From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 03:03:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: gdsimpso@unix.amherst.edu (GILBERTO DANIEL SIMPSON)
Subject: Latino E-Mailing List
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:37:37 GMT
Hola Folks,
Me llamo Gilberto y soy el co-chair de La Causa, el grupo Latino de
Amherst College. I am writing to tell people about a computer mailing list
which was started last semester to try to foster communication between Latino
students (as well as other interested people) across the country. The list has
been relatively successful and has over a hundred subscribers around the world.
People have used it to share information about social/academic events
held on college campuses, scholarship and research opportunities for Latino/
Hispanic students, and current events connected to Latinos, both in the United
States and in Latin America.
The intended focus is on issues of concern to Latino students, but
anyone's input or participation is welcome. The membership is diverse and
includes people of many different nationalities and occupations. Several members
have connections with other Latino organizations and computer networks and so
this list can give its membership access to a wide range of quick, reliable
information.
If the list continues to grow, it has the potential to create a large
network of students accross the country and facilitate the progress of la raza.
Its strenth depends on an increasing membership who can take advantage of the
possibilities of electronic communication.
If you are interested in becoming a subscriber to this e-mailing list,
or if you have comments for thelist administrator, all you have to do is send
a note to the following address:
LATINO-L-REQUEST@AMHERST.EDU
and say that you want to join.
While you are subscribed, if you want to send a message to the entire
membership of the list (like a piece of interesting news, a question you might
have, an announcement that might benefit Latino students etc.) then write to:
LATINO-L@AMHERST.EDU
In case you are not interested, please forward this file to someone who
you think might want to participate; in that way, you can at least help the list
grow and develop.
Hasta Pronto
-Gilberto
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 09:23:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.turkish, et al.] Re: Herbert violating US Constitution: suppressing the voice of truth.
Message-ID: <1992Sep14.130948.21862@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:09:48 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 09:23:16 1992
From: sera@zuma.UUCP (Serdar Argic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,soc.history,news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Herbert violating US Constitution: suppressing the voice of truth.
Message-ID: <9209131840@zuma.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 18:40:56 EDT
In article <18pjjiINNq81@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>way to discourage reply mail arrived in my lap today when Ahmet Cosar,
>system administrator of anatolius.michigan.com (aka. anatolius.mn.org
>and uunet!anatolius, apparently) threatened to take legal action
>against me for my suggestion that the right way to deal with the
>Mutlu-style postings was for anyone who was offended to email
>the offensive or inappropriate posting back to the sender along
>with a complaint about it. This is being taken care of off Usenet.
All in all you are just another fascist in the revisionism wall.
Well, anyway, the British first subjected the Armenians to intense
propaganda and then directed them to attack Turkish targets.
The pressing reason for this policy was to enable them to take
Eastern Anatolia and Caucasia without transgressing the conditions
of the Mondros Armistice. It is on the record that the British said
to local Armenians,
'You kill the Muslims and we will supply you with arms and ammunition.'[1]
Armenian volunteers concentrated at the Turkish border in Caucasia,[2]
and then attacked Van,[3] Bitlis,[4] Nakhichevan,[4] Beyazit,[5] and
Kars and Erzurum.[6] The Commander for the 15th Army Corps wrote that
Armenian units had attacked many Turkish villages with artillery and
machine guns, that the local people's goods and animals had been usurped,
that young women had been taken away, the women and children had been
tortured to death in the mountains, that these attacks on the properties,
lives and honor of the Muslims were still being perpetrated.[7]
[1] BBA, Meclis-i Vukela Mazbatalari, 212/404, 6 October 1904-1919.
[2] BBA, Dahiliye Nezareti: Sifre Kalemi: 20.vi.1919, 86/53/40.59.
[3] BBA, Dahiliye Nezareti: Kalem-i Mahsus, November 1335 (1919), document
no. 8339/98.
[4] BBA, Dahiliye Nezareti: Kalem-i Mahsus, 28.viii.1919. cipher no. 7620.
[5] Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu (Ankara, 1983), p. 370.
[6] Ibid., p. 371.
[7] For information on the Armenian genocide of the Muslims: Islam Ahalinin
Ducar Olduklari Mezalim Hakkinda Vesaike Mustenid Malumat, 1919.
It is also on the record that Armenians were often given British
uniforms and that in most cases those Armenians who knew English
were made officers. Kazim Karabekir Pasha complained about these
practices to Lieutenant-Colonel Rawlinson who came to Anatolia to
demobilize the Turkish army but became its hostage after the Turkish
national struggle for independence began. Although Rawlinson at
first did not want to believe the Turkish genocide, at the end
he could not help talking about the Armenian genocide of 2.5 million
Muslims in his memoirs. Kazim Karabekir appealed in desperation
to him to stop the genocide against the Muslim Turkish people.
This appeal by Kazim Karabekir was left unanswered.
Serdar Argic
'This war quickly developed into one of extermination.
We closed the roads and mountain passes that might
serve as ways of escape for the Tartars [Turks] and
then proceeded in the work of extermination.'
(Ohanus Appressian)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 09:28:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Wanna See Something Really Scary?
Message-ID: <1992Sep14.132954.270@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:29:54 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 09:28:42 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: farbrent!ajr3@ms.uky.edu
Subject: Wanna See Something Really Scary?
Message-ID: <9209140744.AA00451@_farbrent_>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 07:44:18 GMT
Recently accounts on the WELL and Portal were cracked and used to
post some offensive, inflammatory, racially motivated statements to
a large and diverse list of newsgroups. (ie, flamebait) The ensuing
flame war lasted about a week and pretty much ended with apologies
and explanations from the folks at Portal and the WELL along with
their actions to prevent further access to the offending accounts.
Just as it was dying of natural causes, however, the article attached
below was posted. For me, it was like watching some awful car wreck
in slow motion. For me,the implications of Congressional interest in
the net and the possibility of Steve Jackson Games like investigative
techniques being applied to all of the machines involved are
staggering.
I thought I'd pass it along for your opinions.
j.
=====================================================================
From: farbrent!ajr3
Subject: UPDATE: F*** You All UPDATE!
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:08:50 GMT
Over the last week, our boards have been attacked
by messages from two "anonymous" people a/k/a Jeff Spandenberg
and Hugo Gonzalez. The racist and divisive statements
contained in their forged messages created a wave of anger and
emotion that echoed throughout the Internet.
There are some investigators who believe these postings
were not the results of pranks or impromptu behavior,
but rather a highly-organized conspiracy to disrupt the community.
Further, there is belief that these acts were conducted
to agitate the "silent majority"
(i.e., the perpetrators believe those who remained silent
were in agreement).
Their bigotry was designed to degrade and humiliate minorities,
with a calculated attempt to pit Jewish, Hispanic and Black persons
against one another (consider the racially identifying names
of Spandenberg, Gonzalez and Jackson).
Perhaps these experts are wrong.
But the actions of these people who hide behind the names of others,
like those who hide their faces behind hoods,
is clearly unlawful and must not be repeated.
The proper authorities must complete a full and proper
investigation to identify the individuals involved
and take appropriate action against them.
They have violated numerous Federal regulations and laws,
including fraudulent use of the Internet and forgery (for starters).
I ask each and every one of you that is an American
to join me in demanding the FBI, FCC and other investigative units
continue their efforts in this regard
and better safeguard us from similar such events.
The guilty persons can be identified and must be brought to justice.
Prosecution of the parties involved is the best way
to maintain the future integrity of the Internet.
Our network is not the "anonymous" entity that some
would have you believe. There are many traceable avenues.
I have written my United States Senators to make them aware of the
violations that have taken place and made demand upon them to contact
the FBI with their expressed concern.
In the lines that follow is a portion of my letter.
Feel free to clip this letter or compose your own.
In closing, let me say that one voice makes a difference.
Consider the single message of anonymous a/k/a Jeff Spandenberg.
Your voice can speak as loudly as his.
-Latanya
sweeney@husc3.harvard.edu
==================================
Dear Senator,
This letter is to advise you of the violations that have taken place
on the Internet (an international computer network for academic,
research and government institutions). Messages posted from within
the United States are in direct violation of a variety of Federal
laws and regulations, beginning with the FCC regulations regarding
the use of profanity, and extending through total disregard to the
Civil Rights Amendment. Further, the forged messages were designed
to inflame and incite specific minorities. The flood of responses
that followed these outrageous messages wasted an estimated
thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds and rendered many boards on
the Internet inoperable.
I respectfully demand a complete FBI investigation to identify the
individuals involved and to take appropriate action against the
guilty parties. The integrity of the Internet must be maintained; it
must not be used as a weapon in the committment of hate crimes. This
letter was sent by certified mail, return receipt, to insure its
delivery. Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter.
Yours truly,
=====================================================================
Sender: farbrent!ajr3
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 11:55:36 1992
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Message-ID: <1992Sep14.145511.11374@dcatlas.dot.gov>
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:55:11 GMT
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>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."
No. It means that you leave them alone without what the shysters call
"probable cause". Remember too that a man is innocent until proven
guilty. Having violated the rights of others, the guilty lose their own
rights (unless you take politicians seriously); then it would be acceptable
to go into their email [to check for evidence of additional crimes].
In the case above, there's no satisfactory explanation of how deleting a
mail account necessitated reading any remaining messages. If the employee
meant to save them in a file in case they were requested by the account
holder, but hit "Print" instead, and then _read_ what came out, he screwed
up in one or both ways I mentioned.
-JTT
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 13:11:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: Inquiry: Ethics and Staff Responsibility Statements
Message-ID: <1992Sep14.171105.9705@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:11:05 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 13:11:12 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.ethics-l
From: richard@RAVEL.UDEL.EDU (Richard E. Gordon)
Subject: Re: Inquiry: Ethics and Staff Responsibility Statements
Message-ID: <199209141430.AA07401@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:09:59 GMT
You can snag copies of our Policy for Responsible Computing (FINALLY
approved this past May) via anonymous ftp at zebra.cns.udel.edu. We also
have a copy of the draft guidelines (still the March copy of that
document--May draft still in negotiations internally) for Units
implementing the policy. It includes language that make clear the point
that sysadmins are ordinarily governed by the same policy as users and
contains a section about weighing the consequences of one's actions.
filenames on zebra.cns.udel.edu:
/pub/udel.policy (approved, in place policy)
/pub/udel.guidelines_draft (draft guidelines)
Best,
Richard
Richard Gordon richard@brahms.udel.edu
CNS User Services, Smith Hall or gordon@udel.edu
University of Delaware or acs02244@udelvm.bitnet
Newark, DE 19716 USA (302-831-1717)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 16:06:04 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark Komarinski)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:46:31 GMT
jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>In article , jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) 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.
>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".
But is it legal to have a sysadmin read user's email? NO! At least it
shouldn't be. Even though MCI was carrying the mail, they should have
no right to read user's messages. Then again, if he didn't want anyone
to read his messages, he should have deleted them before closing his
account. This may be a very interesting case.
One other thing. I'm just responding to the above comments and therefore
don't know the whole case. Could some kind soul send me the original
article? Thanks.
-Mark
--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
[MIME mail welcome]
"You can do anything you want until someone complains. Then you're screwed."
-Heard in reference to the FCC.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 17:11:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Need updates for "Banned Computer Material 1992"
Message-ID: <1992Sep14.211109.14171@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:11:09 GMT
Banned Book Week is coming soon and I'd like create a second "Banned
Computer Material" list. Part of that list will be updates from last
year's list. If you can update me on the following incidents (at
Boston U., U of Toledo, Western Washington U. U. of Washington, Iowa
State U. (2), Penn State, U. of Texas, James Madison U.) please post
or send me email.
- Carl
====== excerpts from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/banned.1991 ====
Computer files at Boston University that anyone finds offensive or
annoying -- The rules at Boston University prohibit a computer user
from "making accessible offensive [or] annoying ... material".
(cafv01n10)
The alt.sex newsgroup at the University of Toledo
More than a dozen newsgroups, including alt.sex, at Western Washington
University -- They were removed from Western Washington University on
the order of one person, the Vice Provost for "information and
communication". Alt.sex remains at the University of Washington, but
other newsgroups were removed right before a negative article was
printed in the Seattle _Post_Intelligencer_. (cafv01n33, cafv01n36,
cafv01n35, cafv01n41)
Rude articles at Iowa State University -- On-line rudeness is
prohibited at Iowa State. A student was reprimanded for posting a rude
article to the net. (This policy may be under revision). (cafv01n38)
The alt.sex.* hierarchy on PSUVM, Penn State's main general purpose
computer -- (cafv01n34)
Email or Netnews articles that "bring discredit to the University [of
Texas] or the [Computer Science] Department." (cafv01n37)
Offensive messages at the University of Newcastle -- (cafv01n39)
Email containing offensive material at James Madison University -- (cafv01n39)
Most on-line discussion of sex and drugs at Iowa State University --
Iowa State University labels all newsgroup as either "limited list",
"standard list", or "full list". This labeling is based on the name
and description of each newsgroup and not on its actual content. The
standard list excludes most discussion of sex and drugs. The plan is
that ,starting January 6, 1991, users on public access machines will
be restricted to the standard list. (See recent
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk articles.)
======================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/banned.1991
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom banned.1991
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 17:49:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: jamesh@netcom.com (James Hightower)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Wanna See Something Really Scary?
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:27:17 GMT
>From: farbrent!ajr3
>Subject: UPDATE: F*** You All UPDATE!
>Date: 14 Sep 92 02:08:50 GMT
>Over the last week, our boards have been attacked
>by messages from two "anonymous" people a/k/a Jeff Spandenberg
>and Hugo Gonzalez. The racist and divisive statements
>contained in their forged messages created a wave of anger and
>emotion that echoed throughout the Internet.
>There are some investigators who believe these postings
>were not the results of pranks or impromptu behavior,
>but rather a highly-organized conspiracy to disrupt the community.
> [request for guv'mnt intervention deleted]
Sure it's a conspiracy. Gonzalez and co. are here to provide a reason for
the government to step in and regulate the net. Perhaps unknowingly,
sweeney@husc3.harvard.edu is a part of the plan. Expect to see an attempted
regulation of the net soonly.
-- JJH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Hightower jamesh@netcom.COM ...Don't try this at home!
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 18:34:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: Continued Decline of Western Civilization -- Canadian Style
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:09:46 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.]
I'm not sure what you are driving, Mr. Buhr, with your academic-
elitist recondite anti-sophistic sophistry. Cut the crap.
.
.
.
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.
Please, call me Kevin.
Kevin Buhr
From caf-talk Caf Sep 14 20:42:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Need *NEW* material for "Banned Computer Material 1992"
Message-ID: <1992Sep15.004223.17294@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:42:23 GMT
Please help me create a 1992 Banned Computer Material List.
Looking through the CAF-News Abstract I found incidents (bans or
challenges) at these places:
US: Iowa State, U of Nebraska at L, Ball State University, Carnegie
Mellon U., U Wyoming, North Dakota, U. of Southern California, Boston
University, Virginia PEN, Virginia Tech, Princeton, Williams
College, Berkeley
Canada: U of Manitoba, U of Toronoto, Wilfrid Laurier University
Europe: United Kingtom, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Turkey
If you are familiar these incidents, please review the enclosed
paraphrases and see if they cover the incident(s). (The paraphrases
will be the basis for descriptions in the Banned List.)
Also, if you know of incidents that I've missed, please send me email.
(I know I'm missing some of Canadian schools.)
If don't know of any incidents, you will be able to read-all-about-it
soon when the new Banned list is finished.
- Carl
+ United States
++ Iowa State
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May6.033143.16713@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Notes 2-3 discuss the events at Iowa State University in which the
Usenet group rec.arts.erotica was banned and in which a student's
computer access was revoked after he redistributed articles from that
group - there is, however, a happy ending to the story.
2. "When Iowa State University restricted alt.sex it violated the
principles of academic freedom. When it punished a student for
exercising his Constitutional right to free expression in a University
forum and imposed that punishment summarily in violation of that
student's Constitutional right to due process, it violated the law."
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May8.064304.8364@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Notes 2-3 discuss the events at Iowa State University in which the
Usenet group rec.arts.erotica was banned and in which a student's
computer access was revoked after he redistributed articles from that
group - there is, however, a happy ending to the story.
3. From the student who had his account closed: "I have my account
back."
=================
news/cafv02n23: Message-Id: <1992Apr2.174625.23219@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.23
Notes 4-5 are about computer policy at the University of Illinois
and at Iowa State University.
5. "The due process protection of the policy is good. The privacy
protection is unclear. Free expression protection is poor. (The policy
imposes speech restrictions on email and other computer media.
Specifically, it prohibits rude expression and any expression of a
political nature. In my opinion, these speech restrictions violate
academic freedom and the law.)"
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Notes 1-4 discuss newsgroup removals rationalized by creative
interpretations of law. Sites around the world have found this an
effective way to ban almost any topic, for example, war, drugs, gay
rights, crime, rape, abortion, and sex (including recovery from sexual
abuse and United Press International stories mentioning sex).
3. This is a parody of the Iowa State University policy that bans
discussions of sex (and previously drugs). It shows what the policy
might say if it were honest. It starts "We, a handful of individuals
in the Iowa State University Computation Center, have imposed a policy
on the distribution of Usenet newsgroups. ... The purpose of this
statement is to provide an after-the-fact justification of a decision
that we made without looking at the academic freedom issues."
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Note 10 discusses the history of altnet, the set of "alt" groups.
10. Contrary to the 'history' given in the Iowa State University
policy, the alt groups were not created by a 'collective group of
Usenet "news administrators"' as a place for dangerous topics. In
fact, the alt groups were created to fight the suppression of the
collective group.
=================
news/cafv02n08: Message-Id: <1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.08
Notes 4-5 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit
access to netnews.
4. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive
the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives. The head of
the department where the machines are located can request that the
machines have access to the omitted groups. Students and staff are
attempting to change the policy.
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Note 4-5 discuss Iowa State University's and the University of Nebraska
at Lincoln's rationalizations for censorship.
4. In reply to a previous assertion that "Iowa State and U. of
Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention as reason to
censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
university, state, or federal regulations for their actions." ISU
admins have cited Chapter 728, [Iowa's Obscenity Law] though it
exempts libraries and educational institutions.
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May8.064304.8364@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Notes 2-3 discuss the events at Iowa State University in which the
Usenet group rec.arts.erotica was banned and in which a student's
computer access was revoked after he redistributed articles from that
group - there is, however, a happy ending to the story.
3. From the student who had his account closed: "I have my account
back."
++ U of Nebraska at L
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May5.005813.281@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Note 4-5 discuss Iowa State University's and the University of Nebraska
at Lincoln's rationalizations for censorship.
5. UNL has said that had they continued to supply the "pornographic"
alt. hierarchy and someone had complained to the federal government,
UNL would have been required to prove that the groups met the criteria
of the NSFNET backbone service's acceptable use policy, or risk losing
NSFNET access. This is based on a misunderstanding of the NSFNET's
powers and of their policies.
=================
news/cafv02n23: Message-Id:
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.23
Notes 1-3 are about Netnews removals at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln and in Germany.
1. [A UNL user:] On March 2nd, the alt groups were eliminated by UNL's
Computing Resource Center (CRC). Although the reason given was lack
of resources, the content of the groups played a major part. The
chairman of the UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and
Facilities Committee felt in hindsight that the committee did not have
all the facts when they recommended a limited set of news feeds. On
April 6th the UNL Academic Senate Executive Committee voted to request
restoration of the majority of the alt.* groups.
=================
news/cafv02n23: Message-Id: <9205040334.AA04565@cse.unl.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.23
Notes 1-3 are about Netnews removals at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln and in Germany.
2. [_The Daily Nebraskan_:] "Pornography was a factor in the UNL
Computing Resource Center's decision to stop supplying and entire
hierarchy of USENET news groups to UNL computers, the CRC director
said Thursday."
=================
news/cafv02n23: Message-Id: <1992Apr1.192701.28737@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.23
Note 6 is the Nebraska University Students for Electronic Freedom.
6. This is the Statement of Purpose from the Nebraska University
Students for Electronic Freedom. The group promotes academic freedom,
works to protect privacy, acts as "watch dog" group for university
administration, educates the user community, and strives to broaden
access to electronic communication systems.
=================
news/cafv02n22: Message-Id: <9203212232.AA24018@cse.unl.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.22
Notes 1-3 are about the U. of Nebraska at Lincoln's ban of
all alt.* newsgroups.
1. For anyone who has been following the alt.* controversy at UNL,
the following article appeared on page one of _The Daily Nebraskan_,
the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, on
Tuesday, March 7, 1992. _UNL loses `alt' computer files_ by Mike
Lewis staff reporter. Used with permission of the Daily Nebraskan.
=================
news/cafv02n22: Message-Id: <1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.22
Notes 1-3 are about the U. of Nebraska at Lincoln's ban of
all alt.* newsgroups.
2. [A UNL alum:] "The reasons given for the decision are so
transparent as to be internationally embarrassing to the University."
"There may be newsgroups that you wish not to take. If that is the
case, be honest about it." "If you are in need of additional
resources, they should be requested [...]"
=================
news/cafv02n23: Message-Id:
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.23
Notes 1-3 are about Netnews removals at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln and in Germany.
1. [A UNL user:] On March 2nd, the alt groups were eliminated by UNL's
Computing Resource Center (CRC). Although the reason given was lack
of resources, the content of the groups played a major part. The
chairman of the UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and
Facilities Committee felt in hindsight that the committee did not have
all the facts when they recommended a limited set of news feeds. On
April 6th the UNL Academic Senate Executive Committee voted to request
restoration of the majority of the alt.* groups.
=================
news/cafv02n23: Message-Id: <1992Apr1.192701.28737@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.23
Note 6 is the Nebraska University Students for Electronic Freedom.
6. This is the Statement of Purpose from the Nebraska University
Students for Electronic Freedom. The group promotes academic freedom,
works to protect privacy, acts as "watch dog" group for university
administration, educates the user community, and strives to broaden
access to electronic communication systems.
++ Ball State University
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Notes 5-7 are about privacy.
5. A user on this system was apparently running a password cracking
program. An administer searched my files and found I had a copy of
the newest version of Crack. I have legitimate reasons for having
this program. I have received mail from the Chairman of the
Department "inviting" me to discuss my account privileges. "It really
bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably anyway)
just for the mere possession of a program."
++ CMU
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Notes 1-4 discuss newsgroup removals rationalized by creative
interpretations of law. Sites around the world have found this an
effective way to ban almost any topic, for example, war, drugs, gay
rights, crime, rape, abortion, and sex (including recovery from sexual
abuse and United Press International stories mentioning sex).
4. Carnegie Mellon University promotes self-censorship by its threats
to investigate of Eric Jefferson on charges of sexual harassment
unless he stops writing public articles that some find offensive.
=================
news/cafv02n08: Message-Id: <1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.08
Notes 1-3 regard a recent controversy at Carnegie Mellon
University involving issues of sexual harassment and freedom of
speech.
1. As described in the Carnegie Mellon student newspaper 'The Tartan',
student Eric Jefferson has had sexual harassment charges filed
against him because of his postings to a CMU bulletin board for
the Women's Center.
++ U Wyoming
Notes 6-9 discuss the recent removal of IRC software from users'
accounts at the University of Wyoming.
6. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not
to use IRC on the computer. "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster)
account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be
searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be
disusered without hope for reinstatement."
<3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200*@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
++ North Dakota
=================
news/cafv02n16: Message-Id: <199204012129.AA24760@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.16
Note 1 is a policy docoument from North Dakota State University:
1. [NDSU POLICY ON MISUSE OF COMPUTER FACILITIES] Responsible computer
use means files, passwords, and output are private; no offensive
material shall be entered or sent; no unauthorized copies shall be
made; no unauthorized commercial use shall be made; violators shall
be disciplined.
++ University of Southern California
=================
news/cafv02n15: Message-Id: <1992Mar25.205435.31172@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.15
Notes 7-9 are about the law and freedom of speech (and association).
8. A student at the University of Southern California asks for help in
filing a 'hate speech' complaint against a fellow student. You have no
grounds for filing. "State universities have no authority (i.e. it is
illegal for them) to punish students for hate speech. The way to fight
such bad speech is with good speech." [Editor's note: USC is not a
state university.]
++ Boston University
=================
news/cafv02n35: Message-Id:
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.35
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."
++ Virginia PEN
=================
policies/virginia.pen.edu.critique
=================
Critique of Acceptable Use Policy Virginia's Public Edcuation Network (PEN).
Points out factual errors. Says that speech restrictions are unconstitutional.
++ Virginia Tech
=================
news/cafv02n20: Message-Id: <1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.20
Notes 4-6 are critiques of computer policies at Virginia Tech and
Princeton.
4. "The [Virginia Tech] policy shows good user participation and due
process. Privacy could be improved by detailing the procedure by which
searches are authorized. Freedom of expression could be improved by
removing vague speech restrictions."
++ Princeton
=================
news/cafv02n20: Message-Id: <1992Apr29.213206.24214@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.20
Notes 4-6 are critiques of computer policies at Virginia Tech and
Princeton.
6. Princeton bans computer speech that would be protected by the
Constitution if it were a public university. The good news, from my
point of view, is that it explicitly treats computer speech like
traditional speech.
++ Williams College
=================
news/cafv02n29: Message-Id: <1992Jun11.001601.29258@morrow.stanford.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.29
Notes 9 to 11, although unrelated, each address the issues of free
speech and censorship.
9. The New York Times of 6/10/92 reported that a Williams College
student has been subpoenaed after refusing refusing to talk with
Secret Service agents about a computer message he had written which
contained a "death threat" against George Bush.
++ Berkeley
=================
news/cafv02n07: Message-Id:
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.07
Note 5 is an article from _The Jewish Advocate_, a Boston weekly,
concerning anti-Semitism on the Internet.
5. A Berkeley graduate student was "stunned to discover" anti-Semitic
material on the Internet. No specific legal action is planned since
the university's policies on computer expression are general. A
spokesman for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith said, "We
don't advocate censorship. We encourage Internet subscribers to use
their subscription power, their keyboard power, to register their own
objections to this perversion of computer technology."
+ Canada
=================
cases/globe-and-mail
=================
An article from the Toronto _Globe and Mail_, Monday, July 20, 1992.
Headline: Computers graphic when it comes to porn
Subheadline: NETWORK SEX: Is increasingly explicit material on some computer
bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity?
=================
news/cafv02n34: Message-Id: <1992Jul7.150830.27316@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.34
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.
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id:
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Notes 7-8 discuss censorship of the alt.sex.bondage newsgroup in the
light of recent events in Canada.
7. "The following is a transcription of a report broadcast on CBC
Radio's news program "The World at Six," aired 27 May 92 and monitored
on 9755 KHz at 2300 UTC. All spelling and punctuation has been added,
and may be incorrect."
=================
news/cafv02n37: Message-Id:
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.37
Notes 4 to 6 are part of a debate on censorship which has arisen in
the wake of the refusal of some Canadian universities to carry
alt.sex.* groups, and the publication of an article entitled
"Computers Graphic When it Comes to Porn" in the Canadian newspaper
_The Globe and Mail_.
6. This article, which seeks to correct the view of the Internet as a
public medium for the dissemination of "sleazy" material, has been
sent to the editor of the _Globe & Mail_.
=================
news/cafv02n26: Message-Id: <1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.26
Notes 1-8 (all the articles in this issue) discuss censorship of the
alt.sex.bondage newsgroup in the light of recent events in Canada.
2. In a telephone conversation, an Inspector of the Winnepeg police
gave it as his opinion that if material from the alt.sex.bondage
newsgroups were distributed to the Canadian public, the distributor
could be charged, as could the originator.
++ U of Manitoba
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May31.080939.25516@clarinet.com>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Notes 7-8 discuss censorship of the alt.sex.bondage newsgroup in the
light of recent events in Canada.
8. In a letter to the administrators at the University of Manitoba I
said, among other things, that "there are those who feel very strongly
that a University should never tell its people what they can't read."
++ U. of Toronto
=================
news/cafv02n33: Message-Id: <1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.33
Notes 1-4 are about new computer polices covering everything from
email privacy to the content of newsgroups.
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.
++ Wilfrid Laurier University
=================
news/cafv02n40: Message-Id: <1992Aug13.182157.5688@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.40
Note 11 contains an article by Jim Boyce which appeared on July 14th
in the Wilfrid Laurier University's student newspaper, the Cord. It
is posted with his permission.
11. After a student brought the matter to the attention of the
newspaper, questions have been raised at WLU about a program used by
Computing Services to find "profane" file names.
+ Europe
=================
news/cafv02n33: Message-Id: <1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.33
Notes 1-4 are about new computer polices covering everything from
email privacy to the content of newsgroups.
3. (A system administrator:) The list of newsgroups we cannot carry
[on the United Kingdom's UKnet Backbone] includes alt.sex*,
alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and rec.arts.erotica.
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Note 6 discusses the distribution of "alt" groups in the UK.
6. Usenet relies on the goodwill of those operating the servers which
distribute the news. "In the UK, the great majority of these systems
are operated by academic institutions, who seem to have decided not to
forward the 'alt.*' hierarchy, in particular, and a number of other
groups which are either judged to be 'unsuitable', or clearly only
relevant to, say, the US."
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Note 6 discusses the distribution of "alt" groups in the UK.
6. Usenet relies on the goodwill of those operating the servers which
distribute the news. "In the UK, the great majority of these systems
are operated by academic institutions, who seem to have decided not to
forward the 'alt.*' hierarchy, in particular, and a number of other
groups which are either judged to be 'unsuitable', or clearly only
relevant to, say, the US."
++ Germany
=================
news/cafv02n23: Message-Id: <199204201927.AA07124@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.23
Notes 1-3 are about Netnews removals at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln and in Germany.
3. A story in the German paper "EMMA" resulted in the banning of the
"sex" news groups at several universities. Among the groups banned was
"alt.sexual.abuse.recovery."
++ Switzerland
=================
news/cafv02n22: Message-Id: <1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.22
Note 3 is about Switzerland's SWITCH (an academic networking
consortium).
3. "In addition to banning some usenet newsgroups, SWITCH is also blocking
packets to the local eunet chapter (chuug). We have to route most
packets from Zurich to Geneva and back to Zurich. Others go as far as
Amsterdam, and, yes, still others go to the USA and come back (hee
hee). SWITCH is blocking nntp, telnet and ftp to local sites connected
to eunet."
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <1992Feb20.180752@sic.epfl.ch>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Notes 1-4 discuss newsgroup removals rationalized by creative
interpretations of law. Sites around the world have found this an
effective way to ban almost any topic, for example, war, drugs, gay
rights, crime, rape, abortion, and sex (including recovery from sexual
abuse and United Press International stories mentioning sex).
1. SWITCH, the federal institution which provides the network
connections between Swiss universities, has decided to refuse to carry
certain Usenet newsgroups on the grounds that they *might* be illegal
under Swiss law. Newsgroups banned include alt.drugs,
alt.politics.homosexuality, clari.news.terrorism.
=================
news/cafv02n13: Message-Id: <16825.9203091724@pyr.swan.ac.uk>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.13
Note 1 is about censorship and SWITCH (in Switzerland -cmk).
1. The majority does not have the right to restrict or censor
information desired by the minority, even if that material is
offensive. In this regard, "Switch is like a library, worse than that
switch is not only censoring their library, they also put up
roadblocks and refuse people access to their libraries." Would-be
censors should have to "_PROVE_ beyond reasonable doubt in a just
court that something is harming others (and arguably that they don't
wish to be harmed)" before that something is restricted or censored.
++ Ireland
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Notes 1-4 discuss newsgroup removals rationalized by creative
interpretations of law. Sites around the world have found this an
effective way to ban almost any topic, for example, war, drugs, gay
rights, crime, rape, abortion, and sex (including recovery from sexual
abuse and United Press International stories mentioning sex).
2. (A person in Ireland:) "The computer/censorship issue related to
the fact that only crosspostings to the group _talk.abortion_ appear
here." If a posting to such a group had information on how to procure
an abortion, are we any more liable than a library with an English
telephone directory which has the phone number of an abortion clinic?
++ Turkey
=================
news/cafv02n21: Message-Id: <1992May4.223243.28741@eff.org>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.21
Notes 5 and 6 concern issues of relevance to the situation at ISU. The
first offers a critique of an article in the Winnipeg Free Press which
"exposed" the alt.sex.* Usenet hierarchy's availability at the
University of Manitoba. The second discusses the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln's decision to stop supplying the entire alt.
hierarchy.
7. "The METU policy provides no due process protection and bans much
speech."
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 15 06:59:18 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 02.39
Message-ID: <1992Sep15.105908.21607@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:59:08 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/cafv02n39".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n39
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending August 9th, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 6 discuss the censorship of pornographic material. This
discussion stems from the decision of some Canadian universities to
stop receiving the alt.sex.* newsgroups because they offend some and
are allegedly illegal.
1. To claim that human beings are forced to become criminal in their
actions merely by exposure to depictions of criminal activity is
clearly false, and to argue in favour of the censorship of certain
material on that basis is equally false.
<1992Aug3.122757.1104@hubcap.clemson.edu>
2. "If the [alt.sex.bondage] community could bring itself to cancel the illegal
articles, and put them in another newsgroup which Canada could block,
then there would be no reason to block a.s.b, and the universities
would feel freer to get it back."
<1992Aug5.001511.27836@cs.sfu.ca>
3. "I find it odd that people can't see a distinction between [the
Fascist or Stalinist restriction of rational debate of ideas], and the
kind of censorship of socially undesirable non-rhetorical material
which has been practised for centuries all over the world -- including
the US under the Constitution and the First Amendment."
<1992Aug6.185205.250@cs.sfu.ca>
4. "What right is being defended when my speech [is] banned because of
your mores. The 'right' not to have other people violate your mores?
If there is such a right then there is no room for other rights...
Here is some of the history of government suppression of sexual
materials..."
<1992Aug7.151318.9822@eff.org>
5. Here is a list of some studies which have investigated the
relationship between pornography and violence.
<1992Aug7.151709.9915@eff.org>
6. "I am not concerned with harm. I have no doubt at all that [some
books have had] a mainly pernicious influence on the world. But I know
that the way to counter lies is with truth, not suppression.
Censorship only increases the harm, and dilutes freedom with the very
tyranny we claim to oppose."
Notes 7 to 9 are on issues related to the censorship of material based
on content.
7. The president of the University of British Columbia, in Canada,
recently circulated a letter in which he described his intention to
ensure that "university property is not being used to access, create
or store pornographic material on university computing equipment."
8. "There are _many_ newsgroups which are offensive to various
religious bodies - ranging from soc.bi to alt.atheism to alt.drugs.
In _each_ of these cases, one or more religions could make as valid a
case for removing the group as could be made for the removal of
alt.moslem.wanted.gay. Yet, _none_ of those cases would justify their
removal. If Usenet is to have any value as a tool of communications,
it _must_ be totally free of any form of censorship. This includes
censorship based on political, moral, OR religious grounds."
<30smyck.adamsr@netcom.com>
9. People at the University of Massachusetts at Boston are permitted
to store any material they wish in private files, make any of their
files publicly readable, create any mailing list, and post anything to
Usenet. What they may not do is display, for instance on a publicly
visible X-terminal, material that could not be given a `PG-13' rating.
- Elizabeth]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 15 17:10:42 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: <1992Sep15.174004.29042@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:40:04 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 15 17:10:42 1992
From: tmal@cl.cam.ac.uk (Mark Lomas)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Locking terminals (was Re: New Princeton Policy)
Message-ID: <1992Sep15.145424.28448@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:54:24 GMT
The technique that I favour, and which has been adopted by at least two
workstation vendors, is to provide a key sequence that restarts the server
that is driving the console. The code to recognise this key sequence should
be embedded in the device driver in such a position that it cannot be
switched off under any circumstances.
First, if the server hangs you can restart it without something as drastic
as a reboot. Second, if somebody writes their own version of the lock
utility then you can defeat it without the attendant risk that you gain
access to their account. Third, you can ensure that nobody is running a
program that masquerades as the login utility.
Thus this solution has the side-effect of improving system security.
Mark Lomas (tmal@cl.cam.ac.uk)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 15 17:19:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: U. of Wisconsin drops hate speech rule
Message-ID: <1992Sep15.152307.7874@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:23:07 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 15 17:19:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.college
From: bone@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Douglas J. Bone)
Subject: Re: U. of Wisconsin drops hate speech rule
Message-ID:
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:47:01 GMT
After the UWM Post v. UWM Decision, I wrote a bill in the Student
Senate at Stanford calling for a review of our Grey Interpretation
of the Fundamental Standard. Written a few years ago by Law Prof
Thomas Grey, this document is essentially a speech code modifying
the Fundamental Standard of Student COnduct, which basically says
be nice and don't cheat. The Senate passed the bill (11-10). A
referendum on the Spring ballot on the matter saw a plurality of
students agree that the Grey Interpretation should be rescinded.
Three students (I am one) were elected to three positions on the
relevant board that adopts such policies all running on anti-speech-code
platforms. The RAV v St. Paul decision has obviously added impetus
to the movement to repeal the code, but I thought it interesting
that the Wisconsin decision basically started the effort by some of
us at Stanford to repeal our speech code.
--
Douglas Bone Internet: bone@luciano.stanford.edu
Standard disclaimers BITNET: bone%luciano.stanford.edu@stanford
apply. UUCP: ..ucbvax!luciano!sierra.stanford.edu!bone
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 15 17:48:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Wayne State University's Bad Behavior C
Message-ID: <1992Sep15.204031.19102@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:40:31 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 15 17:48:36 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jdailey@dadd.ti.com (Jim Dailey)
Subject: Re: Wayne State University's Bad Behavior C
Message-ID: <1992Sep15.192333.5418@csc.ti.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:23:33 GMT
delledg@jake.cc.wayne.edu (De Vaughn Elledge) writes:
>jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>>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.
Could you provide some substance, please, De Vaughn?
---
Jim jdailey@dadd.ti.com
TI pays absolutely no attention to me or my opinions; therefore,
the foregoing posting cannot possibly represent TI's viewpoint.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 16 08:50:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.shell, et al.] Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep16.124941.4542@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 12:49:41 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 16 08:50:42 1992
From: young@qut.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep16.143258.54837@qut.edu.au>
Date: 16 Sep 92 14:32:57 EST
We are faced with the problems of 'nicely' locking out users
for various reasons (ie we may have caught them hacking or
Crack shows their password is not secure). Ideally we'd like
to setup a shell so that the next time they attempt to login,
a message is displayed on their terminal and they are
immediately logged out again.
The first thought we had was to get tcsh (say) and hack it up.
However, we thought other people may have had this problem
and already come up with an answer. Also, we'd like to implement
it on a range to unix boxes, so the simplier and easier it is
to port the better.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Joesph Young
Internet: j.young@qut.edu.au
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 16 09:46:13 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep16.133837.14645@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 13:38:37 GMT
Followup to comp.admin.policy and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk.
young@qut.edu.au writes:
>We are faced with the problems of 'nicely' locking out users
>for various reasons (ie we may have caught them hacking or
>Crack shows their password is not secure).
[...]
As an aside, please be careful that lockouts are not used as a form of
discipline without due process (especially in academic environments).
Here is what the "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students",
the main U.S. statement on student academic freedom, says on this:
"C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
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."
Also, at state schools in the U.S. some level of due process is
required by law (the level depends on the seriousness of the penalty).
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.
=================
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.
=================
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/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.
=================
law/mt-healthy-v-doyle
=================
_Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct of
Administrative Proceedings_ by Edgar H. Bittle (1986) says that a
formal hearing should make a detailed "findings of fact" list.
=================
law/mills-v-bd-of-ed
=================
Summary from the ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition
by Janet. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61. It says
before you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to
know the specific acts you are charged with committing and the
specific rules that those acts violate.
=================
law/due-process.buchanan
=================
Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
from:
_Procedural due process guidelines for disciplinary hearings resulting
in suspension or expulsion in higher education_ by Ernest T. Buchanan
III. Published by Education/Law Research Associates, 1972
=================
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.
=================
law/due-process.weckstein
=================
Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and
"find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are
from:
_School Discipline and Student Rights: an advocate's manual_ by
Paul Weckstein, revised edition, 1982, Center for Law and
Education.
=================
=================
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/student.freedoms.aaup
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin
pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/mt-healthy-v-doyle
pub/academic/law/mills-v-bd-of-ed
pub/academic/law/due-process.buchanan
pub/academic/law/due-process.french
pub/academic/law/due-process.weckstein
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 student.freedoms.aaup
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.mnookin
send acad-freedom/law goss-v-lopez.fischer
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/law mt-healthy-v-doyle
send acad-freedom/law mills-v-bd-of-ed
send acad-freedom/law due-process.buchanan
send acad-freedom/law due-process.french
send acad-freedom/law due-process.weckstein
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 16 12:41:55 1992
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID:
Date: 16 Sep 92 15:51:06 GMT
In article <1992Sep16.133837.14645@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>As an aside, please be careful that lockouts are not used as a form of
>discipline without due process (especially in academic environments).
>Here is what the "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students",
>the main U.S. statement on student academic freedom, says on this:
>"C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
> 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."
Surely hacking could be construed as a "reason relating to the safety
and well-being of students, faculty, or university property".
Especially university property. I think lockouts would fit the exception
in cases of intentional tampering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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 16 15:59:50 1992
From: trant@shire.corp.sgi.com (Ken Trant)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep16.194710.2520@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 16 Sep 92 19:47:10 GMT
Followup to comp.admin.policy and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk.
young@qut.edu.au writes:
>>We are faced with the problems of 'nicely' locking out users
>>for various reasons (ie we may have caught them hacking or
>>Crack shows their password is not secure).
>[...]
>As an aside, please be careful that lockouts are not used as a form of
>discipline without due process (especially in academic environments).
>Here is what the "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students",
>the main U.S. statement on student academic freedom, says on this:
>[...]
All this and not a single suggestion regarding the request. Think maybe
you're fixating?.
As for my suggestion: replace there shell with one that does exactly
what you want such as echo a message or send them email and then logs
them out.
Regards,
--
-----
Ken Trant / Second Star to the right
Senior Systems Administrator / And straight on till
Information Services, / Morning
Silicon Graphics, Inc / Peter Pan
From caf-talk Caf Sep 16 18:13:06 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep16.205411.6013@cirrus.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 20:54:11 GMT
In exuptr@exu.ericsson.se
(exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>Surely hacking could be construed as a "reason relating to the safety
>and well-being of students, faculty, or university property".
Was this deliberate flame-bait, or are you genuinely (and naively)
assuming that all hacking is dangerous to others?
--
Rahul Dhesi
also: dhesi@rahul.net
From caf-talk Caf Sep 16 20:05:53 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Due process when Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.000546.19059@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 00:05:46 GMT
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
[...]
>Surely hacking could be construed as a "reason relating to the safety
>and well-being of students, faculty, or university property".
>Especially university property. I think lockouts would fit the exception
>in cases of intentional tampering.
[...]
I'd say it depends. In my opinion:
Lockouts are in an academic environment justifed when:
* You have reason to believe that a computer account has
been broken into, or
* You have reason to believe that less drastic means of
getting a user's attention (e.g. email, the
telephone) won't work.
* You have strong reasons to believe serious offensives will
continue.
* They are the result of due process.
Lockouts are not justified:
* Just to get a user's attention if less drastic
means would work as well.
* Before due process, except for the reasons listed above.
I apologize if I seem "fixated", but I've witnessed the worst-case
scenario in which a student is expelled from the system forever, with
no due process and no appeal. I've also read many computer policies
that seem like something out of _Alice in Wonderland_:
"No, no," said the Queen: "The sentence first -- the verdict
afterwards." -- Lewis Carroll
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
cases/brack@acs.ohio-state.edu
=================
All the early notes from CAF-talk related to Steven Brack, Ohio State,
and Academic Computer Services.
=================
policies/baylor.edu.critique
=================
Critique of the Computer Polices of Baylor Univeristy. It says in part:
'The school's written policy isn't bad ... The Baylor ... could be
improved by allowing "personal use." ... The Baylor policy also
provides for some due process, although the "due process" begins by
temporarily suspending a user from the computer.'
=================
policies/cmich.edu.critique
=================
Critique of "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Computing
Services At Central Michigan University (And Were Afraid To Ask)"
Summary: "The policy as written gives Central Michigan authority to
steal user files. [And likely puts the University in violation of
the federal FERPA.] It also denies users their due process rights. The
policy should be replaced by a policy created with participation of
users."
=================
policies/metu.bitnet.critique
=================
This is a critique of the Computer Policy of Middle East Technical
University (METU) in Ankara, Turkey. Most of my references are to US
centered documents, the ones to which I am most familar.
The METU policy provides no due process protection and bans much
speech. In this, it is similar to some of policies of universities
such as Iowa State, U. of Texas, and U. of Illinois. In contrast to
these the U.S. speech restrictions, METU's bans are clear and (as far
as I know) legal.
=================
policies/uicvm.uic.edu.critique
=================
Critique of "Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources", a
policy of the University of Illinois at Chicago's Computer Center.
Summary: This is the most creatively repressive policy I read in a
long time. The policy gives the false illusion of explicitness and due
process. In fact, however, it makes almost everything illegal and
subject to harsh and disproportionate punishment. It then gives the
Computer Center expansive discretion on enforcement and punishment.
The effect for users is the same as if there was no policy at all.
=================
=================
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/cases/brack@acs.ohio-state.edu
pub/academic/policies/baylor.edu.critique
pub/academic/policies/cmich.edu.critique
pub/academic/policies/metu.bitnet.critique
pub/academic/policies/uicvm.uic.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/cases brack@acs.ohio-state.edu
send acad-freedom/policies baylor.edu.critique
send acad-freedom/policies cmich.edu.critique
send acad-freedom/policies metu.bitnet.critique
send acad-freedom/policies uicvm.uic.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 16 20:33:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Sen. Wellstone (D-Mn) chon hate-speech review cmte
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.001207.15006@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 00:12:07 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 16 20:33:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Sen. Wellstone (D-Mn) chon hate-speech review cmte
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 21:39:01 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Sep16.213901.18434@digibd.com>
(caveat: this is from memory. I couldn't find the
original newspaper (Mpls. Star-Tribune) article to quote).
Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Mn) is on a newly-formed committee which is
reviewing whether federal funds should be withheld from universities
which restrict speech based on content (e.g. "hate-speech" rules).
I believe he is the chairman of the committee.
From the article I got the impression that Wellstone was undecided
about the issue.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 16 20:51:25 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: Wed, 16 Sep 92 17:58:37 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Sep16.175837.18010@tygra.Michigan.COM>
In article <1992Sep14.023710.21805@cs.wayne.edu> delledg@jake.cc.wayne.edu (De Vaughn Elledge) writes:
"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.
"
No hearing was afforded, no chance to call witnesses on the defendant's
behalf, no chance for her to defend herself. No impartial authority
person (ie: judge, dean, etc). The action was taken, and it took 4 years
to even get notice in writing as to why the action occurred.
No due process. Period.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 16 22:13:14 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: <1992Sep17.015517.23315@cs.wayne.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 01:55:17 GMT
In article <1992Sep16.175837.18010@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.023710.21805@cs.wayne.edu> delledg@jake.cc.wayne.edu (De Vaughn Elledge) writes:
>"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.
>"
>
>No hearing was afforded, no chance to call witnesses on the defendant's
>behalf, no chance for her to defend herself. No impartial authority
>person (ie: judge, dean, etc). The action was taken, and it took 4 years
>to even get notice in writing as to why the action occurred.
>
>No due process. Period.
Yeah.....
Later John...
================================================================================
= 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 16 23:42:26 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID:
Date: 17 Sep 92 03:46:41 GMT
We lock out users by changing their shell. We do this whenever we
crack their passwd's using crack, as well as when we catch an account
that has been cracked (doesn't happen as often as it used to before we
started running crack ourselves)
I don't think that the law about altering a student's status applies
in our case, because we always reinstate these accounts when we are
presented with a student id, making the student change the passwd on
the spot. So far, we haven't had to deal with crackers among the
students.
If we did, though, I don't see that we have to let the
individual have unrestricted access while we wait for due process.
Wouldn't we be vulnerable in that case to damages from a site that was
hit after we allowed a known cracker continued access to our system?
Is there anyone here who *WOULD* allow a such a user to stay on?
If someone forced the issue, and needed to do schoolwork, we'd have
to set up some sort of restricted environment where that student could
use the compiler and editor but not e-mail or other net access. This
would be a difficult task on our network.
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Sep 17 02:47:41 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.063256.13921@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 06:32:56 GMT
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
> So far, we haven't had to deal with crackers among the students. If
>we did, though, I don't see that we have to let the individual have
>unrestricted access while we wait for due process. Wouldn't we be
>vulnerable in that case to damages from a site that was hit after we
>allowed a known cracker continued access to our system?
(How can you know that he or she is a cracker if there hasn't been a
hearing yet?)
The accused cracker knows that you will be watching him or her closely
and he or she knows that a hearing is pending; in most cases, I don't
think continued hacking is likely.
Also, a lockout doesn't guarantee that a user will not find some other
way in. Even an originally innocent user might get in, say using a
friends account, if he or she sees the lockout as unfair or excessive.
In this way unnecessary lockouts can escalate problems rather than
reducing them.
Finally, due process doesn't necessarily mean a formal hearing. I'm
including more of the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of
Students. It explains due process and discipline pretty well.
- Carl
======= excerpt ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup ==
VI. Procedural Standards in Disciplinary Proceedings
In developing responsible student conduct, disciplinary proceedings
play a role substantially secondary to example, counseling, guidance,
and admonition. At the same time, educational institutions have a duty
and the corollary disciplinary powers to protect their educational
purpose through the setting of standards of scholarship and conduct
for the students who attend them and through the regulation of the use
of institutional facilities. In the exceptional circumstances when the
preferred means fail to resolve problems of student conduct, proper
procedural safeguards should be observed to protect the student from
the unfair imposition of serious penalties.
The administration of discipline should guarantee procedural fairness
to an accused student. Practices in disciplinary cases may vary in
formality with the gravity of the offense and the sanctions which may
be applied. [...] The jurisdictions of faculty or student judicial
bodies, the disciplinary responsibilities of institutional officials
and the regular disciplinary procedures, including the student's right
to appeal a decision, should be clearly formulated and communicated in
advance. Minor penalties may be assessed informally under prescribed
procedures.
In all situations, procedural fair play requires that the student be
informed of the nature of the charges against him, that he be given a
fair opportunity to refute them, that the institution not be arbitrary
in its actions, and that there be provision for appeal of a decision.
The following are recommended as proper safeguards in such proceedings
when there are no honor codes offering comparable guarantees.
A. Standards of Conduct Expected of Students
The institution has an obligation to clarify those standards of
behavior which it considers essential to its educational mission and
its community life. These general behavioral expectations and the
resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable
regulation of student conduct, but the student should be as free as
possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his
education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and
interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles
of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be
instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with
significant student participation and published in advance through
such means as a student handbook or a generally available body of
institutional regulations.
B. Investigation of Student Conduct
1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied
by students and the personal possessions of students should not be
searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For
premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an
appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom
application should be made before a search is conducted. The
application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects
or information sought. The student should be present, if possible,
during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution,
the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed.
[...]
D. Hearing Committee Procedures
When the misconduct may result in serious penalties and if the student
questions the fairness of disciplinary action taken against him, he
should be granted, on request, the privilege of a hearing before a
regularly constituted hearing committee. The following suggested
hearing committee procedures satisfy the requirements of procedural
due process in situations requiring a high degree of formality.
[...]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 17 02:54:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.063608.4505@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 06:36:08 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 17 02:54:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom)
Subject: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 03:44:49 GMT
This bunk has been floating around the ISU dorms for about a month now.
It's a memo from the ISU Department of Residence. Enjoy.
August 14, 1992
Dear Resident:
The Department of Residence is committed to providing an environment where
mutual respect for each person's right to be an included member of the
community is paramound and where denigration of others is not acceptable to
community members. All of us value living in an environment where we are
free from harassment, denigration, and abuse. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to create a positive community because of what some students
choose to plafce on their room doors. Posters, slogans, and cartoons that
denigrate individuals based on their ethnic background, gender, or sexual
orientation were present in some areas within our halls. The posting of
materials that are demeaning to others is but a symptom of the over-riding
issue of intolerance and insensitivity, but is one which we all need to
address. The Department of Residence staff has attempted to resolve these
issues, however, we felt we were not able to address them to many residents'
or to our satisfaction.
In May a letter was sent to current residents stating that we were considering
temporarily suspending students' privilege to post material on the outside of
their room doors. We stated that we would inform students of the interim plan
for Fall semester. We would then work with students to develop a long-term
plan to deal with these issues.
During the last several weeks, Program Staff members and Hall Directors have
met and decided upon the following interim policy to serve as an addendum to
the _Guide to Residence Hall Living_ until a permanent policy is developed:
Posting or displaying of materials on the exterior of the student
room (corridor) is prohibited effective August 16, 1992. Violations
of this interim policy (including "creative" methods to technically
circumvent the intent of the policy) will be handled contractually.
Students who violate the policy will be confronted and materials
will be removed. Repeated violations may result in the termination
of your contract.
During Fall semester, we will establish a committee of students and staff to
develop a permanent policy including a resolution process to respond to
discrimination and discriminatory harassment of residents of university
housing.
Thoughts?
Mark Anstrom (maanstro@iastate.edu)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 17 06:50:08 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.095627.27617@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Sep 92 09:56:27 GMT
trant@shire.corp.sgi.com (Ken Trant) writes:
:
: All this and not a single suggestion regarding the request. Think maybe
: you're fixating?.
:
:
: As for my suggestion: replace there shell with one that does exactly
: what you want such as echo a message or send them email and then logs
: them out.
Sending the user e-mail is not going to work, as they cannot easily read it?
A shell consisting of about 20 lines of code should do the job,
this will just display a message (held in a file such as ~/.nologin)
:
: Regards,
:
: --
: -----
: Ken Trant / Second Star to the right
: Senior Systems Administrator / And straight on till
: Information Services, / Morning
: Silicon Graphics, Inc / Peter Pan
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Sep 17 09:14:42 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: <1992Sep17.90041.2968@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 13:00:41 GMT
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>
>No hearing was afforded, no chance to call witnesses on the defendant's
>behalf, no chance for her to defend herself. No impartial authority
>person (ie: judge, dean, etc). The action was taken, and it took 4 years
>to even get notice in writing as to why the action occurred.
>
>No due process. Period.
As Carl Kadie just said in another posting "Due process does not necessarily
require a formal proceeding."
Can you PLEASE post details? Saying "No hearing...No due process. Period."
doesn't tell us much at all. I'd really like to know the details......dates,
places, people, and all the rest.
--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 17 09:21:21 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 13:06:49 GMT
In article <1992Sep17.063256.13921@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>
>> So far, we haven't had to deal with crackers among the students. If
>>we did, though, I don't see that we have to let the individual have
>>unrestricted access while we wait for due process. Wouldn't we be
>>vulnerable in that case to damages from a site that was hit after we
>>allowed a known cracker continued access to our system?
>
>(How can you know that he or she is a cracker if there hasn't been a
>hearing yet?)
>
>The accused cracker knows that you will be watching him or her closely
>and he or she knows that a hearing is pending; in most cases, I don't
>think continued hacking is likely.
Oh, so all we have to do is act like scarecrows and scare the crackers
away when they get into our field?
>Also, a lockout doesn't guarantee that a user will not find some other
>way in.
Irrelevant. Do you not lock your door at night because you know that you
left your bedroom window open? Reality check.
>Even an originally innocent user might get in, say using a
>friends account, if he or she sees the lockout as unfair or excessive.
>In this way unnecessary lockouts can escalate problems rather than
>reducing them.
I don't see how it escalates problems. The worst that happens is that
the user may get a little annoyed that he can't log on for a few hours
until he can come see the system administrator. (In most cases, even
just a phonecall will do, although I deal with a lot of faculty)
The sharing of accounts is against this university's policy, and we make
that very clear to the users.
>Finally, due process doesn't necessarily mean a formal hearing. I'm
>including more of the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of
>Students. It explains due process and discipline pretty well.
Due process does not apply. This is not a disciplinary issue. Even
if it were, do arresting officers not have the right to put a suspect
in jail until a hearing? Second, the locking of an account is not
denying anyone's rights or freedoms. They have the right to use the
account, but not the right to expose the entire system to a breakin.
It is not an act of undue process, but rather an act of collective security.
If you do not lock out the account, you may be picking up the pieces
for weeks or months after a breakin, causing many man-hours of wasted
time and effort. Money spent like this eventually gets back to those
using the system.
--Dave
--
System Administrator, Population Research Institute barr@pop.psu.edu
But you don't cure bad art by locking it all up in one museum,
you cure it by throwing tomatoes at bad artists. - Barry Shein
From caf-talk Caf Sep 17 09:35:06 1992
Newsgroups: mi.misc,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: Wayne State University's Bad Behavior Continues Unabated....
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 13:22:13 GMT
If you want to bait Palmer, do it privately so the rest of us don't have
to put up with this bullshit. 28 quoted lines to say "Yeah....." is
not contributing to a discussion, it's just wasting bandwidth.
--
Steve: #1 of human beings on the Zwicky list
From caf-talk Caf Sep 17 14:35:03 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.182742.335@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 18:27:42 GMT
barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:
[...]
>Oh, so all we have to do is act like scarecrows and scare the crackers
>away when they get into our field?
I hope we are talking about the same scenero. In the one I was
addressing the suspected cracker is an authorized user of your system
and a student or staff member at your University.
By way of analogy, a student is accused of breaking a university window should
not be expelled from university pending disposition of the case.
(If the suspect is not an authorized user, of course, you should deny
him or her access.)
cmk>Even an originally innocent user might get in, say using a
cmk>friends account, if he or she sees the lockout as unfair or excessive.
cmk>In this way unnecessary lockouts can escalate problems rather than
cmk>reducing them.
>I don't see how it escalates problems.
[...]
>The sharing of accounts is against this university's policy, and we make
>that very clear to the users.
If the user is innocent of the original charge (say someone had broken
into his or her account without permission) but guilty of sharing an
account, the user could be, in the worst case, expelled from school.
>The worst that happens is that
>the user may get a little annoyed that he can't log on for a few hours
>until he can come see the system administrator. (In most cases, even
>just a phonecall will do, although I deal with a lot of faculty)
At some schools, the user is bared not for hours but for days or even
weeks. At Ohio State a user was bared forever. It is these abuses that
I worry about, not so much locks outs of just a few hours.
>Due process does not apply. This is not a disciplinary issue. Even
>if it were, do arresting officers not have the right to put a suspect
>in jail until a hearing?
I think this is a very good analogy. The police's authority to put
someone in jail without a hearing is quite limited (I think it is
generally time-limited to 24 hours). And even in that time, the
suspect can try to get a judge to issue a writ of habeas corpus, which
requires the police to either release the prisoner or bring him or her
to the judge for a hearing.
> Second, the locking of an account is not
>denying anyone's rights or freedoms. They have the right to use the
>account, but not the right to expose the entire system to a breakin.
>It is not an act of undue process, but rather an act of collective security.
As you suggest, the right to access should be *balanced* with other
people's right to security.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 17 17:27:28 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 02.36
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.212717.5639@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 21:27:17 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/cafv02n36".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n36
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending July 26, 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.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1 through 3 are about a Canadian journalist's articles on
Internet "pornography."
1. These are articles by Peter Moon of The Globe and Mail, Toronto.
The first is "Network Sex: Is increasingly explicit material on some
computer bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity." The second is
"Network lets users say what they think." Reprinted with permission.
<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
2. If you're talking to the press, don't rely on estimates of Usenet
readerships. The real numbers are impossible to get, and anyway most
subscribers are "lurkers" and don't post at all. Any story about alt.
sex.bondage is likely to paint a needlessly dark picture of Usenet.
<1992Jul22.001149.29524@clarinet.com>
3. Lurk factors are huge (one example shows 180 lurkers to 25 active
posters). Usenet newsgroups give shy persons an opportunity to listen
without imposing the expectation that they will participate.
<711770390@romeo.cs.duke.edu>
Notes 4 through 6 discuss the witholding from children of alt.sex.*
and its relation to free speech and censorship.
4. All this talk about censorship of Usenet is insane. It's good not
to let children view sexually explicit material, but because people
who attend universities are of legal age that doesn't apply to Usenet.
If one is offended, one needn't continue to read or view the offensive
material.
<1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
5. Note 4 seems to be drawing a possibly arbitrary line between
adults (who do have absolute freedom of speech) and children (who
don't?!?). By the way, some university students are in their early
teens which by the logic in note 4 would justify withdrawing
alt.sex.* from undergrads. ...Seems like censorship!
<1992Jul22.175643.15218@cs.sfu.ca>
6. Allowing young children (age 7, for example) to access alt.sex.* is
reasonably analogous to allowing them access to adult bookstores. Just
as the laws excluding them from adult bookstores aren't censorship or
violations of first amendment rights, so is withholding alt.sex.* from
them not censorship.
<1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
Note 7 is about child pornography law.
7. Can a computer-generated picture of sexual activity involving
children be considered child pornography? According to the relevant
U.S. statute, shipment/receipt of pornography involving children is
criminal only when the "visual depiction involves the use of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct." A computer-rendered image
would not involve such use of a minor.
<1992Jul25.113338.2310@panix.com>
Notes 8 through 11 are concerned with students placing in their
.plan files "cop killer" song lyrics. Notes 8 and 9 discuss the
economic case for universities permitting or prohibiting certain
activities. Note 10 discusses ethics and freedom and note 11
discusses the requirement that a University treat account holders
consistently.
8. A previous poster argued that a student paying fees at a university
may, by doing so, acquire certain rights to the use of the school's
computers. How much of the cost of those computers is paid for by the
fees, though? At some schools student fees pay for a proportionately
small part of the computer facilities. In other ways, too, the previous
poster is mistaking privileges for rights.
<1992Jul20.193027.1585@rice.edu>
9. A university "is a company and you buy their product. This doesn't
give you a right to control their money, any more than "buying a Mars
bar gives you the right to control the candy company. "The only recourse
you have...is not to buy the product."
10. As long as nobody is forced to see the material in question, the
student should not be punished. Material in public access information
areas should be "PG-13." Other users should be able to "finger" anyone
"without getting any sort of shock."
11. Print out a session stamped with time and date in which you finger
a number of other users who you know to have questionable material in
their .plan files. Use this as evidence that the university is singling
you out unfairly and inconsistently if it requires YOU to remove from
your .plan file material it finds offensive. This makes the issue a
first amendment case that the university would likely lose.
<1992Jul21.142535.21786@digibd.com>
- Mark]
--- 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 17 17:42:58 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Due process when Locking out users
Message-ID:
Date: 17 Sep 92 21:13:05 GMT
I agree 100% that a user should not be expelled or irrevocably denied
access because of a suspicion. However, I think the policy of locking
the account based on strong evidence is justifiable.
Mind you, we haven't been dealing with ambiguous cases. In our last
case the following happened, in order:
A call from another sysadm complained of a breakin from our site
At breakin time, we had three users online.
One of these users had no current course account.
Looking at that user's directory we found:
directories with "hidden" names " ", " ." etc
copies of crack, passwd files, and a login.c program
We checked our login program and discovered it changed.
We also discovered a list of cracked passwds for our system
hidden in an obscurely named file
On this evidence, we read the user's email and found:
a list of telnetabble dial-OUT ports and passwds for these ports
with instructions on how to circumvent security at those sites.
Now, who here thinks we should have left this account active?
If the user had presented herself and asked for an account to continue
coursework or research, we might have had to grant that, pending due
process and expulsion proceedings. As near as I can tell, however, the
legitimate CS majors are too BUSY to be crackers.
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Sep 17 18:25:43 1992
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.220307.1470@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 92 22:03:07 GMT
In article <1992Sep17.063608.4505@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A repost - Carl]
>
>Newsgroups: alt.censorship
>From: maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom)
>Subject: Censorship at Iowa State
>Message-ID:
>Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 03:44:49 GMT
>
[...]
>
> Posting or displaying of materials on the exterior of the student
> room (corridor) is prohibited effective August 16, 1992. Violations
> of this interim policy (including "creative" methods to technically
> circumvent the intent of the policy) will be handled contractually.
> Students who violate the policy will be confronted and materials
> will be removed. Repeated violations may result in the termination
> of your contract.
>
>During Fall semester, we will establish a committee of students and staff to
>develop a permanent policy including a resolution process to respond to
>discrimination and discriminatory harassment of residents of university
>housing.
>
>Thoughts?
"Contractuarally" is a euphemism for "we'll tell you to stop and if
you don't, we'll boot you". Chances are that you will find that the
so-called housing contract includes terms such as "Resident will obey
all policies promulgated by the Housing Dictator." (I say so-called
because I find it hard to believe that a valid contract could contain
such terms. But their lawyers are bigger than your lawyers and the
courts could care less about students, so forget about challenging it)
However, as to the "creative" methods bit-- even the IRS couldn't get
away with prohibiting creative (and technically legal) methods of
circumventing their regulations. But the school won't worry about any
such niceties-- they'll just boot you out and leave you with nowhere
to stand while you fight with them.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 04:54:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Dmitry Gokhman)
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.075835.27067@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 07:58:35 GMT
In article <1992Sep17.212717.5639@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>send caf-news cafv02n36
>[Week ending July 26, 1992
>
>9. A university "is a company and you buy their product. This doesn't
>give you a right to control their money, any more than "buying a Mars
>bar gives you the right to control the candy company. "The only recourse
>you have...is not to buy the product."
>
These unreconstructed paleo-capitalists (no Karl, not you :)
really get on my kidneys.
Even *private* institutions of higher learning have a responsibility
to keep their fori open to even the most catholic discourse.
Ever hear of 'academic' freedom? Ever notice how schools are .edu
and businesses .com?
As far as the hideously offensive .plan goes, I find it
an annoyance on the par with people shouting nonsense at you
on the way to cafeteria. The net is a public place
and some people behave like boors (I include in this category the
collection of twits who reflexively respond to anything that
content control should belong to those who own the medium).
Perhaps a reasonable solution is to offer the sensitive fingerers
and plan-less finger - just the facts m'am. It can't be very
hard to write a filter in perl to delete 'Plan:' and what follows
from the finger output. As for me, I only shop (armed with three
letters of recommendation) at state accredited purveyors of Mars
bars and keep my .plan clean, so you don't have to wash your hands
after fingering. OK, back to net.lurking.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
- Mr. Gumby * \oo7 Dmitry Gokhman -> gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu
says: `/v/-*
MY BRAIN HURTS J L YOUR AD HERE!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 10:08:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer)
Subject: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 14:53:32 GMT
In article <1992Sep18.075835.27067@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Dmitry Gokhman) writes:
In article <1992Sep17.212717.5639@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>send caf-news cafv02n36
>[Week ending July 26, 1992
>
>9. A university "is a company and you buy their product. This doesn't
>give you a right to control their money, any more than "buying a Mars
>bar gives you the right to control the candy company. "The only recourse
>you have...is not to buy the product."
>
These unreconstructed paleo-capitalists (no Karl, not you :)
really get on my kidneys.
Even *private* institutions of higher learning have a responsibility
to keep their fori open to even the most catholic discourse.
Ever hear of 'academic' freedom? Ever notice how schools are .edu
and businesses .com?
I agree with you entirely that educational institutions have these
responsibilities. I was responding, not to the particular claim, but
to the justification of that claim.
As a member of the community of an educational institution, one has
the right to academic freedom, not because one buys the product, but
because of the nature of the institution itself.
-- Dave
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 11:27:23 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: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.152715.18285@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 15:27:15 GMT
plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer) writes:
[...]
>As a member of the community of an educational institution, one has
>the right to academic freedom, not because one buys the product, but
>because of the nature of the institution itself.
[...]
Indeed, part of the product that I buy *is* academic freedom. In the
contract between me and the University of Illinois (e.g. the student
code), the University explicitly promises to respect my freedom of
expression and privacy (even on University facilities). I think
this is typical of most such contracts/student codes.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
academic/student.code.uiuc
=================
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
=================
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/student.code.uiuc
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 student.code.uiuc
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 13:47:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: World University Service's Academic Freedom declaration
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.174723.21325@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 17:47:23 GMT
I found this in _World University Service Academic Freedom 1990: A
Human Rights Report_ by Laksiri Fernando, et al.
The WUS is, according to the book, a 70-year-old international
academic "organisation". Most of the book is made up of reports on
academic freedom in Columbia, El Salvador, Occupied
Territories-Palestine, Peru, South Africa, and Sri Lanka. Their
address is
World University Service
5 Chemin des Iris
1216 Cointrin (Geneva), Switzerland
======= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/academic/academic-freedom.wus =======
THE LIMA DECLARATION ON
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND AUTONOMY OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
PREAMBLE
The Sixty Eighth General Assembly of WORLD UNIVERSITY SERVICE, meeting
in Lima from 6 to 10 September 1988, the year of the 40th anniversary
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
BEARING in mind the extensive set of international standards in the
field of human rights which the United Nations and other universal and
regional organisations have established, in particular the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and the UNESCO convention against Discrimination in
Education,
CONVINCED that the universities and academic communities have an
obligation to pursue the fulfillment of economic, social, cultural,
civil and political rights of the people,
EMPHASISING the importance of the right to education for the enjoyment
of all other human rights and the development of human persons and
peoples,
CONSIDERING that the right to education can only be fully enjoyed in
an atmosphere of academic freedom and autonomy o:f institutions of
higher education,
RECOGNISING the essential vulnerability of the academic community to
political and economic pressures,
AFFIRMING the following principles pertaining to education:
a) Every human being has the right to education.
b) Education shall be directed to the full development of the
human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall
strengthen the respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms
and peace. Education shall enable all parsons to participate
effectively in the construction of a free and egalitarian
society, and promote understanding, tolerance and friendship
among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups
Education shall promote mutual understanding respect and
equality between men and women Education shall be a means to
understand and contribute to the achievement of the major goals
of contemporary society such as social equality, peace, equal
development of all nations and the protection of the environment.
c) Every State should guarantee the right to education without
discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, economic condition, birth or other status. Every State
should make available an adequate proportion of its national
income to ensure in practice the full realisation of the right
to education.
d) Education shall be an instrument of positive social change. As
such, it should be relevant to the social, economic, political
and cultural situation of any given country, contribute to the
transformation of the status quo towards the full attainment of
all rights and freedoms, and be subject to permanent
evaluation.
PROCLAIMS this Declaration.
DEFINITIONS
1. For the purposes of this Declaration
a) 'Academic freedom' means the freedom of members of the academic
community, individually or collectively, in the pursuit,
development and transmission of knowledge, through research,
study, discussion, documentation, production, creation,
teaching, lecturing and writing.
b) 'Academic community' covers all those persons teaching,
studying, researching and working at an institution of higher
education.
c) 'Autonomy' means the independence of institutions of higher
education from the State and all other forces of society, to
make decisions regarding its internal government, finance,
administration, and to establish its policies of education,
research, extension work and other related activities.
d) 'Institutions of higher education' comprise universities, other
centers of post-secondary education and centers of research and
culture associated with them.
2. The above mentioned definitions do not imply that the exercise of
academic freedom and autonomy is not subject to limitations as
established in the present Declaration.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
3. Academic freedom is an essential pre-condition for those education,
research, administrative and service functions with which universities
and other institutions of higher education are entrusted. All members
of the academic community have the right to fulfill their functions
without discrimination of any kind and without fear of interference or
repression from the State or any other source.
4. States are under an obligation to respect and to ensure to all
members of the academic community, those civil, political, economic,
social and cultural rights recognised in the United Nations Covenants
on Human Rights. Every member of the academic community shall enjoy,
in particular, freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression,
assembly and association as well as the right to liberty and security
of person and liberty of movement.
5. Access to the academic community shall be equal for all members of
society without any hindrance. On the basis of ability, every person
has the right, without discrimination of any kind, to become part of
the academic community, as a student teacher, researcher, worker or
administrator. Temporary measures aimed at accelerating _de facto_
equality for disadvantaged members of the academic community shall not
be considered as discriminatory, provided that these measures are
discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and
treatment have been achieved. All States and institutions of higher
education shall guarantee a system of stable and secure employment for
teachers and researchers. No member of the academic community shall be
dismissed without a fair hearing before a democratically elected body
of the academic community.
6. All members of the academic community with research functions have
the right to carry out research work without any interference, subject
to the universal principles and methods of scientific enquiry. They
also have the right to communicate the conclusions of their research
freely to others and to publish them without censorship.
7. All members of the academic community with teaching functions have
the right to teach without any interference, subject to the accepted
principles, standards and methods of teaching.
8. An members of the academic community shall enjoy the freedom to
maintain contact with their counterparts in any part of the world as
well as the freedom to pursue the development of their educational
capacities.
9. All students of higher education shall enjoy freedom of study,
including the right to choose the field of study from available
courses and the right to receive official recognition of the knowledge
and experience acquired. Institutions of higher education should aim
to satisfy the professional needs and aspirations of the students.
States should provide adequate resources for students in need to
pursue their studies.
10. All institutions of higher education shall guarantee the
participation of students in their governing bodies, individually or
collectively, to express opinions on any national and international
question.
11. States should take all appropriate measures to plan, organise and
implement a higher education system without fees for all secondary
education graduates and other people who might prove their ability to
study effectively at that level.
12. All members of the academic community have the right to freedom of
association with others, including the right to form and join trade
unions for the protection of their interests. The unions of all
sectors of the academic communities should participate in the
formulation of their respective professional standards.
13. The exercise of the rights provided above carries with it special
duties and responsibilities and may be subject to certain restrictions
necessary for the protection of the rights of others. Teaching and
research shall be conducted in full accordance with professional
standards and shall respond to contemporary problems facing society.
AUTONOMY OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
14. An institutions of higher education shall pursue the fulfillment
of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights of the
people and shall strive to prevent the misuse of science and
technology to the detriment of those rights.
15. All institutions of higher education shall address themselves to
the contemporary problems facing society. To this end, the t curricula
of these institutions, as well as their activities shall respond to
the needs of society at large. Institutions of higher education should
be critical of conditions of political repression and violations of
human rights within their own society.
16. An institutions of higher education shall provide solidarity to
other such institutions and individual members of their academic
communities when they are subject to persecution. Such solidarity may
be moral or material, and should include refuge and employment or
education for victims of persecution.
17. All institutions of higher education should strive to prevent
scientific and technological dependence and to promote equal
partnership of all academic communities of the world in the pursuit
and use of knowledge. They should encourage international academic
cooperation which transcends regional, political and other barriers.
18. The proper enjoyment of academic freedom and the compliance with
the responsibilities mentioned in the foregoing articles demand a high
degree of autonomy of institutions of higher education. States are
under an obligation not to interfere with the autonomy of institutions
of higher education as well as to prevent interference by other forces
of society.
19. The autonomy of institutions of higher education shall be
exercised by democratic means of self-government, which includes the
active participation of all members of the respective academic
communities. All members of the academic community shall have the
right and opportunity, without discrimination of any kind, to take
part in the conduct of academic and administrative affairs. All
governing bodies of institutions of higher education shall be freely
elected and shall comprise members of the different sectors of the
academic community. The autonomy should encompass decisions regarding
administration and determination of policies of education, research,
extension work, allocation of resources and other related activities.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 13:49:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [bit.listserv.politics] Ballot Measure 9 in Oregon
Message-ID: <199209181749.AA21369@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 09:49:18 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Ballot Measure 9 in Oregon
Message-ID: <01GOW9NC4NHU91VU8E@WVNVMS.WVNET.EDU>
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 15:43:38 -0400
Hi, y'all.
I have a few questions about Oregon's proposed constitutional amendment
(Ballot Measure 9). The amendment, if adopted, would prohibit state,
regional, and local government agencies from using state tax dollars to
"promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, or
masochism." It would further require the Department of Higher Education
and public schools to "assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth that
recognizes homosexuality . . . as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and
perverse." (from the 16 September Chronicle of Higher Ed).
Now, before we start screaming, let me ask my questions. First, if such an
amendment were adopted, would there be any (U.S.) constitutional grounds
for having it repealed? I'm interested in both what the grounds would be,
and also in whether a part of a state constitution can be appealed in the
same way as laws can (I know, I'm showing off my ignorance here).
Second (this has to do with why the article showed up, I guess), what do
y'all think this would mean in terms of academic freedom? One of the
bill's proponents is quoted as saying it wouldn't have any effect. He said
that an instructor could "do a half-hour lecture about homosexual
relationships, and just say 'The state constitution defines those as wrong
, and I want to discourage you from them.'" That'd make me pretty
uncomfortable -- even if I didn't hold the views I hold.
Apparently this measure has a good chance of passing (although various
folks on both sides seem to think it will be on the tight side).
Kerry
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 14:14:34 1992
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Ballot Measure 9 in Oregon
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.181427.22083@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 18:14:27 GMT
Jamie writes:
[...]
>As a matter of fact, I doubt it would have much bearing on academic
>freedom. I do not believe that a teacher at the university level
>would be fired or censured for teaching students about homosexuality.
>It might be different at the elementary school level, of course--
>whoops, I guess a bit of elitism snuck in there. I should have said,
>it might well have bearing on academic freedom, but not likely at
>the university/college level.
[...]
I wish I had your confidence. I'm sure that many would resist its
application to, for example, university libraries (and listservers and
netnews servers), but I'm not sure they would always prevail. During
the Red Scare of the '50's, academic freedom was hurt badly.
-Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 14:16:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [bit.listserv.politics] Re: Ballot Measure 9 in Oregon
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.181652.22251@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 18:16:52 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 14:16:58 1992
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Ballot Measure 9 in Oregon
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.175623.21598@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 17:56:23 GMT
KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU writes:
[...]
>Now, before we start screaming, let me ask my questions. First, if such an
>amendment were adopted, would there be any (U.S.) constitutional grounds
>for having it repealed?
[...]
It could (and in my opinion should) be struck down on the grounds that
it restricts expression based on viewpoint in places where free speech
is both traditional and important, namely, universities and libraries.
As even our very conservative Surpeme Court said recently:
===============
This is not to suggest that funding by the Government, even when
coupled with the freedom of the fund recipients to speak outside the scope
of the Government-funded project, is invariably sufficient to justify
government control over the content of expression. For example, this Court
has recognized that the existence of a Government "subsidy," in the form of
Government-owned property, does not justify the restriction of speech in
areas that have "been traditionally open to the public for expressive
activity," United States v. Kokinda, 110 S. Ct. 3115, 3119 (1990); Hague v.
CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939)(opinion of Roberts, J.), or have been
"expressly dedicated to speech activity." Kokinda, supra, 110 S. Ct., at
3119; Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U. S. 37,
45 (1983). Similarly, we have recognized that the university is a
traditional sphere of free expression so fundamental to the functioning of
our society that the Government's ability to control speech within that
sphere by means of conditions attached to the expenditure of Government
funds is restricted by the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the First
Amendment, Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 603, 605-606
(1967).
============================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.
=================
=================
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/rust-v-sullivan
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 rust-v-sullivan
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 14:17:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [bit.listserv.politics] Re: Ballot Measure 9 in Oregon
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.181710.22292@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 18:17:10 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 14:17:16 1992
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Ballot Measure 9 in Oregon
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.180834.21902@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 18:08:34 GMT
Travis Kidd writes:
[...]
>I don't think there would be much of a constitutional challenge to this
>amendment. The day a judge says taxpayers MUST support something they
>don't want to support, the Constitution will be amended in a heartbeat,
>or at least in 6 years when everyone will have had a chance to complete-
>ly change their congress.
[...]
As you say, no judge would make us support something that we don't
want, but many judges have said that if the government *chooses* to
support a a forum, it can't discriminate on the basis viewpoint.
In other words the government, doesn't have to support public
libraries (or universities), but if it does it, can't provide a forum
for gays-are-evil views while denying a forum for gays-are-ok views.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471. A
decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public
Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
=================
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/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
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 san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:02:18 1992
From: adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Due process when Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.194622.11280@das.harvard.edu>
Date: 18 Sep 92 19:46:22 GMT
In article betsys@cs.umb.edu
(Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
|I agree 100% that a user should not be expelled or irrevocably denied
|access because of a suspicion. However, I think the policy of locking
|the account based on strong evidence is justifiable.
| Mind you, we haven't been dealing with ambiguous cases. In our last
|case the following happened, in order:
| A call from another sysadm complained of a breakin from our site
| At breakin time, we had three users online.
| One of these users had no current course account.
| Looking at that user's directory we found:
| directories with "hidden" names " ", " ." etc
| copies of crack, passwd files, and a login.c program
| We checked our login program and discovered it changed.
| We also discovered a list of cracked passwds for our system
| hidden in an obscurely named file
| On this evidence, we read the user's email and found:
| a list of telnetabble dial-OUT ports and passwds for these ports
| with instructions on how to circumvent security at those sites.
|
|Now, who here thinks we should have left this account active?
Cliff Stoll, please raise your hand... :)
Adam Shostack adam@das.harvard.edu
What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig. Or not to have a .sig
at all. How true that is.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:40:28 1992
From: valdis@vttcf.cc.vt.edu (Valdis Kletnieks)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <7012@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 92 22:15:01 GMT
In article <1992Sep16.205411.6013@cirrus.com> dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In exuptr@exu.ericsson.se
>>Surely hacking could be construed as a "reason relating to the safety
>>and well-being of students, faculty, or university property".
>Was this deliberate flame-bait, or are you genuinely (and naively)
>assuming that all hacking is dangerous to others?
Rahul:
Your reply address points to cirrus.com. Now tell me - let's say
that you found evidence that somebody was *trying* to break
into your corporate databases, and you had reason to believe
that he had succeeded in getting at least one login on your
machine. Now, do you:
A) Sit there and idly wait until he says 'rm *' while in the
wrong directory?
B) Close out the userid *NOW*, until you can make sure that the
machine is secured?
Yes. You are correct that not *ALL* hacking is dangerous. However,
there are a *LARGE* number of cases where assuming it isn't dangerous
is a bad idea. Included in this case is (presumably) *ALL* commercial
systems, and a large segment of systems in the educational sector
(I know *our* auditors would have a hairy fit if they thought that
we didn't do everything we could to keep people *OUT* of the personnel,
registrar, and accounting databases).
As an analogy - I have heard that up to 40% of all calls to fire
departments are false alarms. Should they not dispatch to every
call, just because not all of them are on fire?
For the "due process" types out there - I do *NOT* advocate doing
things *drastic* without due process - for instance, locking out
a user forever without a hearing. However, I do *NOT* see a problem
with *temporarily* disabling a userid *when* there is evidence that
it has been broken into, *until* you can contact the user of record
and find out what is going on.... "Dammit, this user has tried to
'su' to root 4 times in last 10 minutes - and he's logged in from
New Zealand, but I saw him on campus this afternoon - it's 1:15AM,
I'm turning off the account and calling him in the morning"....
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Engineer
Virginia Tech
Insert usual disclaimer here - the fact that I advocate it doesn't mean
that my boss advocates it. Etc Etc.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:51:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.205110.25519@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 20:51:10 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:51:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom)
Subject: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 03:44:49 GMT
This bunk has been floating around the ISU dorms for about a month now.
It's a memo from the ISU Department of Residence. Enjoy.
August 14, 1992
Dear Resident:
The Department of Residence is committed to providing an environment where
mutual respect for each person's right to be an included member of the
community is paramound and where denigration of others is not acceptable to
community members. All of us value living in an environment where we are
free from harassment, denigration, and abuse. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to create a positive community because of what some students
choose to plafce on their room doors. Posters, slogans, and cartoons that
denigrate individuals based on their ethnic background, gender, or sexual
orientation were present in some areas within our halls. The posting of
materials that are demeaning to others is but a symptom of the over-riding
issue of intolerance and insensitivity, but is one which we all need to
address. The Department of Residence staff has attempted to resolve these
issues, however, we felt we were not able to address them to many residents'
or to our satisfaction.
In May a letter was sent to current residents stating that we were considering
temporarily suspending students' privilege to post material on the outside of
their room doors. We stated that we would inform students of the interim plan
for Fall semester. We would then work with students to develop a long-term
plan to deal with these issues.
During the last several weeks, Program Staff members and Hall Directors have
met and decided upon the following interim policy to serve as an addendum to
the _Guide to Residence Hall Living_ until a permanent policy is developed:
Posting or displaying of materials on the exterior of the student
room (corridor) is prohibited effective August 16, 1992. Violations
of this interim policy (including "creative" methods to technically
circumvent the intent of the policy) will be handled contractually.
Students who violate the policy will be confronted and materials
will be removed. Repeated violations may result in the termination
of your contract.
During Fall semester, we will establish a committee of students and staff to
develop a permanent policy including a resolution process to respond to
discrimination and discriminatory harassment of residents of university
housing.
Thoughts?
Mark Anstrom (maanstro@iastate.edu)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:51:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.205123.25566@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 20:51:23 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:51:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.070522.23743@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 07:05:22 GMT
maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom) writes:
[...]
>The Department of Residence is committed to providing an environment where
>mutual respect for each person's right to be an included member of the
>community is paramound and where denigration of others is not acceptable to
>community members.
[...]
I'd say they have overstepped their legal authority. Also, now that
they've admitted that suppression of speech and not, say, fire safety
is their motivation, they will not be able legally to justify bans
with appeals to fire safty.
=========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment ===========
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?
No. The federal courts have said that harassing speech is different
from offensive speech. While face-to-face harassment can be
prohibited, mere offensive speech is protected by the principles of
academic freedom and, at state universities, by the Constitution.
The courts have also said that that it is unconstitutional at state
universities to base campus speech restrictions on EEOC rules. Here is
part of a decision:
==============Excerpt uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ==========
(3) PARALLEL TO TITLE VII LAW
The Board of Regents argues that this Court should find the UW Rule
constitutional because its prohibition of discriminatory speech which creates a
hostile environment has parallels in the employment setting. The Board notes
that, under Title VII, an employer has a duty to take appropriate corrective
action when it learns of pervasive illegal harassment. See Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986).
The Board correctly states Title VII law. However, its argument regarding
Title VII law has at least three difficulties. First, Title VII addresses
employment, not educational, settings. Second, even if Title VII governed
educational settings, the Meritor holding would not apply to this case. The
Meritor Court held that courts should look to agency principles when
determining whether an employer is to be held liable for its employee's
actions. See id. Since employees may act as their employer's agents, agency
law may hold an employer liable for its employees actions. In contrast, agency
theory would generally not hold a school liable for its students' actions since
students normally are not agents of the school. Finally, even if the legal
duties set forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW
Rule constitutional. Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot supersede
the requirements of the First Amendment.
============================
Private institutions are legally free to violate the standards set by
the Constitution and academic freedom. They should not, however, try
to justify their violations with appeals to government rules.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.
The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."
=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.
=================
law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================
The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.
The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."
Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.
=================
law/young-conservatives-v-sau
=================
A UPI story that tells how Stephen F. Austin University originally
banned a groups "sexist" flyers, but when challenged, the ban was
lifted and a cash settlement was given to the students whose
free-speech was violated by the ban.
=================
faq/netnews.liability
=================
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
filters.email
=================
Information about how users (on Unix machines) can filter out
harassing email by themselves.
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/rav-v-st-paul.1
pub/academic/law/young-conservatives-v-sau
pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/filters.email
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law rav-v-st-paul.1
send acad-freedom/law young-conservatives-v-sau
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.liability
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom filters.email
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:51:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.205143.25609@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 20:51:43 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:51:49 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.94701.13174@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 92 13:47:01 GMT
maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom) writes:
>This bunk has been floating around the ISU dorms for about a month now.
>It's a memo from the ISU Department of Residence. Enjoy.
Well, I don't think it qualifies as "bunk", but we'll get into that
later........
>The Department of Residence is committed to providing an environment where
>mutual respect for each person's right to be an included member of the
>community is paramound and where denigration of others is not acceptable to
>community members. All of us value living in an environment where we are
>free from harassment, denigration, and abuse. It is difficult, if not
>impossible, to create a positive community because of what some students
>choose to plafce on their room doors. Posters, slogans, and cartoons that
>denigrate individuals based on their ethnic background, gender, or sexual
>orientation were present in some areas within our halls. The posting of
>materials that are demeaning to others is but a symptom of the over-riding
>issue of intolerance and insensitivity, but is one which we all need to
>address. The Department of Residence staff has attempted to resolve these
>issues, however, we felt we were not able to address them to many residents'
>or to our satisfaction.
OK, it sounds as if they had some problems with "door art". It also seems
as if they attempted a rational dialogue, with no success.
>In May a letter was sent to current residents stating that we were considering
>temporarily suspending students' privilege to post material on the outside of
>their room doors. We stated that we would inform students of the interim plan
>for Fall semester. We would then work with students to develop a long-term
>plan to deal with these issues.
OK, they've established that careful thought has gone into this policy; they've
also mentioned that they plan to work with students to develop a long-term
approach to the problem.
>During the last several weeks, Program Staff members and Hall Directors have
>met and decided upon the following interim policy to serve as an addendum to
>the _Guide to Residence Hall Living_ until a permanent policy is developed:
Does your Residence Hall contract give the University the right to establish
such a policy? Mine certainly did.........
> Posting or displaying of materials on the exterior of the student
> room (corridor) is prohibited effective August 16, 1992.
OK, so no one can display anything. Since they aren't singling anyone
out for "special treatment", I don't believe this is censorship.
> Violations
> of this interim policy (including "creative" methods to technically
> circumvent the intent of the policy) will be handled contractually.
This seems to indicate that they have a contractual right to establish such
a policy.......
> Students who violate the policy will be confronted and materials
> will be removed. Repeated violations may result in the termination
> of your contract.
Sounds fair; they've formally stated that only repeated violations will
result in punishment (termination of contract).
>During Fall semester, we will establish a committee of students and staff to
>develop a permanent policy including a resolution process to respond to
>discrimination and discriminatory harassment of residents of university
>housing.
Great! They're going to involve students in the formal policy.
>Thoughts?
It seems to me that they have handled a difficult situation rather well.
They have:
- Affected everyone in the same fashion (no individuals or groups
have been singled out)
- Established a contractual basis for their action
- Established a certain amount of due process (in stating that
one violation will not result in punishment)
- Dictated that students will participate in the formulation of
the formal policy.
I can't call this censorship.
--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
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:52:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.205157.25661@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 20:51:57 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:52:04 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.95615.15100@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 13:56:15 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom) writes:
>
>[...]
>>The Department of Residence is committed to providing an environment where
>>mutual respect for each person's right to be an included member of the
>>community is paramound and where denigration of others is not acceptable to
>>community members.
>[...]
>
>I'd say they have overstepped their legal authority. Also, now that
>they've admitted that suppression of speech and not, say, fire safety
>is their motivation, they will not be able legally to justify bans
>with appeals to fire safty.
>
"fire safety"? Where did that come from?
Anyway, they have not overstepped their authority, IMHO. They have merely
stated that dormitory doors (which are University property in a public area)
are not to be used as "free speech forums".
Had they stated that the *interiors* of dorm rooms would be similarly
controlled, I would be quite upset. However, the Unviersity certainly
has a right to dictate how its public areas shall be used.
Notice, again, that they have refused to allow *any* expression in this
area; since they aren't excluding any particular group, it isn't censor-
ship.
I'd also point out that the Residence Halls Contract probably explicitly
awards the "right of policy" to the University; I know that mine certainly
did. I lived in a dormitory when I was 24; my contract did not allow alco-
hol in the dormitory. Even though I was "of legal age", I still had to obey
the terms of the contract..........
--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
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:52:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.205207.25703@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 20:52:07 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:52:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.204504.16820@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 20:45:04 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Notice, again, that they have refused to allow *any* expression in this
>area; since they aren't excluding any particular group, it isn't censor-
>ship.
[...]
It is censorship because free speech was allowed and now it is
excluded because of content.
_Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_
2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe,
published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
p. 121 "Although school boards are not obligated to support student
papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free
speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can
be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression. In
essence, school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student
publication simply because of displeasure with the content. In an
illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a
university could not change its funding policy for a student paper
based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a particular
issue {78}. The court noted, however, that a policy could be
established allowing students a refund of the portion of their
activity fee that supports a student paper they oppose. The judiciary
also has recognized that school officials have the right to stamp
copies of student publications to disclaim responsibility from the
content.
{78} Stanley v. Magrath, 719 F.2d 279, 282-283 (8th Cir. 1983).
Although holding that a refund policy can be established, the court
noted that such a policy cannot be initiated in response to public
criticism of the publication."
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:52:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, et al.] Re: [alt.censorship] Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.205226.25762@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 20:52:26 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:52:32 1992
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID:
Date: 17 Sep 92 22:03:07 GMT
In article <1992Sep17.063608.4505@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A repost - Carl]
>
>Newsgroups: alt.censorship
>From: maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom)
>Subject: Censorship at Iowa State
>Message-ID:
>Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 03:44:49 GMT
>
[...]
>
> Posting or displaying of materials on the exterior of the student
> room (corridor) is prohibited effective August 16, 1992. Violations
> of this interim policy (including "creative" methods to technically
> circumvent the intent of the policy) will be handled contractually.
> Students who violate the policy will be confronted and materials
> will be removed. Repeated violations may result in the termination
> of your contract.
>
>During Fall semester, we will establish a committee of students and staff to
>develop a permanent policy including a resolution process to respond to
>discrimination and discriminatory harassment of residents of university
>housing.
>
>Thoughts?
"Contractuarally" is a euphemism for "we'll tell you to stop and if
you don't, we'll boot you". Chances are that you will find that the
so-called housing contract includes terms such as "Resident will obey
all policies promulgated by the Housing Dictator." (I say so-called
because I find it hard to believe that a valid contract could contain
such terms. But their lawyers are bigger than your lawyers and the
courts could care less about students, so forget about challenging it)
However, as to the "creative" methods bit-- even the IRS couldn't get
away with prohibiting creative (and technically legal) methods of
circumventing their regulations. But the school won't worry about any
such niceties-- they'll just boot you out and leave you with nowhere
to stand while you fight with them.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:52:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.205232.25802@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 20:52:32 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 16:52:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.81049.2143@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 12:10:49 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Notice, again, that they have refused to allow *any* expression in this
>>area; since they aren't excluding any particular group, it isn't censor-
>>ship.
>[...]
>
>It is censorship because free speech was allowed and now it is
>excluded because of content.
Don't the owners of a forum have a right to close it?
If they were refusing to allow *certain* materials to be displayed, I'd
call it censorship. Since they are refusing to allow ANY displays, I'd
say that the policy, while narrow-minded, is not censorship. A dormi-
tory is University property, not student property.
> _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_
>2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe,
>published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
>
>p. 121 "Although school boards are not obligated to support student
>papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free
>speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can
>be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression.
I fail to see how dormitory-room doors were "originally created as a
free speech forum".
You're also ignoring the fact that the housing contract may give the
University the legal right to establish such a policy.
--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
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 18 17:07:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.210705.26212@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 21:07:05 GMT
[...]
>Don't the owners of a forum have a right to close it?
[...]
Consider another scenario. A public university owns the student
newspaper and one year a black is elected to the editorship by a
student/faculty board. Would the administration be allowed to say "we
don't like blacks in positions of authority, so were are closing down
the paper"? (I don't think so.)
I would consider that racial discrimination, just as I would consider
situation at Iowa State censorship.
Government forum owners can close down a forum but not for improper
reasons. In the case of the door-forum, they can't even say that they
are doing it to save money since it will likely cost them more money
to keep stuff off the doors that it would have to allow things on the
doors.
[...]
>I fail to see how dormitory-room doors were "originally created as a
>free speech forum".
[...]
This might help the school's case, but it is not decisive. The _San
Diego Committee_ case is an example were a forum became free to
discussion about the Vietnam War unintentionally.
[...]
>You're also ignoring the fact that the housing contract may give the
>University the legal right to establish such a policy.
[...]
I don't think the contract is relevant. The government can't
arbitrarily make you sign away your rights and it can't create a
contract that gives it more authority that it actually has.
It couldn't for example change the student code to say:
"Normally a university-owned student newspaper couldn't be closed down
because the adminstation doesn't like the race of the editor, but by
by signing this you agree that we can close down the newspaper for
this reason. In exchange for your agreement, we will let you enroll."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
=================
Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471. A
decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public
Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper).
=================
law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
=================
In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities
can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their
students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths).
=================
=================
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/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents
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 san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd
send acad-freedom/law keyishian-v-board-of-regents
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 00:11:49 1992
From: pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.wizards,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.221536.27271@mccc.edu>
Date: 18 Sep 92 22:15:36 GMT
In article <1992Sep16.205411.6013@cirrus.com> dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
=In exuptr@exu.ericsson.se
=(exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
=
=>Surely hacking could be construed as a "reason relating to the safety
=>and well-being of students, faculty, or university property".
=
=Was this deliberate flame-bait, or are you genuinely (and naively)
=assuming that all hacking is dangerous to others?
He *must* be using the media definition of "hacking" and not the
time-honored one.
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 00:51:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Due process procedures are like disk backups ...
Message-ID: <1992Sep19.045106.1231@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1992 04:51:06 GMT
Due process procedures are like disk backups,
if the system is running smoothly, they will seldom be needed;
but when something goes wrong, they can be a lifesaver.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 10:53:11 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 02.38
Message-ID: <1992Sep19.145303.4175@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1992 14:53:03 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/cafv02n38".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n38
--- begin abstract ---
[Best of July 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, Mark, Adam, and John.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Articles 1-5 are about sexual material on academic computers in Canada.
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. These are articles by Peter Moon of The Globe and Mail, Toronto.
The first is "Network Sex: Is increasingly explicit material on some
computer bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity." The second is
"Network lets users say what they think." Reprinted with permission.
<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
3. This article, which seeks to correct the view of the Internet as a
public medium for the dissemination of "sleazy" material, has been
sent to the editor of the _Globe & Mail_.
4. "There are three main questions here:... (1) Is there erotic
material that, if it were readily available, would make some people
more prone to commit acts of rape and child sexual abuse?... (2) Is
the risk (in terms of infringement of general human rights) of
censoring such material so high that we should allow it to be
available anyway?... [and] (3) Where do you draw the line?"
<1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca>
5. A Canadian user argues that alt.sex is permissible by Canadian 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..."
Note 6 is a reaction to the suggestion people outside Canada should
restrict their netnews articles to that which is unobjectionable in
Canada.
6. A user objects to the idea that what should be permissible should be
determined by recognizing guidelines 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>
Notes 7-8 are about .plan files that might offend.
7. "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."
8. As long as nobody is forced to see the material in question, the
student should not be punished. Material in public access information
areas should be "PG-13." Other users should be able to "finger" anyone
"without getting any sort of shock."
Note 9 is about user-selected publicly-accessible software.
9. The policy of the University of Kentucky's Engineering Computing
Center will be that "The installation of recreational network
resources, such as MUD, Netrek, or IRC clients/servers, are explicitly
prohibited UNLESS these programs include use restrictions based on
time of day and number of users. The installation of these resources
may only be performed by ECC staff."
<1992Jul30.94721.2490@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 10-12 are about hostility toward women in Usenet and academia.
10. "In the US, people are trying to stamp out speech they find
offensive. So they label it "harassment", claim that it
"discriminates", and ban it from the workplace, schools, housing,
etc." A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses this
problem, and is here reprinted with the permission of the WSJ.
<1992Jul3.221144.20089@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
11. "Since virtually every place where people associate is a workplace
for someone, even if it's just the people who maintain the
establishment, prohibiting "offensive work environments" requires
suppressing free speech in almost any place people could gather to
discuss issues."
<1992Jul3.232416.23672@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
12. "...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." 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]."
- 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, John F. Nixon 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 19 16:27:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <199209192027.AA06832@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1992 20:20:25 GMT
Since the ban on hallway door postings is content-neutral (the only way they
could do it constitutionally), a censorship argument may be hard to sustain.
The fact that what had previously been at least a _de facto_ free-speech forum
has been revoked may or may not provide a remedy. Likewise, the fact that the
stated rationale is to control hate speech, yet all speech is being supressed,
may or may not support a claim of overbreadth.
On the whole, it seems that the university has made this more an issue in
landlord-tenant law than anything else. Perhaps the silenced dorm occupants
should check into that legal theory to see if it offers any remedies (I don't
know for sure, but I tend to doubt it).
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 17:17:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Iowa State U. restrictions mentioned in censorship newsletter
Message-ID: <1992Sep19.211712.7319@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1992 21:17:12 GMT
Iowa State's newsgroup restrictions are mentioned on p. 93 of the May
1992 _Newsletter on Intellectional Freedom_. The short newsletter
article is based an article from the campus newspaper.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 17:31:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep19.212607.2558@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1992 21:26:07 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 17:31:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.100420.6351@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 10:04:19 EDT
In article maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom) writes:
>
> Posting or displaying of materials on the exterior of the student
> room (corridor) is prohibited effective August 16, 1992. Violations
> of this interim policy (including "creative" methods to technically
> circumvent the intent of the policy) will be handled contractually.
> Students who violate the policy will be confronted and materials
> will be removed. Repeated violations may result in the termination
> of your contract.
>
>During Fall semester, we will establish a committee of students and staff to
>develop a permanent policy including a resolution process to respond to
>discrimination and discriminatory harassment of residents of university
>housing.
>
>Thoughts?
As I have been battling with the Syracuse University [a private school]
administration over postings on my office door, I spoke recently with the
[now former] director of the Central NY chapter of NYCLU. She informed me
that they had recently settled a similar case at SUNY Binghamton involving
postings on dorm doors. I didn't ask for details, but it sounds as though
1) there may be established precedent on this very issue (in addition to
the fact that we know as a general principle that state schools cannot
restrict speech for the express purpose of stifling "undesirable" expression),
and 2) the ACLU is interested enough to get involved.
I suggest someone contact the nearest chapter as soon as possible.
BTW, if they later change their tune and come up with some other alleged
reason for the rule, you can cite Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund (1985) in which the SC ruled "The existence of reasonable
grounds for limiting access to a nonpublic forum, however, will not save
a regulation that is in reality a facade for viewpoint-based discrimination..."
It follows that the courts will also refuse to tolerate such facades in other
situations.
Good luck.
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 18:19:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep19.221744.8702@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1992 22:17:44 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 18:19:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.140341.8023@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 14:03:41 EDT
Note: To save space, I've deleted all of the original post to which Wes
Morgan responds...
In article <1992Sep17.94701.13174@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>OK, it sounds as if they had some problems with "door art". It also seems
>as if they attempted a rational dialogue, with no success.
I'm not convinced. Administrations like to speak as though they have gone
out of there way to avoid taking some administrative action, even when that
is not the case. As far as "rational dialogue" goes, it may have been their
position that *anything* that diverged from total voluntary compliance with
their suggestions would be unsatisfactory, and result in a mandate along the
lines of what they produced.
In any case, this does not have any apparent relevance to the legal issues
involved.
>OK, they've established that careful thought has gone into this policy; they've
>also mentioned that they plan to work with students to develop a long-term
>approach to the problem.
I can't conclude that they've put much "careful" thought into the matter.
I'm also very skeptical as to what the phrase "work with students" means
to an administration that attempts to take such action.
>Does your Residence Hall contract give the University the right to establish
>such a policy? Mine certainly did.........
I assume that "Iowa State University" is indeed a *state* university. In
that case, the contractual "rights" of the university are irrelevant. They
cannot supercede the US Constitution.
>OK, so no one can display anything. Since they aren't singling anyone
>out for "special treatment", I don't believe this is censorship.
Well, you don't understand the concept of "censorship" very well.
The presence of viewpoint discrimination is absolute evidence of an
attempt to stifle expression.
The opposite, however, is not true. That is, the *absence* of viewpoint
discrimination is *not* evidence of the *absence* of an attempt to
stifle expression. But this is what you seem to assume.
If everyone is told that they cannot post items, then *everybody's*
right to free speech is being infringed. It makes absolutely no
difference how uniformly the rule is applied.
The only thing that can make a difference is the *basis* for the
infringement. If it is a legitimate time, place, and manner
restriction--based upon, say, a fire hazard (as Carl mentioned),
then the restriction is legal (and justified in many people's eyes).
But that is not the case here. The school has made it very clear
that this rule is for the express purpose of stifling expression.
Therefore. it is not a legitimate time, place and manner restriction.
Please note that the first amendment prohibits restrictions on free
speech, in general. It does not merely prohibit viewpoint discrimination.
>This seems to indicate that they have a contractual right to establish such
>a policy.......
It could also simply mean that there are assigning to themselves, via that
letter, the contractual "right" to do so. (That is, it does not suggest
to me that there had been any previous contractual prohibitions.)
In any case, as I said before, a state school's contractual "rights" cannot
violate the constitution.
>Sounds fair; they've formally stated that only repeated violations will
>result in punishment (termination of contract).
Doesn't sound fair to me. It sounds like, "Put something up, we'll rip
it down. Become a pain in our ass by reposting, and we'll take formal
disciplinary action."
That doesn't strike me as at all fair when we are talking about
1) An illegal rule, and
2) a rule that, to my mind, clearly violates one of the most
fundamental principles to the workings of any academic institution--
that of free speech.
>Great! They're going to involve students in the formal policy.
I'm sure that the university will be glad to know that at least *some*
people are so easily convinced that students will play a meaningful
role in the development of the policy. (That is, by means other
than protest, etc.)
>It seems to me that they have handled a difficult situation rather well.
It seems to me that they have handled a situation that they view as a
potential headache in the manner that was most expedient for removing
that headache--without any significant concern for law or basic
principles.
It is now the students' responsibility to show the university that to
take such censorial action will produce a far greater headache...
>They have:
> - Affected everyone in the same fashion (no individuals or groups
> have been singled out)
True, but irrelevant.
> - Established a contractual basis for their action
Not demonstrated, and irrelevant.
> - Established a certain amount of due process (in stating that
> one violation will not result in punishment)
Meaningless.
> - Dictated that students will participate in the formulation of
> the formal policy.
Note the word "dictated." They have claimed that this will be the case.
Whether they intend to have any meaningful student involvement is not
obvious, solely based upon this claim.
Furthermore, student involvement does not add any legal or moral
justification to this act of censorship.
The whole problem is that they have *dictated* everything, and reserve
that right to themselves--even where they have no such right.
>I can't call this censorship.
I guess you can't call a rose "a rose" either...
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 20:59:42 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 00:17:29 GMT
In betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>We lock out users by changing their shell. We do this whenever we
>crack their passwd's using crack, ...
From the user's perspective, this seems to be an unfair policy. How is J.
Random User going to know that the password they enter is easily cracked?
Besides, this problem can be solved much more easily by using a passwd
program which disallows use of crackable passwords. As it is, you are
trying to catch the problem after it's happened.
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 1236 Camino Meleno
Santa Barbara | Santa Barbara, CA 93111-1007
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 964-2088 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | (805) MUD-SPY1 data
(805) 893-4113 | jim@tcp.com
jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | This space intentionally left blank
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 21:22:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.011318.29896@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 01:13:18 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 21:22:01 1992
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep19.210718.10207@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 19 Sep 92 21:07:18 GMT
In meyer@darkwing.uoregon.edu (David M. Meyer 503/346-1747) writes:
> What has your site done (e.g., not recive alt.*,
> receive all of alt.*, select part of alt.*, ...)?
Dartmouth receives all newsgroups. rec, news, soc, alt, etc. We also
gateway a number of listserv mailing lists through news as well.
If the general alt.* traffic isn't enough Dartmouth affiliates can use
local dartmouth.alt.* groups as well.
> Who makes such decisions? The politics of all
> this looks pretty complex here; is it a
> departmental decision, or a University wide
> issue?
Here it appears to be a departmental decision made by Computing Services.
But if a major problem developed the Dean's or Trustee's might get
involved. It has never really happened.
A few years a go there was a short period where freshmen were printing
questionable things to the public printers but Computing Services decided
that they would not get into the censorship business. After a while the
novelty wore off and that was that.
> Your experiences and responses would be greatly
> appreciated.
In MY opinion alt.* groups and similar things can be a source of problems
but nothing really serious. I don't really object when a site rejects
alt.* traffic to try and reduce costs, that's reasonable. But if they can
afford a full news feed they should allow it.
> As usual, I'm only asking these questions for my own
> edification, and do not represent the Universtiy of
> Oregon in these matters.
And I don't represent Dartmouth (good thing too).
-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
If you don't vote... you don't count.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 21:22:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.011252.12831@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 01:12:52 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 21:22:02 1992
From: meyer@darkwing.uoregon.edu (David M. Meyer 503/346-1747)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Sep 92 15:54:02 GMT
I am interested in what various sites do about the alt
hierarchy. We've had a problem here (at the Universtiy of
Oregon) in that students (and others?) have been
displaying potentially offensive images on various
departmental devices (sparcstations, mac laser printers,
etc).
The problem appears to have several components, including
possible first ammendment implications (i.e., what right
do people have to news?). My questions
include:
What has your site done (e.g., not recive alt.*,
receive all of alt.*, select part of alt.*, ...)?
Who makes such decisions? The politics of all
this looks pretty complex here; is it a
departmental decision, or a University wide
issue?
Your experiences and responses would be greatly
appreciated.
As usual, I'm only asking these questions for my own
edification, and do not represent the Universtiy of
Oregon in these matters.
Thanks again,
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Meyer Voice: 503/346-1747
Pager: 503/342-9458
FAX: 503/346-4397
Senior Network Engineer Internet: meyer@ns.uoregon.edu
Office of University Computing Bitnet: meyer@oregon
University of Oregon UUCP: ...!uoregon!meyer
1225 Kincaid
Eugene, OR 97403
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 21:33:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.012746.4155@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 01:27:46 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 21:33:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.143018.8205@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 14:30:18 EDT
In article <1992Sep17.95615.15100@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>>The Department of Residence is committed to providing an environment where
>>>mutual respect for each person's right to be an included member of the
>>>community is paramound and where denigration of others is not acceptable to
>>>community members.
>>
>>I'd say they have overstepped their legal authority. Also, now that
>>they've admitted that suppression of speech and not, say, fire safety
>>is their motivation, they will not be able legally to justify bans
>>with appeals to fire safty.
>
>"fire safety"? Where did that come from?
Once the university is challenged and learns that they cannot legally
institute such a ban, they might want to come up with a legitimate
time, place and manner restriction to replace the illegal policy--
for example, claiming that posts present a fire hazard.
Carl is simply pointing out that, given the letter already in hand, it
will be obvious that any such attempt is merely a facade--and therefore,
would also be illegal (see Cornelius v. NAACP).
>Anyway, they have not overstepped their authority, IMHO.
I'm glad your opinion is humble, because from a legal standpoint, it
is clearly wrong. (Once again, assuming that ISU is indeed a public
institution.)
>They have merely
>stated that dormitory doors (which are University property in a public area)
>are not to be used as "free speech forums".
But they have absolutely no right to do so. They cannot arbitrarily pick and
choose where they will allow expression.
>Had they stated that the *interiors* of dorm rooms would be similarly
>controlled, I would be quite upset. However, the Unviersity certainly
>has a right to dictate how its public areas shall be used.
Does the government have a right to tell you that you can freely
express yourself--so long as you confine that expression to within
your house?
At a state university, the adminstration *is* the government!!
>Notice, again, that they have refused to allow *any* expression in this
>area; since they aren't excluding any particular group, it isn't censor-
>ship.
This does not follow. It is not *viewpoint discrimination*, but that is
not the same as censorship, in general. (And furthermore, the rule
is clearly motivated by *viewpoint discrimination*. I'm sure that if
they thought they could away with banning only the "bad" postings, they
would have done this--but even they realized that they couldn't. I'm
not sure why they thought they could get away with the current policy,
other than that administrations typically don't give a damn about
what's right or wrong, legal or not. They probably just figured no
one would complain too loudly--and even if someone does, they can just
drop the policy and be none the worse for wear...)
>I'd also point out that the Residence Halls Contract probably explicitly
>awards the "right of policy" to the University; I know that mine certainly
>did. I lived in a dormitory when I was 24; my contract did not allow alco-
>hol in the dormitory. Even though I was "of legal age", I still had to obey
>the terms of the contract..........
Whether such was legal or not, I don't know. But in any case, it is not
a comparable case, since you do not have a constitutionally protected
right to have alcohol in your dormitory.
Furthermore, as far as housing contracts go--some states, like New York
for example, recognize that most leases (such as those offered by
Universities) are offered on a take it or leave it basis (which constitutes
a form of duress). As such, various provisions may be found totally
unenforceable when challenged.
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 23:12:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy, et al.] Re: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.030440.15132@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 03:04:40 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 23:12:41 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad.freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.012715.8669@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 01:27:15 GMT
meyer@darkwing.uoregon.edu (David M. Meyer 503/346-1747) writes:
> I am interested in what various sites do about the alt
> hierarchy. We've had a problem here (at the Universtiy of
> Oregon) in that students (and others?) have been
> displaying potentially offensive images on various
> departmental devices (sparcstations, mac laser printers,
> etc).
This is likely already covered by your university's sexual harassment
policy. That policy likely spells out the exact procedure that is to
be followed in cases of sexual harassment.
Your situtation is analogous one in which people copy pictures from
the Univeristy library's _Playboy_ and displayed them in a University
office. The sexual harassment procedure might forbit some displays but
it would not require the library to cancel it's subscription to
_Playboy_.
I'm enclosing an FAQ from the Computers and Academic Freedom archive
and information about the newsgroups/mailing lists.
- Carl
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading ===============
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
a: In 1989, Stanford University banned rec.humor.funny. The ban was
lifted after a university committee recommended that newsgroups be
selected according to library policy. In other words, removing a
newsgroup is equivalent to banning a magazine from an academic
library.
The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries can (and
should, in my opinion) be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
With the permission of the American Library Association, these
documents and others are available on-line. Many of these documents
deal with controversial material and material selection policy. For
example, article 2 of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval". The ALA Statement on Diversity talks about the
importance of "materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues." The ALA Workbook for Selection
Policy Writing tells how to create a formal policy. It also tells
exactly how to respond to challenges to controversial material.
- Carl M. Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
statements/stanford.statements
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "pub/academic/cases/jmcabstract")
=================
cases/jmcabstract
=================
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he traveled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" and "alt.sex" was banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (In May 1991, an advisory committee said the
ban should be lifted. In October 1991, the ban was lifted.)
(Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
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.
=================
policies/netnews.uwm.edu
=================
These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor.
They say (to paraphrase) 1) Netnews is important 2) No restrictions
should be imposed without wide consultation 3) The principles of
intellectual freedom developed for university libraries apply to
Netnews material 4) The principles of intellectual freedom developed
for publication in traditional media apply to computer media.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/freedom-to-read.ala
=================
The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association
and Association of American Publishers.
It says in part: "We trust Americans to recognize propaganda, and to
reject it. We do not believe they need the help of censors to assist
them in this task. We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice
their heritage of a free press in order to be "protected" against what
others think may be bad for them. We believe they still favor free
enterprise in ideas and expression."
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that
materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This
includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues."
=================
library/selection-workbook.ala
=================
Full text of ALA's selection policy workbook.
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/censorship.def.ala
=================
The American Library Association's definition of "censorship" and related
terms.
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom/library
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/statements/stanford.statements
pub/academic/cases/jmcabstract
pub/academic/statements/caf-statement
pub/academic/statements/caf-statement.critique
pub/academic/policies/netnews.uwm.edu
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala
pub/academic/library/README
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/banned.1991
pub/academic/caf
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/statements stanford.statements
send acad-freedom/cases jmcabstract
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement.critique
send acad-freedom/policies netnews.uwm.edu
send acad-freedom/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/library freedom-to-read.ala
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/library selection-workbook.ala
send acad-freedom/library int-freedom.ala
send acad-freedom/library censorship.def.ala
send acad-freedom/library README
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom banned.1991
send acad-freedom caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 23:12:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.030510.23012@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 03:05:10 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 23:12:42 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.014412.3219@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 92 01:44:12 GMT
In article meyer@darkwing.uoregon.edu (David M. Meyer 503/346-1747) writes:
>
>
> I am interested in what various sites do about the alt
> hierarchy. We've had a problem here (at the Universtiy of
> Oregon) in that students (and others?) have been
> displaying potentially offensive images on various
> departmental devices (sparcstations, mac laser printers,
> etc).
>
> The problem appears to have several components, including
> possible first ammendment implications (i.e., what right
> do people have to news?). My questions
> include:
>
> What has your site done (e.g., not recive alt.*,
> receive all of alt.*, select part of alt.*, ...)?
Sex-related groups are not available to users under the age of majority.
Once they are at or beyond 21, I don't care what they look at, say, or do,
so long as they respect my right to peaceful co-existence :-)
> Who makes such decisions? The politics of all
> this looks pretty complex here; is it a
> departmental decision, or a University wide
> issue?
I make the decision, but then I have the freedom of doing that - it's my
system. College and university managers don't have that freedom, since they
have to tolerate the goodie-two-shoes who are permitted to do their thinking
for them, and often must remove "politicly sensitive" material from their
I'm not much on censorship, although I confess to being less than perfect in
this regard. I suspect society would be better off if the goodie-two-shoes
folks fucked right off, and left the rest of us to read whatever we chose
to. A university that censors the information available isn't entitled to
the respect it would normally enjoy. Cowardice is difficult to reconcile,
even for the "educated" among us who run our institutions of higher
learning.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
(604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 19 23:23:23 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.031417.13992@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 03:14:17 GMT
kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
[...]
>Sex-related groups are not available to users under the age of majority.
>Once they are at or beyond 21, I don't care what they look at, say, or do,
>so long as they respect my right to peaceful co-existence :-)
[...]
In the U.S. the age of majority for most things in most places is 18.
(I thought it was about the same in Canada.
[...]
>I make the decision, but then I have the freedom of doing that - it's my
>system. College and university managers don't have that freedom, since they
>have to tolerate the goodie-two-shoes who are permitted to do their thinking
>for them, and often must remove "politicly sensitive" material from their
>I'm not much on censorship, although I confess to being less than perfect in
>this regard. I suspect society would be better off if the goodie-two-shoes
>folks fucked right off, and left the rest of us to read whatever we chose
>to. A university that censors the information available isn't entitled to
>the respect it would normally enjoy. Cowardice is difficult to reconcile,
>even for the "educated" among us who run our institutions of higher
>learning.
At least some Canadian universities have this courage. I'm enclosing
information. Many U.S. universities do too.
- Carl
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/umanitoba.ca ===============
q: What is going on at the Univeristy of Manitoba in Canada? What is
the Canadian law on obscenity?
Here is some information related to the alt.sex* ban at the Univerity
of Manitoba.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/int-freedom.can
=================
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom
=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
law/charter.can
=================
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - From the Canadian
Constitution Act 1982
=================
law/r-v-butler
=================
The official summary and excerpts from the full decision in the case
of _R. v. Butler_. This Canadian Supreme Court case, decided in
February 1992, redefined "obscenity" in Canada.
=================
law/r-v-butler.ms
=================
Information on the Canadian definition of obscenity from _Ms._
magazine.
=================
policies/umanitoba.ca.critique
=================
An open letter from Brad Templeton to the U. of Manitoba arguing against their
newsgroup ban.
=================
cases/waterloo.ca
=================
History of the U. of Waterloo (in Canada) ban of rec.humor.funny and
alt.sex*. (They eventually restored the newsgroups.)
=================
policies/waterloo.edu
=================
Newsgroup policy for the University of Waterloo and "Report of the
Advisory Committee on Netowrk News"
The policy recognizes that each user is responsible for what he or she
writes. It says that all available newsgroups will be carried without
screening or censorship. It establishes a procedure for dealing with
bad (illegal?) articles posted from off-campus.
=================
policies/utoronoto.ca
=================
An article from the University of Toronto _Bulletin_. It says, in
part, "U of T is not planning to intercept or censor the international
computer network, Internet, that carries among its thousands of files
a couple that contain violent pornographic material."
=================
cases/jmcabstract
=================
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he traveled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" and "alt.sex" was banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (In May 1991, an advisory committee said the
ban should be lifted. In October 1991, the ban was lifted.)
(Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.can
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
pub/academic/law/charter.can
pub/academic/law/r-v-butler
pub/academic/law/r-v-butler.ms
pub/academic/policies/umanitoba.ca.critique
pub/academic/cases/waterloo.ca
pub/academic/policies/waterloo.edu
pub/academic/policies/utoronoto.ca
pub/academic/cases/jmcabstract
pub/academic/caf
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/library int-freedom.can
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom/law charter.can
send acad-freedom/law r-v-butler
send acad-freedom/law r-v-butler.ms
send acad-freedom/policies umanitoba.ca.critique
send acad-freedom/cases waterloo.ca
send acad-freedom/policies waterloo.edu
send acad-freedom/policies utoronoto.ca
send acad-freedom/cases jmcabstract
send acad-freedom caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 20 01:00:18 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 92 04:45:46 GMT
In article jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>In betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>>We lock out users by changing their shell. We do this whenever we
>>crack their passwd's using crack, ...
>
>From the user's perspective, this seems to be an unfair policy. How is J.
>Random User going to know that the password they enter is easily cracked?
We inform the user in our seminars on what constitutes a "good"
password, and what is "bad". The rules are pretty simple.
>Besides, this problem can be solved much more easily by using a passwd
>program which disallows use of crackable passwords. As it is, you are
>trying to catch the problem after it's happened.
Yes, but such a system is not available for many sites. passwd+ is
close, but it won't support NIS yet, although a version that does is
supposed to be out Very Soon. I've looked at npasswd, and the docs
themselves say that NIS support is minimal.
What about NeXT's who don't even use have to use "passwd" to change
their password? Good luck trying to get the source code to Preferences.
Don't assume that everyone uses a common program to change their
password.
Crack is still the easiest and most widely available solution to
the poor password.
--Dave
--
System Administrator, Population Research Institute barr@pop.psu.edu
"An analogy is like instant coffee: it can wake you up, but it's
not the real thing" -- Peter da Silva
From caf-talk Caf Sep 20 17:00:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.210003.19580@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 21:00:03 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 20 17:00:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep19.122626.25847@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 12:26:26 EDT
In article <1992Sep17.204504.16820@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Notice, again, that they have refused to allow *any* expression in this
>>area; since they aren't excluding any particular group, it isn't censor-
>>ship.
>
>It is censorship because free speech was allowed and now it is
>excluded because of content.
It's not at all clear to me that the fact that free speech was at one time
allowed plays any significant role in this case.
In the case of a paper, presumably money is required. One can't particularly
argue that the first amendment requires a public school to start spending
money on a paper. However, in the case at hand, even if the dorm were
brand new (and therefore, had never had posted items before) and the school
established the policy in question, it would *still* be illegal, because it
is not based upon any legitimate (time, place and manner) restriction intended
to either facilitate communication or to protect the building from
impediments to its use as intended.
The only relevant fact here is that the policy in question does not meet the
standard reflected by Clark v. Community for Creative Non-violence (1984),
in which the SC held that [in that case, symbolic] expression "may be
forbidden or regulated if the conduct itself may constitutionally be
regulated, if the regulation is narrowly drawn to further a substantial
governmental interest, and if the interest is unrelated to the suppression
of free speech."
Though Clark was a case of symbolic expression (sleeping in a park), the
standard is clearly applicable to more conventional forms of expression.
In the case at hand, the regulation is neither "narrowly drawn" nor
"unrelated to the suppression of free speech." Furthermore, it is questionable
as to whether there is any "substantial governmental interest" which is
furthered by the regulation, and the posting of items on the outside of
one's dorm room is not very likely to be conduct that "itself may be
constitutionally regulated."
> _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_
>2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe,
>published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
>
>p. 121 "Although school boards are not obligated to support student
>papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free
>speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can
>be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression.
[...]
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 20 19:57:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.235817.28841@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 23:58:17 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 20 19:57:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Message-ID: <1992Sep19.191409.303@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 19:14:09 EDT
In article <1992Sep18.81049.2143@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>>Notice, again, that they have refused to allow *any* expression in this
>>>area; since they aren't excluding any particular group, it isn't censor-
>>>ship.
>>
>>It is censorship because free speech was allowed and now it is
>>excluded because of content.
>
>Don't the owners of a forum have a right to close it?
Not when the "owner" of the forum is an arm of the government--then their
"right" to close the forum are significantly resricted. (See my previous
posts.)
>If they were refusing to allow *certain* materials to be displayed, I'd
>call it censorship. Since they are refusing to allow ANY displays, I'd
>say that the policy, while narrow-minded, is not censorship. A dormi-
>tory is University property, not student property.
Whether it is private property or public property, "good" suppression or
"bad" suppression, content-based or not, this is *still* an example of
censorship.
As I said in my previous post, viewpoint discrimination implies censorship;
however, the absence of viewpoint discrimination does *not* imply an
absence of censorship.
This is the mistaken assumption underlying your claim that this "is not
censorship."
>You're also ignoring the fact that the housing contract may give the
>University the legal right to establish such a policy.
You are ignoring that under the first amendment, *no* arm of the government
has the right to establish a policy with the purpose of stifling
expression.
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 20 20:31:10 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 00:29:44 GMT
barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:
>Yes, but such a system is not available for many sites. passwd+ is
>close, but it won't support NIS yet, although a version that does is
>supposed to be out Very Soon. I've looked at npasswd, and the docs
>themselves say that NIS support is minimal.
I hacked a program that does this this past summer, it has been/
will be posted to comp.lang.perl shortly. It was written by a guy
in Finland originally I believe (first name: Anders).
>What about NeXT's who don't even use have to use "passwd" to change
>their password? Good luck trying to get the source code to Preferences.
>Don't assume that everyone uses a common program to change their
>password.
Ironically, I developed the system to run at a NeXT installation.
We developed a NeXTSTEP shell over the perl client so that people
could run it via NeXTSTEP.
You can disable password changing via Preferences by deleting the
proper module from /usr/lib/Preferences. Also, your complaint is
no longer valid with NeXTSTEP 3.0. The API to Preferences is fully
published and you can include your own secure password changer as a
Preferences option.
--
David Lemson (217) 244-1205
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail accepted BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD
From caf-talk Caf Sep 20 22:28:24 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.022731.5465@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 02:27:31 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 20 22:28:24 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: mgflax@miro.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: What do you do about alt.*
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.020503.9397@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 02:05:03 GMT
In article meyer@darkwing.uoregon.edu (David M. Meyer 503/346-1747) writes:
>
> I am interested in what various sites do about the alt
> hierarchy. We've had a problem here (at the Universtiy of
> Oregon) in that students (and others?) have been
> displaying potentially offensive images on various
> departmental devices (sparcstations, mac laser printers,
> etc).
If the problem is displaying "offensive" images in public computer
clusters, then you might want to start a policy that people should view
images only in private. If you have a problem with people printing
"offensive" images on laserprinters, then you might want to restrict
printing to text and academically-related graphics. There's no need to
restrict what people may read privately or store in their account as
long as you make clear to users that they should behave politely in
public.
marshall
p.s. Princeton U. has such a policy, in effect.
--
============ 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 =
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Sep 20 23:39:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Need Email Privacy Advice
Message-ID: <1992Sep21.033152.8453@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 03:31:52 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Sep 20 23:39:19 1992
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: steve@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Stephen Lafleur)
Subject: Need Email Privacy Advice
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 22:16:39 GMT
What are the ramifications of a system administrator of a university computing
facility reading through users' email (in /usr/spool/mail)? Reasons given
by the administrator might include security -- grepping for keywords in order
to catch users discussing security and illegal activities.
I'm looking for a clear explanation of laws pertaining to the privacy of email,
and the best steps necessary to bring an infringement of such rights to the
attention of university administrators.
--
Stephen Lafleur
sxl@gator.cacs.usl.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
