neural networks..."
Notes 6-8 are about the limits of free expression in .plan files
6. "I recently put the lyrics to "Cop Killer" by Ice-T in my .plan file so
that it shows up when someone else does "finger jbw@cs.bu.edu".
Two people have complained to my department's chair... .He asked
me informally to remove it. I told him I would not do so voluntarily."
7. "You do have the right to personal expression as delineated in the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You *do not* have the right
to demand that someone else supply you a venue for that expression.
Your .plan file resides on University owned equipment."
<1992Jul17.212641.18596@rice.edu>
8. "I believe academic freedom requires freedom of personal expression
because otherwise someone else gets to decide that my "academic
expression" is really just "personal expression". That would seriously
harm academic freedom."
Note 9 is about the policy of charging user fees for access to the Internet.
9. A user in Chile: " Recently, all users of the Internet, including
universities, were notified that starting July 1st, there will be
a minimum monthly rate plus a charge per megabyte of international
traffic, with 18% sales tax on top."
<9207152134.AA18513@jester.usask.ca>
]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 19:21:38 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep9.231718.1863@PacBell.COM>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:17:18 GMT
In article <1992Sep9.121142.4840@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>There is an interesting article in the September 1992 issue of "Corporate
>Computing". Entitled "E-mail Snooping", it's an overview of the current
>controversy in email privacy. It included discussion of the Epson case,
>comments from Eastman Kodak and several other firms, and an editorial by
>William F Buckley. It's an interesting piece of reading material.
>
>I called Corporate Computing, and they refused my request to post the
>article or excerpts thereof. (I realize that they have a healthy business
>in selling reprints, but this seems a bit extreme.)
>
>I noticed something else interesting. The article includes an interview
>with a director of the Electronic Mail Association. After digging through
>several name servers (and nic.ddn.mil), I discovered that the EMA doesn't
>even have a registered domain! Ya just gotta love it.......
>
>--Wes
>--
>MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
>morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
>morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
> Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
The Wednesday, Sept. 9, 1992 issue of the San Francisco Examiner has an
interesting article of how the "Email's trail of evidence in software case"
has brought civil suits against Gordon Eubanks, president of Symantec Corp.,
and Eugene Wang, a former executive of Borland International. At this point in
time, everything is "alleged" to have happened. In a nutshell the DA office
has what they consider evidence in which both parties communicated using
MCI Mail. The contexts of the message have been determined to be marketing
plans and other confidential information from Borland that have aided
Symantec in the battle for software market share.
Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed. According
to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages. This
started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties.
Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.
--
--------- John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com --------
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
is out of focus." - Mark Twain
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 22:53:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep10.025143.18709@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:51:43 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 9 22:53:39 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:21:33 GMT
In article , ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
|> Olaf> This means: 'If you must go to the restroom you HAVE to leave the
|> Olaf> terminal open, so that other users can terminate your session if
|> Olaf> they need the machine.' This is IMO simply unacceptable. Other
|> Olaf> policies would REQUIRE to lock the terminal to prevent tampering
|> Olaf> with your account.
|>
|> MIT's Athena workstation policy is that you can lock it for no more than
|> 20 minutes before someone can feel free to reboot it or otherwise
|> "forcibly unlock" it. The "standard" screenlocker has a displayed timer
|> of "how long I've been locked".
|>
|> Perhaps Princeton could provide a similar one with a button (cleaner
|> than a reboot, especially since MIT Athena workstation can't have rlogin
|> users ;-) that would only appear after N minutes, saying "break lock and
|> kill X server". This would protect accounts while keeping workstation
|> resources available.
At Rice, we have an X windows lockscreen program with a twenty minute
timer. After twenty minutes, the lockscreen itself logs the user out.
The logout is pretty clean. The only thing we haven't solved yet is
how to get the user's .logout file to be read on logout by the
lockscreen program.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 10 14:48:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.28
Message-ID: <1992Sep10.184823.20909@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:48:23 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n28".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n28
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending June 14, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is a repost of a long discussion of the use of "handles" to
provide anonymity online.
1. This article is [a pointer to ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/anonymity,]
an excerpt from an issue of FIDONEWS
on individual privacy and the use of handles. It accepts the need of a
system operator to know the name of a user; but suggests that the use of a
handle is analogous to a request to withhold the name in a letter
to the editor. The article concludes with a set of guidelines for
preserving the right to be anonymous.
<92083.072152SOCICOM@auvm.american.edu>
Note 2 is a reprint of a UPI news article from ClariNet in which a US
Judge found artistic expression to be protected speech.
2. "A federal judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday the decency
clause the National Endowment for the Arts used in determining who
receives grant money, saying it was too vague and overbroad in
restricting artists' freedom of speech."
<1992Jun10.040756.10831@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 3 is a list of news groups not carried in the UK because of content.
3. (A system administrator:) The list of newgroups we cannot carry
includes alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
rec.arts.erotica.
<1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
Note 4 is a comment on a request by Canadian police for information on
sexually explicit postings from an American anonymous posting service.
4. (A system administrator:) The police are more concerned with
stopping it than with charging someone. It handled correctly, the
police will gain a better understanding of USENET, and not
overreact. A greater concern is that the University administration
will overreact in response to public pressure.
<3530@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Note 5 concerns a Canadian writer who was denied entry into the US
because US officials did not approve of some of his writings.
5. The writings are freely available in the US. "So you could argue
that his "right" to freely express his ideas has not been denied
by the US. Only his choice of method has been restricted."
<194@ceylon.gte.com>
Note 6 concerns a speech on the basic elements of a legal system. The
speech was given by US Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy in
Australia.
6. According to Justice Kennedy, the fundamental elements that the law
and legal system rest are:
". that government rested on the consent of the people
. that government protected a core of personal rights - today
called human rights
. that there must be an enduring structure which guaranteed
the first two elements
. that there be an obligation on each citizen to obey the law
and to transmit the rule of law to a subsequent generation."
<920614170756.20204464@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Notes 7-9 concern the legality of searching files owned by users if
violations of system policies are suspected.
7. In the US, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act may limit
what a system administrator can and cannot do. A signed legal
opinion can prevent a lot of heartache.
8. (A system administrator:) 3 times in 5 years I have found a
"suspicious" executable. The command "strings" usually gives me
enough information to confirm or refute that suspicion.
<1992Jun12.102023.26109@ms.uky.edu>
9. (A professor of computer science:) If in doubt, consult legal
counsel. It is my understanding that any search I perform on my
system at my own initiation is legal. The results of that search
can be given to law enforcement agencies, and used in trial. "Note
that this does not cover evidence that may conflict with the ECPA
(but if you are the owner/operator of the system doing the search
to maintain system integrity, you are probably okay), the
Educational Records Privacy Act (the "Buckley Amendment"), state
and Federal wiretap laws, and a few other such laws. ... It is the
*civil* parts of these acts that may cause the most difficulty."
Note 10 concerns restrictions designed to reduce network traffic by
banning certain types of packets.
10. When a restriction is leveled against everyone equally and is
based on resource concerns, it is not a censorship issue.
According to the backbone statistics, IRC and netnews generate
almost 11% of the traffic.
<1992Jun8.95807.8525@ms.uky.edu>
Note 11 concerns an section of the Criminal Code of Canada which bans
"a magazine, periodical or book that exclusively or substantially"
pictorially depicts the commission of a crime.
11. "Under this definition, about 90% of the comic books that exist in
the world are going to run afoul of this definition. Even the
Disney comics are going to get into trouble since one of the main
themes in any tale concerning Scrooge McDuck is the attempt of
others to obtain parts of his wealth (theft is a crime!)."
<1992Jun9.004550.9542@wolves.uucp>
Note 12 discusses how to deal with harassing computer communications.
12. Harassment is intentional, unwanted person-to-person
communication by any channel. Explicitly tell the harasser to
stop communicating with you. Save copies of all communications.
If the harassment continues, contact a system administrator,
university official or the courts.
<1992Jun11.180712.21660@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Paul]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 10 16:06:49 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep10.190922.900@dcatlas.dot.gov>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:09:22 GMT
jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed. According
>to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
>these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
>into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages. This
>started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties.
>Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.
No, he did *not* have the right (unless a prior contract specified otherwise)
to view Wang's email. He should be prosecuted, found as guilty as he is,
and treated as harshly as possible. That said, the evidence that Wang was
involved in crimes of his own *exists*. It cannot be ignored. Two wrongs
do not make a right. Wang should also be tried, convicted, and probably
shot ("if you don't like the consequences of your actions...").
-JTT
From caf-talk Caf Sep 10 16:19:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: pmb2@midway.uchicago.edu (Peter Bell)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.28 (Digest)
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:18:47 GMT
unsubscribe
From caf-talk Caf Sep 10 16:28:38 1992
Newsgroups: mi.misc,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: delledg@jake.cc.wayne.edu (De Vaughn Elledge)
Subject: Re: Wayne State University's Bad Behavior Continues Unabated....
Message-ID: <1992Sep10.202355.17374@cs.wayne.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:23:55 GMT
In article <1992Sep8.170740.5971@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>>Here is a copy of the letter sent to that student. I've
>>deleted her name.
>
>>[...excerpted from C&IT letter...]
>>What has happened is that the C&IT has declined to facilitate your access
>>to the computer because of your past history of abusing the University
>>computing system. In light of that history, C&IT is not obliged to
>>continue to do business with you.
>>[...end excerpt...]
>
>If the student had already lost their access *through due process*, I
>would think that future services could be denied to that student. A
>parallel case in the 'real world' might be the restrictions on gun
>ownership by convicted felons.
>
>Of course, I am assuming that the previous withdrawl of service was carried
>out under the 'due process' umbrella. If not, I'd appeal the original penalty.
>
>--Wes
Wes, You took the words staight out of my mouth. If you abuse a
priviledge and it is taken away by *due process* you almost have to
expect a miracle to get them back. Assuming that the event was handled
by the due process umbrella. According to the WSU department that
handled the case (SECURITY OFFICE) the user had to be really screwing up
and didn't take their warnings seriously.
================================================================================
= De Vaughn A. Elledge ** ================================================
= ** DON'T STEAL
= DELLEDG @ WAYNEST1 ** The Government Hates Competition!!!!
= DELLEDG @ JAKE.CC.WAYNE.EDU** ================================================
= DELLEDG @ UTS.CC.WAYNE.EDU ** Detroit Rockers: 1991 NPSL CHAMPIONS!!!!
= Wayne State University ** Detroit Lions: 1991 Cntrl. Div. Champs
= Detroit, MI ** Go Pistons, Redwings, Tigers, Turbos!!!!
============================ ** Go Tartars, Wolverines, Drive!!!
================================================================================
From caf-talk Caf Sep 10 16:50:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: CAF-News needs editors
Message-ID: <1992Sep10.205012.23831@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:50:12 GMT
The CAF-News editorial staff has been working hard at clearing the
summer backlog, but we could use help from guest editors.
Short Task Description:
Given a file containing, on average, about 75 CAF-talk articles,
choose the approximately 12 best and paraphrase them.
Task Requirements: Email access to me (kadie@eff.org)
Things that make the jobs easier:
Being able to run "nn" and "perl".
Compensation: You will be listed as editor for the issue you edit.
Regular editors will also get a title ("Associate Editor") and will be
put on the CAF administrative mailing list.
Also, you will have the satisfaction of doing something useful and
maybe even important. CAF-News has an estimated readership of 13000.
Its abstract is distributed to at least twice as many and is important
to the CAF archive.
If interested, send me email.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 10 17:43:28 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep10.170535.1335@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:05:35 GMT
jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>
>Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed. According
>to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
>these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
>into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages. This
>started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties.
>
>Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
I wouldn't think so, but I'd have to read an MCI Mail contract to be sure.
(I don't use any commercial email services, so I'm on foreign soil.....)
>When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.
I follow the same pattern......I don't have time to snoop either.
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Sep 10 18:58:44 1992
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:20:33 GMT
In article <1992Sep10.190922.900@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>>Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed. According
>>to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
>>these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
>>into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages. This
>>started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties.
>>Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>>When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
>>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.
>No, he did *not* have the right (unless a prior contract specified otherwise)
>to view Wang's email. He should be prosecuted, found as guilty as he is,
>and treated as harshly as possible. That said, the evidence that Wang was
>involved in crimes of his own *exists*. It cannot be ignored. Two wrongs
>do not make a right. Wang should also be tried, convicted, and probably
>shot ("if you don't like the consequences of your actions...").
That all depends. If the company paid for the mail account, then the mail
is *not* Wang's personal property, it is the company's, by implicit contract
and also IMHO by moral standards. The company has put it there for their
benefit, not Mr Wang's personal use or anything else.
I agree with you that Wang should be tried in either case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
- Douglas Adams
- Patrick Taylor (Arthur Dent)
Ericsson Network Systems
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you"
or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From caf-talk Caf Sep 10 18:58:46 1992
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:21:43 GMT
In article <1992Sep10.170535.1335@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
>Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
>Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
>Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:05:35 GMT
>jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>>
>>Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed. According
>>to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
>>these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
>>into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages. This
>>started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties.
>>
>>Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
Who paid for it? Was it really a "personal" account, or was it a business
account.
>I wouldn't think so, but I'd have to read an MCI Mail contract to be sure.
>(I don't use any commercial email services, so I'm on foreign soil.....)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
- Douglas Adams
- Patrick Taylor (Arthur Dent)
Ericsson Network Systems
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you"
or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From caf-talk Caf Sep 10 19:52:26 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:00:22 GMT
In article <1992Sep10.190922.900@dcatlas.dot.gov>, joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
|> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
|>
|> >Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
|> >When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
|> >I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.
|>
|> No, he did *not* have the right (unless a prior contract specified otherwise)
|> to view Wang's email. He should be prosecuted, found as guilty as he is,
|> and treated as harshly as possible. That said, the evidence that Wang was
|> involved in crimes of his own *exists*. It cannot be ignored. Two wrongs
|> do not make a right. Wang should also be tried, convicted, and probably
|> shot ("if you don't like the consequences of your actions...").
|>
|> -JTT
|>
Not so fast. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
specifically exempts providers of electronic communications services
from the prohibitions against seeing the messages:
Section 2701. Unlawful access to stored communications
(a) Offense.-- Except as provided in subsection (c) of this
section whoever --
(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a
facility through which an electronic communication service is
provided; or
(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access
that facility;
and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a
wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic
storage in such a system shall be punished as provided in
subsection (b) of this section.
[...]
(c) Exceptions.-- Subsection (a) of this section does not
apply to conduct authorized--
(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or
electronic communications service;
In addition, the worker has the right to divulge what is inadvertently
discovered to law enforcement agencies if it pertains to a crime:
Section 2702. Disclosure of contents
(a) Prohibitions.-- Except as provided in subsection (b)--
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic
communication service to the public shall not knowingly
divulge to any person or entity the contents of a
communication while in electronic storage by that service;
[...]
(b) Exceptions.-- A person or entity may divulge the
contents of a communication --
[...]
(6) to a law enforcement agency, if such contents --
(A) were inadvertently obtained by the service
provider; and
(B) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime.
The only possible issue is whether the worker's discovery was
inadvertent. Given that he/she was not specifically looking for
evidence of a crime, and was in the process of doing a normal account
deletion, it seems to me that it was inadvertent in the context of the
law. I am not familiar with the all of the details of the case, so
there may be a subtlety involving how they came across the information,
but as far as I can tell, that worker was completely within the
allowances of the law on this one.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Sep 10 23:56:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex,alt.censorship
From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Continued Decline of Western Civilization -- Canadian Style
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:23:12 GMT
The following is reprinted from _Winnipeg Free Press_, Thursday, Sept.
10, 1992, "Letters to the Editor" section, without permission:
_Proliferation_
Adult video stores are proliferating again in
Winnipeg, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling which seemed to
"go against" them. I've recently been canvassing homes with a
petition advocating zoning restrictions for such stores. Many
households are quick to support the idea of requiring a
community committee public hearing. Those who aren't often
hesitate out of a concern for violating the freedom of
citizens to watch what they like.
Your recent news story, /Jelinek eyes law to block
serial killer game/, crystallized the issue for me. ("The
game comes with a bag of 25 babies and four serial killer
figures.") Citizens are indeed free to read and view
whatever, even if they are harming themselves. But they are
not free to harm others, as indeed the Revenue Minister fears
would happen if the serial killers board game is made
available.
I would argue that there is a parallel here with the
distribution, including in adult video stores, of pornographic
materials. There is hard evidence to show that users are more
likely to harm others. Let's limit their availability in
every way possible.
Rev. DONALD JAMES
Winnipeg
* * *
Questions for the student:
1. If the majority of "households" are quick to support the idea of
"community committee public hearings", which could reasonably be
considered devices to halt the proliferation of video stores, and
every one else merely hesitates on the basis of a weak concern for
some ill-defined right of others, how is it that adult video
stores are proliferating?
Could commonly employed macroeconomic principles be so wrong about
the relationship between consumer and supplier behaviour? Could
the fault lie in Rev. James restriction of his survey group to
"households"? How do you think Rev. James defines households? Do
you think the people who openly purchase pornographic movies in
neighborhood video stores represent their "households" when Rev.
James comes to the door? If your Reverend came to your door,
would you tell him that you were a regular user of pornographic
materials and didn't feel they were necessary to censor?
2. What do you think the bag of 25 babies has to do with the good
Reverend's argument? Might it be a red herring? Suppose it is
not. Presumably, then, this quotation must serve to establish
that this game is offensive because it portrays 25 dead babies.
Could the Rev. James be suggesting, by analogy, that pornographic
video stores, like this game, are offensive and are therefore
portraying 25 dead babies?
3. The Reverend makes two statements. He places them close together,
but they are very far apart. The first claims that "citizens",
presumably as distinct from households (?), are free to read and
view whatever they want even to the extent that they harm
themselves. The second states that they are not free to read or
view whatever they want whenever the Revenue Minister fears they
would harm others in doing it. Can you reconcile these two
statements? If, under a certain set of axioms, they were
reconciled, would the Revenue Minister be distinguishable from
God? Should the Revenue Minister be indistinguishable from God?
What affect would this have on Rev. James's job?
4. The Reverend claims that there is hard evidence that users of
pornographic materials are more likely to harm others. He has
proven this by telling you that the Revenue Minister fears this is
true. Well, Citizen, how does that make you feel?
Kevin Buhr
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 07:35:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Re: Continued Decline of Western Civilization -- Canadian Style
Message-ID: <1992Sep11.111649.16508@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:16:49 GMT
Kevin Andrew Buhr (buhr@umanitoba.ca) writes:
> [Some stuff about a Rev. James's letter to the Winnipeg Free Press
> concerning "adult" video stores and a "serial killer/dead babies"
> game.]
I'm not sure what you are driving, Mr. Buhr, with your academic-
elitist recondite anti-sophistic sophistry. Cut the crap.
It seems to me that most Canadians (church-going or otherwise) are
tolerant of simple (non-demeaning, non-exploiting, non-adulterous,
spice-up-the-marriage-bed, etc.) erotica, but are _fed_up_with_sleeze_.
(Let's be honest about it. There is a considerable industry, with two
wings - (1) the pornographers and (2) the rigidly righteous (Burn's
"Unco Guid"), that has a vested interest in maintaining the confusion
between erotica and sleeze.)
I don't expect lapidary logic from your typical theological graduate,
but, in my fairly extensive experience of them, they do a damn good
job in attempting to counterbalance the moral rot in our society.
And I'm not just talking about sex and violence.
So, continue to flay away at this parochial straw man, glossolalially
exorcising the demon "censorship" and invoking the god of ivory
tower chop-logic, whilst society deteriorates and the confused
morally-middle plots its escapist path.
--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 09:11:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.security.misc] Re: Locking terminals (was Re: New Princeton Policy)
Message-ID: <1992Sep11.131250.10493@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:12:50 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 09:11:40 1992
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
Subject: Re: Locking terminals (was Re: New Princeton Policy)
Message-ID: <9225518.22142@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:28:37 GMT
S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
>> In article , ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>> |> Olaf> This means: 'If you must go to the restroom you HAVE to leave the
>> |> Olaf> terminal open, so that other users can terminate your session if
>> |> Olaf> they need the machine.' This is IMO simply unacceptable. Other
>> |> Olaf> policies would REQUIRE to lock the terminal to prevent tampering
>> |> Olaf> with your account.
>> |>
>> |> MIT's Athena workstation policy is that you can lock it for no more than
>> |> 20 minutes before someone can feel free to reboot it or otherwise
>> |> "forcibly unlock" it. The "standard" screenlocker has a displayed timer
>
>Rebooting is not the way of choice, I think...
>
>> |> of "how long I've been locked".
>> |>
>>...
>> At Rice, we have an X windows lockscreen program with a twenty minute
>> timer. After twenty minutes, the lockscreen itself logs the user out.
>> The logout is pretty clean. The only thing we haven't solved yet is
>> how to get the user's .logout file to be read on logout by the
>> lockscreen program.
>
>What about the following?
>
>A locking program that
>- displays the time it is running,
>- after N minutes provides a button which will log the user out (with
>N preferrably to be specified in a configuration file),
>- perhaps communicates with other workstations in the cluster, to
>enable the logout only when no other workstation is idle.
>
>I leave the gory details of the implementation to the people who know
>X (that excludes me, unfortunately ;-)
Here at Melbourne Uni on one of the student machines, the lock command
has a default time-out of 15 minutes.
After 15 minutes, lock terminates and drops back into your shell, leaving
your account wide open.
--
Fergus Henderson fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 12:49:15 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep11.161638.3832@dcatlas.dot.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:16:38 GMT
Please note that in my original somewhat harsh post I _did_ say "unless a
contract states otherwise..." There are all kinds of contracts, implicit
as well as explicit. These also include questions of ownership of the
message(s).
I can't see how the reading of someone's email while an account is being
deleted could possibly be considered "inadvertant". Does this mean that
deleting an account _causes_ its remaining/existing messages to be read?
If so, then 1) This was probably understood when the service was
initiated, and so may be legit, but 2) how can this be "necessary" when
an account is removed? I find it inconceivable that many people would
subscribe to a supposedly private email service if they *knew* that any
messages [still] in their accounts could be read when the accounts were
removed.
I'm glad we're in agreement that Wang should get his just comeuppance; I
hope we can agree that the employee has something coming too, whether
prosecution for rights violation(s) or discharge for incompetence.
-JTT
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 12:49:18 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep11.162036.3932@dcatlas.dot.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:20:36 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.
>I follow the same pattern......I don't have time to snoop either.
It isn't a question of whether you have the _time_; the question is, do you
have the _right_?
Unless it's in the contract, how can the answer be anything but "NO!"?
Why would it be in the contract? Who would sign such a contract?
-JTT
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 14:52:52 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep11.184731.10583@PacBell.COM>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:47:31 GMT
In article <1992Sep11.162036.3932@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>>Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>
>>>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.
>
>>I follow the same pattern......I don't have time to snoop either.
>
>It isn't a question of whether you have the _time_; the question is, do you
>have the _right_?
>
>Unless it's in the contract, how can the answer be anything but "NO!"?
>Why would it be in the contract? Who would sign such a contract?
>
>-JTT
>
The ramifications on this particular case will certainly test an
individual's right to e-mail privacy vs the company's right to
access employee's accounts. The paper did not elaborate on exactly
why the staff worker read the e-mail. It appeared the worker, IMHO,
was snooping around without just cause. Of course, a company policy
could exist that gives them the right to peruse an account. Afterall,
Wang held a high office, and there could be some messages that needed to
be re-directed to his successor.
--
--------- John Gloria - jpglori@sysengr.pacbell.com --------
"I have great faith in fools - self-confidence my
friends call it." Edgar Allan Poe
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 17:03:55 1992
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID:
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:28:04 GMT
In article <1992Sep11.161638.3832@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>I'm glad we're in agreement that Wang should get his just comeuppance; I
>hope we can agree that the employee has something coming too, whether
>prosecution for rights violation(s) or discharge for incompetence.
>-JTT
The only problem I've got with this one is it sends a message to others:
"Even if people are using their account to steal corporate secrets or
consortwith other employers, leave them alone."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
- Douglas Adams
- Patrick Taylor (Arthur Dent)
Ericsson Network Systems
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you"
or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 17:36:17 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:28:18 GMT
In article , jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
|> >>>Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
|> >
[...]
|> >
|> >It isn't a question of whether you have the _time_; the question is, do you
|> >have the _right_?
|> >
|> >Unless it's in the contract, how can the answer be anything but "NO!"?
|> >Why would it be in the contract? Who would sign such a contract?
|> >
|> >-JTT
|> >
|>
|> The ramifications on this particular case will certainly test an
|> individual's right to e-mail privacy vs the company's right to
|> access employee's accounts. The paper did not elaborate on exactly
|> why the staff worker read the e-mail. It appeared the worker, IMHO,
|> was snooping around without just cause. Of course, a company policy
|> could exist that gives them the right to peruse an account. Afterall,
|> Wang held a high office, and there could be some messages that needed to
|> be re-directed to his successor.
I'm sorry, but there seem to be some confusion about the facts in your
original post. Wang worked for Borland International. He had an MCI
Mail account. MCI is the electronic communications service provider.
An *MCI* staff worker was closing the account, not a Borland employee.
At least, that is what I read from your post:
> Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed.
> According to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then
> deleted. All these came to light when a staff worker was closing the
> account and "looked" into Wang's account and was suprised on the
> contents of the messages. This started court orders to search
> offices/residences on both parties.
The MCI worker is part of the service provider and is explicitly exempt
from the prohibitions on reading another person's stored electronic
communications. Unless I seriously misunderstand how MCI Mail works, I
wouldn't think that a Borland employee could close/look into another
person's MCI mail account. If the mail messages were somehow stored on
a Borland system before they were sent out to/through MCI Mail
(although the original post seems to indicate something else), if that
Borland employee's duties are to maintain the mail accounts, then
he/she is still considered to be part of an electronic communications
service provider, because in this case, Borland is also a provider.
Thus, again, according to the ECPA, what the employee apparently did
was legal. It doesn't have to be in any contract. Given the
information we on the net have, I don't really think that we are in a
position to determine (or decide for ourselves) whether what the
person did was illegal or outside his/her "rights".
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 21:16:42 1992
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep11.234228.25430@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:42:28 GMT
joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>>Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed. According
>>to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
>>these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
>>into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages. This
>>started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties.
>>Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>>When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
>>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.
>No, he did *not* have the right (unless a prior contract specified otherwise)
>to view Wang's email. He should be prosecuted, found as guilty as he is,
>and treated as harshly as possible. That said, the evidence that Wang was
>involved in crimes of his own *exists*. It cannot be ignored. Two wrongs
>do not make a right. Wang should also be tried, convicted, and probably
>shot ("if you don't like the consequences of your actions...").
When i was one of the LAN administrators for a medium sized company, we
didn't *have* a policy on such things (though we were agitating to get
the higher ups to *set* one)
What we did when closing a user account was nuke the email, make a quick
pass through their directories and nuke anything that appeared to be personal,
and make a scan for files marked as being owned by them elsewhere.
After cleaning up the "personal" stuff, and nuking "irrelevant" stuff
(like config files for various programs), any remaining files were referred
to their supervisor to see if they were "needed". (ie for their replacement
or as general company data, sday a process spec the person had been writing).
Anything that wasn't "needed" got nuked.
Yes, we read "private" files. But it was our job to cleanup the account,
and better *us* than their supervisor! I frankly couldn't have told you
the next day what had been in 90% of the files that got deleted as
"personal".
In fact as I had occasion to tell users who were worried about the fact that
I could read any file on the LAN "There are something like 4 gigabytes of
files out there. *Thousands* of them. Even if I *wanted* to snoop, there's
too much to go thru!"
--
Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO: 1:105/51 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 22:53:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Screen lock (was Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: New Princeton Policy)
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.024831.8616@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:48:31 GMT
[Note Followups]
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}[A repost - Carl]
}Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
}From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
}Olaf> == Olaf Titz
}
} Princeton> ... You must not lock a workstation or computer
} Princeton> which is in a public facility.
} Olaf> This means: 'If you must go to the restroom you HAVE to leave the
} Olaf> terminal open, so that other users can terminate your session if
} Olaf> they need the machine.' This is IMO simply unacceptable. Other
} Olaf> policies would REQUIRE to lock the terminal to prevent tampering
} Olaf> with your account.
}MIT's Athena workstation policy is that you can lock it for no more than
}20 minutes before someone can feel free to reboot it or otherwise
}"forcibly unlock" it. The "standard" screenlocker has a displayed timer
}of "how long I've been locked".
We considered a similar hack to xlock -- but decided that it would take
about a day for some student to ftp and compile a virgin copy and about
another day for it to find its way to all the usual xlock abusers.
For now, we just tell people to feel free to reboot if the workstation
has been xlocked 15 minutes.
John
--
John Hascall ``Live with it pink-boy!''
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 11 23:11:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Re: books with disks
Message-ID: <920912123943.20e04927@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:39:43 GMT
>From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
>ABOZE@VMA.CC.ND.EDU says:
>> ...
>> 3) This is not strictly related to copyright, but maybe someone can help.
>> Along with the copyright reminder, we want to include a disclaimer with
>> the circulating disks. We do not check the disks for viruses or for
>> damage or changes to any of the files by other users. We want to let
>> borrowers know this, and to state that we will not be held responsible
>> for any damage caused by the use of the disk. My question is: can we
>> be held responsible for anything, even if we disclaim responsibility?
>
>If someone checks out a record or tape and it has been boobietrapped (sp?)
>to damage the person's player, would your library have any liability?
>Are you expected to clean and look-over every record or tape loaned out?
No, but you or any such institution which may "reasonably expect" others to
depend upon/use their services may not act with reckless disregard in
relation to the provision of such services.
>Glenn Tenney AA6ER
Mark N.
Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Articled Clerk & Tutor - Law School, NTU, Darwin NT Australia
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed herein are my own. They do not reflect the views
of my firm nor those of the University. Unless otherwise indicated, the contents
are not a formal legal opinion or advice.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 12 02:12:25 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: mjo@ef2007.efhd.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:43:46 GMT
In article <1992Sep11.234228.25430@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
:In fact as I had occasion to tell users who were worried about the fact that
:I could read any file on the LAN "There are something like 4 gigabytes of
:files out there. *Thousands* of them. Even if I *wanted* to snoop, there's
:too much to go thru!"
This isn't necessarily true, particularly if you want to "target" a
few individuals with well-organized directories.
...Mike
--
Michael J. O'Connor | Internet: mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
Ford Motor Company, OPEO | UUCP: ...!{backbone}!fmsrl7!mjo
20000 Rotunda, Bldg. 1-3001 | Phone: +1 (313) 248-1260
Dearborn, MI 48121 | Fax: +1 (313) 323-6277
From caf-talk Caf Sep 12 04:56:32 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.085340.8603@PacBell.COM>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 08:53:40 GMT
In article jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>In article , jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>|> >>>Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>|> >
>[...]
>|> >
>|> >It isn't a question of whether you have the _time_; the question is, do you
>|> >have the _right_?
>|> >
>|> >Unless it's in the contract, how can the answer be anything but "NO!"?
>|> >Why would it be in the contract? Who would sign such a contract?
>|> >
>|> >-JTT
>|> >
>|>
>|> The ramifications on this particular case will certainly test an
>|> individual's right to e-mail privacy vs the company's right to
>|> access employee's accounts. The paper did not elaborate on exactly
>|> why the staff worker read the e-mail. It appeared the worker, IMHO,
>|> was snooping around without just cause. Of course, a company policy
>|> could exist that gives them the right to peruse an account. Afterall,
>|> Wang held a high office, and there could be some messages that needed to
>|> be re-directed to his successor.
>
>I'm sorry, but there seem to be some confusion about the facts in your
>original post. Wang worked for Borland International. He had an MCI
>Mail account. MCI is the electronic communications service provider.
>An *MCI* staff worker was closing the account, not a Borland employee.
>At least, that is what I read from your post:
>
>> Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed.
>> According to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then
>> deleted. All these came to light when a staff worker was closing the
>> account and "looked" into Wang's account and was suprised on the
>> contents of the messages. This started court orders to search
>> offices/residences on both parties.
>
My apologies. The newspaper article was quite long and I shortened
the article considerably. In doing so, I obvious left off some
vital information for sake of brevity. Based on what I typed, I
can see how you interpreted it incorrectly. I have included a couple
of paragraphs from the newspaper account as follows:
Meanwhile, Borland is pressing civil lawsuit charging that
Eubanks and Symantec encouraged Wang to violate his "duties
of loyalty, honesty and confidentiality" by engaging in
electronic espionage that was discovered after a staff worker
at Borland closed Wang's MCI Mail account Sept. 1, when he announced
his resignation.
"She looked at his account and went crazy", said Heidi
Sinclair, Borland's vice president of communications.
>The MCI worker is part of the service provider and is explicitly exempt
>from the prohibitions on reading another person's stored electronic
>communications. Unless I seriously misunderstand how MCI Mail works, I
>wouldn't think that a Borland employee could close/look into another
>person's MCI mail account. If the mail messages were somehow stored on
>a Borland system before they were sent out to/through MCI Mail
>(although the original post seems to indicate something else), if that
>Borland employee's duties are to maintain the mail accounts, then
>he/she is still considered to be part of an electronic communications
>service provider, because in this case, Borland is also a provider.
>Thus, again, according to the ECPA, what the employee apparently did
>was legal. It doesn't have to be in any contract. Given the
>information we on the net have, I don't really think that we are in a
>position to determine (or decide for ourselves) whether what the
>person did was illegal or outside his/her "rights".
>
>
Well, you certainly know more about the legality aspects of the
laws, etc. However, that is why we have a judicial system and
IMHO, it is an infringement, regardless if the court favors
Borland. I am very interested in the outcome nevertheless and
I still believe this case could have ramifications one way or
another.
Cheers
--
--------- John Gloria - jpglori@sysengr.pacbell.com --------
"I have great faith in fools - self-confidence my
friends call it." Edgar Allan Poe
From caf-talk Caf Sep 12 09:45:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.security.misc] Re: Locking terminals (was Re: New Princeton Policy)
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.134309.27825@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:43:09 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 12 09:45:16 1992
From: rik@nella13.cc.monash.edu.au (Rik Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Locking terminals (was Re: New Princeton Policy)
Message-ID:
Date: 12 Sep 92 07:33:58 GMT
ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>Danny> == Danny McGurl
> Danny> Heck, we hav trouble keeping people from bringing in cokes into
> Danny> some of our clusters (even though we have huge signs). Somehow
> Danny> I think people would laugh at a reguirement to use the system
> Danny> lockscreen :)
>Simple policy fix: ``If the terminal is locked with anything other than
>the "standard" lockscreen, it may be rebooted in order to clear the
>lock.''
There's a similar discussion going on at Monash. Unfortunately the same
``solution'' came up here. The problem with Christopher's method is
that the person who ran the non-standard lockscreen doesn't lose
by this (any more than a ``log out after 15 mins'' approach), but the
people who are remotely logged in do lose. You are punishing the
remote users, just because of one idiot locking the screen the
``wrong'' way.
rik.
--
Rik Harris - rik.harris@fcit.monash.edu.au
+61 3 571-2895 (AH & ans.mach) +61 3 573-2679 (BH)
Faculty of Computing and Information Technology,
Caulfield Campus, Monash University, Australia
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 12 12:55:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.33
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.165508.20903@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:55:08 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n33".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n33
--- begin abstract ---
[Best of June, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. The selection and paraphrases are based on earlier abstracts
by Elizabeth, Paul, Mark, and guest editor Lorrie Ackerman.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-4 are about new computer polices covering everything from
email privacy to the content of newsgroups.
1. This is the text of the "interim e-mail advisory" from University
of Illinois, effectively a new computer privacy policy. "Over the
past year, the campus administration has received a number of
inquiries about access to files maintained on electronic media.
Essentially, the questions focused on the privacy of such
communications and the conditions under which someone may look at
another person's files."
<1992Jun2.011050.15719@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
2. "I have extensively revised and expanded many of the computing
policies that apply to the largest educational network at Rice,
Owlnet." Includes notes on Rice's University Computing Policy,
Owlnet Policies, Owlnet Policies Enforcement Guidelines, Owlnet
Student Advisory Committee Charter, System Administrator Statement
of Ethics, and Owlnet Application Agreement. Also includes access
information for these documents.
<1992Jun27.181753.21585@eff.org>
3. (A system administrator:) The list of newsgroups we cannot carry
includes alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
rec.arts.erotica.
<1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
4. As reported in the University of Toronto _Bulletin_, that
university is not planning to intercept or censor any of the files
available on the Internet that may contain violent pornographic
material.
<1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Notes 5 and 6 are about the law.
5. "A federal judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday the decency
clause the National Endowment for the Arts used in determining who
receives grant money, saying it was too vague and overbroad in
restricting artists' freedom of speech."
<1992Jun10.040756.10831@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
6. "All but one of the six leading candidates for California's 14th
Congressional District have formally committed to protect
traditional constitutional liberties against technological
threats." Several have signed a formal statement to this effect
(names and copy of statement included). This may "be the first time
that major-party congressional candidates have ever committed to
explicit action to protect technology-related civil liberties."
Notes 7-10 are about offensive, harassing, and anonymous computer
communications.
7. The "Standard Manager's Reply" (Revision A), to be sent to users
complaining about the content of the e-mail or newsgroup posting of
a subscriber to the manager's system, espouses the delights of
freedom of expression, clear thinking, and kill files.
<6980@public.BTR.COM>
8. Comments on and criticisms of the "Standard Manager's Reply".
9. Harassment is intentional, unwanted person-to-person communication
by any channel. Explicitly tell the harasser to stop communicating
with you. Save copies of all communications. If the harassment
continues, contact a system administrator, university official or
the courts.
<1992Jun11.180712.21660@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
10. Many students are afraid to ask questions for fear of looking
foolish, either in the eyes of their peers or their instructors.
Some means of posting anonymously is a good thing, but completely
anonymous accounts are not. Anonymous mail is hard to reply to, but
anonymous postings to a news group can work. With Plato/NOVANET,
the University of Illinois has had long experience with large scale
newsgroups, and has sound policies on anonymity that we could learn
from.
<12951@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 12 13:00:05 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.125558.8707@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:55:58 GMT
In article jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>
>The MCI worker is part of the service provider and is explicitly exempt
>from the prohibitions on reading another person's stored electronic
>communications.
I was under the impression that these prohibitions were only subject
to exemption *in the performance of one's official duties*. The most
common example of this "performance-based" exemption is the well-known
fact that the phone company may 'listen' to a conversation if they are
checking line quality. Another example, also based in the telephone
industry, is the fact that a PhoneCo Customer Service person may listen
in on your conversation with an operator (to evaluate the quality of
service rendered by said operator).
If there is some account removal procedure that requires the examination
of electronic mail for a *personal* account, I'd like to hear more about
it!
If Borland was paying for the MCI Mail account, I could understand a
review of the electronic mail BY BORLAND; that would be a matter of
corporate policy for Borland.
I cannot envision a situation in which the "common carrier", MCI, would
have the need or the contractual right to read its customers' email.
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Sep 12 13:02:02 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: bogstad@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping (VERY LONG)
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.165743.7720@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:57:43 GMT
In article jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>I'm sorry, but there seem to be some confusion about the facts in your
>original post. Wang worked for Borland International. He had an MCI
>Mail account. MCI is the electronic communications service provider.
>An *MCI* staff worker was closing the account, not a Borland employee.
>...
This still isn't clear to me. Was it a Borland employee or an
MCI employee.
>The MCI worker is part of the service provider and is explicitly exempt
>from the prohibitions on reading another person's stored electronic
>communications. Unless I seriously misunderstand how MCI Mail works, I
>wouldn't think that a Borland employee could close/look into another
>person's MCI mail account. If the mail messages were somehow stored on
>a Borland system before they were sent out to/through MCI Mail
>(although the original post seems to indicate something else), if that
>Borland employee's duties are to maintain the mail accounts, then
>he/she is still considered to be part of an electronic communications
>service provider, because in this case, Borland is also a provider.
>Thus, again, according to the ECPA, what the employee apparently did
>was legal.
Actually, it might not be. If the employee involved was not part of
the "provider" then we either have someone illegally breaking into someone
else account OR the account was owned by Borland in which case they can
decide who gets access to it. (Actually, this might bring up an analogy
with the idea of wiretaping employees phones. Doesn't sound ethical
to me, but it might be legal...) On the other hand, the employee might
be part of a service provider: MCI (or Borland if they did some of the work).
In this case, the employee is permitted some access, but I don't think they
are allowed to go on snooping expeditions. Relevant sections from the
law after the ECPA of 1986 was enacted might be:
[My comments are at end or in brackets like this]
Title 18
Chapter 119 Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception
of Oral Communications
Sections 2511 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic
communications prohibited.
...
(2) (a) (i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a
switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or
electronic cummunication service, whose facilities are used in the
transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that
communication in the normal course of his employement while engaged in any
activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to
the proteciton of the rights or property of the provider of that srvice,
except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not
utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or
service quality control checks.
[Note "necessary incident". Was it necessary?]
[or this may be the relevation section]
Chapter 121 Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transational
Records Access
Sections 2702. Disclosure of contents
(a) Prohibitions. -- Except as provide in subsection (b) --
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the
public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a
communication while in electornic storage by that srvice; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing servie to the public shall
not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any
communication which is carried or maintained on that service --
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission
from (or created by means of computer processing of communications
received by means of electrnoic transmission from), a subscriber or
customer of such service;
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer
processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider
is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications
for purpose of providing any service other than storage or computer
processing.
(b) Exceptions.-- A person or entity may divulge the contents of a
communication --
(1) to the addresses or intended recipient of such communication or
an agent of such adddressee or intended recipient;
(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2516, 2511 (2) (a), or 2703
of this title;
[Note: 2516 and 2703 talk about warrants, 2511 is excerpted above.]
(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee or
intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in the
case of a remote computing service;
(4) to a person employed or authrized or whose facilities are used to forward such communication to its destination;
(5) as may be necessary incident to the rendition of the service or
to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that
service; or
(6) to a law enforcement agency, if such contents --
(A) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and
[inadvertent?????]
(B) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime.
[How did messages appear to pertain to commission of a crime? Would have to
see them to know. Just who did this employee tell, it doesn't appear like
they were authorized to go to Borland at all even if they know that a crime
was being committed against them. They would have to go to the authorities
first.]
COMMENTS
Employees of service providers are definitely protected if they
access messages as part of their normal duties. That brings up the question
of whether it is necessary as part of someones duties to read messages left
in someones account before it is deleted. If that is in fact normal
procedure at MCI Mail, I would think that customers would like to know about
it and might be upset. It's not clear what the penalties are for improper
disclosure by an employee as they are not directly listed. The previous
section (not shown above) includes fines of $5000 and imprisonment up to 6
months for unlawful access if no commercial advantage occurs (much worse if
commercial advantage occurs), but says that conduct authorized by a provider
is excepted. Very confusing. Oh, another thing I found interesting was
there is a prohibiton of use in evidence of improperly intercepted wire or
oral communications, but electronic (computer) communications are not
mentioned in that section. It would seem from my laymens reading that
although it might be illegal for an MCI employee to deliberately look for
incriminating mail if they found any it could still be used in court.
Particularily if you look at the last exception (6) above... Anyone really
interested in these issues should probably obtain copies of the relevant
section of law and consult a lawyer who specializes in this area for
anything important.
Bill Bogstad
From caf-talk Caf Sep 12 13:10:46 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.171040.21307@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:10:40 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>The most
>common example of this "performance-based" exemption is the well-known
>fact that the phone company may 'listen' to a conversation if they are
>checking line quality.
An aside: I'm told that the phone company line checker now usually
"scrambles" conversations so that they are not understandable.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 12 14:50:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,soc.college,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: U. of Wisconsin drops hate speech rule
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.184950.15125@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:49:50 GMT
According to a story in the Sept. 12, 1992 Chicago Tribune (p. 4 of
the Final Midwest Editon):
'The University of Wisconsin's board of regents on Friday repealled a
"hate speech" rule that banned discriminatory language directed at
individuals on campus. The regents voted 10-6 to repeal the rule,
adopted after an earlier policy was determined unconstitutional by a
federal judge.'
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 12 23:57:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mjm@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Mike McBain)
Subject: Re: Continued Decline of Western Civilization -- Canadian Style
Message-ID: <1992Sep13.020931.14472@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:09:31 GMT
In article <1992Sep11.111649.16508@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>, tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis) writes:
> Kevin Andrew Buhr (buhr@umanitoba.ca) writes:
> > [Some stuff about a Rev. James's letter to the Winnipeg Free Press
> > concerning "adult" video stores and a "serial killer/dead babies"
> > game.]
>
> [Buhr attacks Wallis on `elitist recondite anti-sophistic sophistry',
> whatever that is]
>
> I don't expect lapidary logic from your typical theological graduate,
> but, in my fairly extensive experience of them, they do a damn good
> job in attempting to counterbalance the moral rot in our society.
> And I'm not just talking about sex and violence.
>
I'm not sure whether Kevin meant to have a smiley in there somewhere,
but the original clear thinking exercise from Tony Wallis seemed an
excellent analysis of the ravings of yet another weirdo fundamentalist
`Christian', and an apposite portrayal of the kind of demagoguery
so often seen by those who claim some kind of moral superiority over
the rest of us. Sex shops and video stores exist all over the world.
So do brothels, rock music venues and amusement parlours. They are
frequently attacked by conservative religious and attendant laymen
as indicating the end of the world or the final stages of Civilisation
As We Know It (TM). These weirdos have their successes, but there is
no improvement in the crime rate or suicide rate just because every
video store in town was closed down or can't sell X-rated videos.
Here in Victoria (Australia), it's illegal to sell X-rated videos. But
it isn't illegal in the Australian Capital Territory. So people who
really want hard-core can still get it; it just isn't quite so easy.
Previously, if I wanted to sit down and watch stick flicks with my
wife, I could walk into the local store and hire one for the evening;
now I'd have to premeditate and mail order. Is that a big win for
the community? I don't think so, and I'm not particularly interested
in watching X-rated videos anyway.
The subject of links between morality and {X-rated videos, heavy metal
music, comic books, New Age religions, sex education) gets thrashed
in newsgroups and mass media time and again. It starts to become boring,
particularly since the religious types BELIEVE (i.e. have faith) in the
sanctity and purity of their case, in spite of any evidence to the contrary.
Sheesh. The only reason these guys get their letters published is
because they are so obviously provocative (not to mention bigoted).
Tony was just pointing out (in a really nice amusing way) that the
reality is nothing like the one Mr James would have us believe in.
If you don't believe me, go talk to your imam.
--
---
Mike McBain David Syme Faculty of Business
mjm@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au Monash University - Caulfield
+61 3 573 2646 Australia 3145
From caf-talk Caf Sep 13 19:00:43 1992
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID:
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:28:19 GMT
In article <1992Sep11.234228.25430@qiclab.scn.rain.com> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:
>From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
>Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
>Date: 11 Sep 92 23:42:28 GMT
>joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>>jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>>>Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed. According
>>>to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
>>>these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
>>>into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages. This
>>>started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties.
>>>Question: did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>>>When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
>>>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.
>>No, he did *not* have the right (unless a prior contract specified otherwise)
>>to view Wang's email. He should be prosecuted, found as guilty as he is,
>>and treated as harshly as possible. That said, the evidence that Wang was
>>involved in crimes of his own *exists*. It cannot be ignored. Two wrongs
>>do not make a right. Wang should also be tried, convicted, and probably
>>shot ("if you don't like the consequences of your actions...").
>When i was one of the LAN administrators for a medium sized company, we
>didn't *have* a policy on such things (though we were agitating to get
>the higher ups to *set* one)
>What we did when closing a user account was nuke the email, make a quick
>pass through their directories and nuke anything that appeared to be personal,
>and make a scan for files marked as being owned by them elsewhere.
>After cleaning up the "personal" stuff, and nuking "irrelevant" stuff
>(like config files for various programs), any remaining files were referred
>to their supervisor to see if they were "needed". (ie for their replacement
>or as general company data, sday a process spec the person had been writing).
>Anything that wasn't "needed" got nuked.
>Yes, we read "private" files. But it was our job to cleanup the account,
>and better *us* than their supervisor! I frankly couldn't have told you
>the next day what had been in 90% of the files that got deleted as
>"personal".
>In fact as I had occasion to tell users who were worried about the fact that
>I could read any file on the LAN "There are something like 4 gigabytes of
>files out there. *Thousands* of them. Even if I *wanted* to snoop, there's
>too much to go thru!"
There's another point here - there are more appropriate places for "private"
stuff than company property, or company-paid accounts. IMHO, if you want
something to be private, encrypt it, or keep it in a private place.
IOW, leave your resumes at home ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
- Douglas Adams
- Patrick Taylor (Arthur Dent)
Ericsson Network Systems
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you"
or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From caf-talk Caf Sep 13 20:06:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep14.000118.3626@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:01:18 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 13 20:06:20 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: ctwilson@rock.concert.net (Charles T Wilson -- Personal Account)
Subject: Re: New Princeton Policy
Message-ID: <1992Sep13.033137.16339@rock.concert.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:31:37 GMT
At the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, screen locking is
not a problem because of watchdog, a program that logs out inactive
accounts, locked screen or not. During long file transfers you are
placed in an exception file that cannot be altered by hand....
ie, if someone tries to put themselves in the file, they don't get
the 'benefits'. During my stay there this seemed like an effective
compromise. If you wanted a dawg program for yourself, a fairly
simple way to implement it is to stat your tty for activity. I haven't
tried this on xterms, but it ought to work.
Tom Wilson
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 13 20:44:17 1992
Newsgroups: mi.misc,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: Wayne State University's Bad Behavior Continues Unabated....
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 13:24:00 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Sep13.132400.29450@tygra.Michigan.COM>
In article <1992Sep10.202355.17374@cs.wayne.edu> delledg@jake.cc.wayne.edu (De Vaughn Elledge) writes:
"
"Wes, You took the words staight out of my mouth. If you abuse a
"priviledge and it is taken away by *due process* you almost have to
"expect a miracle to get them back. Assuming that the event was handled
"by the due process umbrella. According to the WSU department that
"handled the case (SECURITY OFFICE) the user had to be really screwing up
"and didn't take their warnings seriously.
"
There was never any due process in the case at all. The student in
question had her academic performance hurt by her lack of access to
the facilities. Again, like I said: There was no due process nor is
there a policy in place for any kind of due process. The C&IT has
been making excuses for years regarding this one. (The case goes
back about 9 years).
From caf-talk Caf Sep 13 22:44:41 1992
Newsgroups: mi.misc,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: delledg@jake.cc.wayne.edu (De Vaughn Elledge)
Subject: Re: Wayne State University's Bad Behavior Continues Unabated....
Message-ID: <1992Sep14.023710.21805@cs.wayne.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:37:10 GMT
In article <1992Sep13.132400.29450@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.202355.17374@cs.wayne.edu> delledg@jake.cc.wayne.edu (De Vaughn Elledge) writes:
>"
>"Wes, You took the words staight out of my mouth. If you abuse a
>"priviledge and it is taken away by *due process* you almost have to
>"expect a miracle to get them back. Assuming that the event was handled
>"by the due process umbrella. According to the WSU department that
>"handled the case (SECURITY OFFICE) the user had to be really screwing up
>"and didn't take their warnings seriously.
>"
>
>There was never any due process in the case at all. The student in
>question had her academic performance hurt by her lack of access to
>the facilities. Again, like I said: There was no due process nor is
>there a policy in place for any kind of due process. The C&IT has
>been making excuses for years regarding this one. (The case goes
>back about 9 years).
Don't lie John.....we both know there was due process.
================================================================================
= De Vaughn A. Elledge ** ================================================
= ** DON'T STEAL
= DELLEDG @ WAYNEST1 ** The Government Hates Competition!!!!
= DELLEDG @ JAKE.CC.WAYNE.EDU** ================================================
= DELLEDG @ UTS.CC.WAYNE.EDU ** Detroit Rockers: 1991 NPSL CHAMPIONS!!!!
= Wayne State University ** Detroit Lions: 1991 Cntrl. Div. Champs
= Detroit, MI ** Go Pistons, Redwings, Tigers, Turbos!!!!
============================ ** Go Tartars, Wolverines, Drive!!!
================================================================================
From caf-talk Caf Sep 13 23:29:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Anybody else in trouble w/ FCC?
Message-ID: <1992Sep14.032943.5331@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:29:43 GMT
[A reply to an article on alt.censorship - Carl]
jara0040@nova.gmi.edu (jaramillo jamison) writes:
> So the punks at the FCC caught me importing porno gif's on my
>school's network [...]
I find it very hard to believe that the FCC has any interest in your
communications on your school's network.
I find it more likely that your note is a prank. If am wrong, I'll apologize.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
