From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 02:02:58 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 02.49
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.060247.14732@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:02:47 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/cafv02n49".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n49
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending October 4, 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]
Note 1 is the latest edition of the "Banned Computer Material 1992"
list. [The original version is in the archive as
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/old.banned.1992]
1. A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German
universities, Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James
Madison U., Middle East Technical U., North Dakota State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., Princeton, Simon Fraser U., U. of British
Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley *, U. of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of Massachusetts at Boston,
U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle, U. of Ottawa, U. of
Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of Wyoming, United
Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network, Virginia Tech,
Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid Laurier U.
(2), Williams College **
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
<1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>
Notes 2-7 are about "banning" offensive .plan files.
2. In reply to a sys admin who says that asking that users not to put
offensive material in a .plan is not a ban: "It's based on content.
That constitutes censorship. Who decides what is or is not
'obscene, sexual, or violent'? If the specific logic to decide what
is or is not, is in writing, why not POST IT HERE ... If there is
no such specifics, how can anyone know in advance?"
<1992Sep30.192405.1619@netcom.com>
3. In reply to the sys admin's comment that "Saying 'you may post this
material anywhere except for this one place' is a far cry from
prohibiting or forbidding the material!": "On the contrary, [...]
American Constitutional jurisprudence is full of cases in which
regulation of expression based on content was considered to be
censorship."
<1992Oct2.011244.13372@eff.org>
4. [The sys admin:] "What are the consequences if a student doesn't
change a .plan file? **NONE** Lemme repeat for the last time: We
are a community, not a legal board."
5. [A sys admin at another site:] "I've had a few users who named
their programs with "offensive" words." ... When I see such a
thing, I drop a piece of email explaining that everyone can see
their process names. I don't tell them to cease and desist; I just
say 'hey, did you know what anyone on the system can see that?'
Most of my users don't even realize that others can see that
information; I've never had a 'repeat offender'.
<1992Oct1.154233.21781@ms.uky.edu>
6. Here is an excerpt from the Supreme Court decision _Cohen v.
California_. It says that offensive speech is protected unless
"substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially
intolerable manner."
<1992Oct1.132836.25405@eff.org>
7. Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions. They say
that offensive public expression is protected if those offended can
"effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities
simply by averting their eyes."
<1992Oct2.200348.2320@eff.org>
Note 8 is about the University of Limerick in Ireland:
8. "[T]here was a security incident involving a user who had the
process name 'Baader' [, his name]. Subsequent to his 'trial' and
expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his
process name to 'Baader' and promptly found himself disusered."
<1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com>
Notes 9-10 are about banning not only the running of some computer
programs but also possession of program's code.
9. In reply to an associate director of computing services who
compared possession of some programs' code to possession of a
handgun: "A COMPUTER PROGRAM IS NOT A HANDGUN. Computer programs,
at least in source code form, are PUBLISHED MATERIAL ... If my use
of computer resources provided for a particular purpose to me and
others interferes with that purpose, then you have a right to take
action ... But information itself may not be made '"illegal' ..."
10. In reply to the associate director comment that program code is to
running a prohibited program as burglary tools are to burglary: "I
view the distinction as rather like the distinction between
possessing a book that tells how to steal and actually stealing.
.... Academic libraries are full of books and reports that could
be used to break rules and laws. I've enclosed an example.
<1992Oct1.203856.7190@eff.org>
Note 11 is about network connectivity with the former Soviet Union (xSU).
11. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is asking that the xSU be
allowed to connect so as not to "to disenfranchise a large
fraction of the US R&E community whose aspirations for
unrestricted scientific and educational collaboration with their
peers and colleagues in the xSU NSF fully endorses."
<9209291450.AA22215@ncri>
Note 12 is a mini review of a book about freedom of expression.
12. The book, _Free Speech in an Open Society_, is new, up to date,
and has lots of references to relevant court cases. Enclosed are
the book's six suggested rules for speech rules in a free forum.
<1992Sep29.184810.10473@eff.org>
- 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 Oct 5 02:22:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society.privacy] Re: SSN in login ids
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.061342.12108@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:13:42 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 02:22:22 1992
From: "Carl M. Kadie"
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN in login ids
Message-ID:
Eric Hunt writes:
>The University of Alabama/Birmingham's Engineering dept uses a student's
>full SSN as a part of their computer login ids. This machine in Internet
>reachable.
>
>I was wondering what relevant laws, if any, applied to this situation?
[...]
I think this is likely a violation of FERPA. I'm enclosing information.
============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/ferpa ===========
[From _College and University Student Records: A Legal Compendium_,
Edited by Joan E. Van Tol, 1989]
================== p. 119 ===============
The regulations ... were significantly modified in 1988. ... The
new regulations amend the definition of directory information
and establish a standard for the designation of directory information.
The new definition is:
' ... information contained in an education record of a student which
would not be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if
disclosed. It includes, but is not limited to, the student's name,
address, telephone list, date and place of birth, major field of
study, participation in officially-recognized activities and sports,
weight and height of members of athletic teams, date of attendance,
degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational
agency or institution attended.'
The new standard -- that which would not be considered harmful or an
invasion of privacy if disclosed -- permits the educational
institution to exercise its discretion in the designation and and
release of directory information provided that the eligible student
does not object to the disclosure.
======================== p. 106 ============
[From the regulations: 34 C.F.R., 99.37 (1988)]
99.37 What conditions apply to disclosing directory information?
(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose directory information
if it has given public notice to parents of students in attendance and
eligible student is attendance at the agency or institutional of --
(1) The types of personally identifiable information that the
agency or institution has designed as directory information;
(2) A parent's or eligible student's right to refuse to let the agency
or institution any or all of those types of information about the
student as directory information; and
(3) The period of time within which a parent or eligible student has
to notify the agency or institution in writing that he or she does
not want any or all of those types of information about the student
designed as directory information.
================== p. 155 ================
[from a reprint of an article printed in 1982 in _Computer/Law
Journal_ by a Ms. Hyman.]
... A waiver of FERPA rights made pursuant to section 99.7 must be
exercised by the student {109} and can apply to all FERPA rights
{110}. Wavers must be signed {111}, and are most commonly given
regarding letters of recommendation for admission {112}. Institutions
may request students to waive their right of access to these letters,
but they may not require a waiver as a condition for admission or
services.{113}.
[References]
{110} 34 C.F.R. 99.7(a) (1980)
{113} 34 C.F.R, 99.7(b) (1980) [Which I think cooresponds to this section of the 1988
regulations - cmk]
====================== p. 104 =================
[34 C.F.R. 99.12 (1988)]
99.12 What limitations exist on the right to inspect and review
records? ...
(b) A postsecondary institution does not have to permit a student to
inspect and review educational records that are -- ...
(3) Confidential letters and confidential statement of recommendation
places in the student's records ..., if
(i) The student has waived his or her right to inspect and review
those letters and statements;
...
(c) A waiver under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section is valid only
if --
(i) The educational agency or institution does not require the waiver
as a condition for admission to or receipt of a service or benefit
form the agency or institution;
...
============================================
--
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 Oct 5 02:22:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society.privacy] Re: SSN in login ids / posting grades
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.061424.13896@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:14:24 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 02:22:23 1992
From: Tom Wicklund
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN in login ids / posting grades
Message-ID:
In comp.society.privacy Dave Grabowski writes:
> A few weeks ago, I posted a msg about how NJIT uses student's SSN's
>for Student ID's and for UNIX System ID's as well. It was the custom for
>exam grades to be posted by SSN as well, but as I just found out today,
>it seems that, at least in the Physics Dept., this is no longer going to
>be done. They have now changed it so that the listing is done by >FIRST
>NAME< only. This has GOT to be the most ridiculous way to post grades.
>The Prof. mentioned that in one of his other classes, there were three
>"Mark"'s in a row. Another person (who was checking her grade while I
>was) said, "Nobody else has my name, anyway" (it was something obscure,
>like Aretha).
Any system of publicly posting grades is going to voilate privacy.
Whether a student ID is a social security number or a unique within
the university ID, it can be misused. And most of the time grades
posted by student ID are still listed in alphabetical order (making it
easy to find people near the start or end of the alphabet).
If one wants grade privacy, then professors should be encouraged not
to post grades. Ideally the university will have a reliable way to
inform students of grades in a timely fashion.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 03:09:37 1992
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 12:44:10 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher
Message-ID: <92278.124411HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
>From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
>I, of course, can't prove that academic freedom is morally good. I can
>report, however, that an important academic freedom statement, the
>Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, has been endorsed
>by virtually every academic group in the U.S. starting with:
>
> American Association of University Professors
> U. S. National Student Association
> Association of American Colleges
> National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
> National Association of Woman Deans and Counselors
So if the above statement has been endorsed by every academic group
in the USA, does that mean it has been endorsed by every academic
group in the world?
Is your list just for academic institutions or for every Internet
site? If a church or religious organization is a member of the
Internet (and there are these days) and keeping GIFs in their
system was against their religious tenets would they also appear
on your list? If Oral Roberts University would not allow sex
newsgroups due to their religious beliefs - would they be added
to your "Banned" list? If the Vatican were connected, and didn't
allow certain newsgroups, would they be on your Banned list? If
certain Moslem countries had universities on the Internet and their
Law prohibits sexual matter as contained in certain newsgroups,
and the law in their land in regards to pornography supercedes
academic freedom since their law is based on the Koran - would you
still include them in your Banned list?
Those of us who attempt to make sure no censorship takes place
and that no Usenet list get censored out, find your list of little
help and as a matter of fact find it a hinderance.
Stick to the USA where you have "statements" endorsed by major
academic institutions, don't apply your rules to other countries
unless you have something to back it up with (other than the UN
Declaration - which you suprisingly don't use for the USA cases
since you have "statements" instead - which means that the UN
Declaration is too broad and doesn't apply in this case - since
it was chartered for serious matters like death, rape, genocide,
and not for Playboy GIFs), and drop the computer code banned
entries.
Place a very clear header at the top as to who you represent and
what organizations you are targetting and what sort of parameters
you use for adding in a 'banned' entry.
Hank Nussbacher
Israel
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 06:15:33 1992
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: soc.college,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <14743@chalmers.se>
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:25:33 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.153156.5180@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>Certainly, all nations which are part of the United Nations must have
>accepted that document--so in an abstract, legal sense, they have
>freely accepted the responsibility to protect free expression rights.
There is also (in the UN charter, I think) a rule that says that member
nations should ban racist orgainzations (it is usually used as an argument in
political discussions about the (lack of) merits a law that can ban
organizations depending on their views. The proponents of such laws always
claim that Sweden is the only country that hasn't got such a law, believe that
those who may:).
If this is true, it means that two UN rules directly contradict eachother.
>J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
"Revive the Swedish-Madagascan Brigand Pact!"
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 08:53:23 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.091328.23304@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:13:28 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
:
: Newsgroups alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
: rec.arts.erotica on *UKNet*
: UKNet is an academic network in the United Kingdom.
: news/cafv02n33:<1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
: news/cafv02n30:<1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>
We now recieve news via another link, which also happens to be faster
than UKNet....
When I asked the local news admin about the (no longer) censored groups
here, he said 'I have better things to do than look through articles to
see if they are ok, but I don't claim that this is necessarly the official
viewpoint'
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Oct 5 08:53:26 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.092327.24023@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:23:27 GMT
pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
:
: Well this should at least be a message to those hapless students who happen
: to have a shred of code in their $HOMEs that somebody might not like:
: encrypt everything. It's the only way to keep unprincipled people
: from snooping in your stuff, whether they have "legal" access or not.
: A little script prompting for passwords that would encrypt and decrypt
: one's $HOME would be a useful little thing to make.
You could code your executables to check for a list of valid user ID's and
print a message telling them they are not authorised to run the program
the first time they try and then log them out after they try again.
(It will work even better if the snooper is trying to do this with a
privilaged account)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Oct 5 08:53:27 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.093442.24753@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:34:42 GMT
twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
: In article <1992Oct1.141116.10025@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
:
: >Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
: >rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools
:
: What are "burglary tools?" Putty knives? Glass cutters? You know,
: burglars don't put on a little black mask and send away to ACME for
: "Burglar's Kits."
Tools used for burglary, which are posessed with INTENT to use them for
that purpose.
:
: I could see a perfectly legitimate use for owning even a small set of
: lockpicks: my lock is such that I cannot *leave* it unlocked, but must
: always have my key if I wish to open the door. If I accidentally lock
: my keys in my room, I don't really want to have to pay Amherst College
: $10 so that campus security can come and open my door. At BSU,
: however, I suppose this personal safeguard is Right Out.
Could try a (spare) key on a neck chain, though even this is not fool
proof.
(though maybe a spare key is not on where you are)
:
: >or an
: >unlicensed concealed weapon.
:
: There is no "license" for owning a password cracking program. The
: analogy fails.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Oct 5 09:28:34 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.92549.1835@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:25:49 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
>
>[...]
>>When most colleges/universities give you an account, you get it for
>>the sole purpose of completing assignments in a course, for research,
>>etc.
>
>Happily, more and more schools now have the resources to provide free
>accounts for general use. This is consisent with the academic ideal in
>which members of the academic community have some freedom to explore
>their own interests. It is analogous to most academic libraries that
>don't ask to know and don't care why you are browsing and borrowing
>books.
Keep in mind, however, that this notion does not apply to *all* computer
systems on a given campus. This is not a campus-wide decision; it is
determined separately for each system. Your college/university may very
well allow almost anything on system X; that does NOT imply that such
liberties exist on system Y.
>When resources are scarce, priorities have to be established. These
>priorities should not, however, be used to removed material just
>because some find it offensive. For example, if there are no resources
>for "recreational" newsgroups, then both alt.sex and
>rec.sport.football should go, not just alt.sex.
Unless, of course, the entire alt.* hierarchy is deleted before rec.*.
I have read of several sites that "conserve resources" in the following
manner:
- delete alt.*
- delete talk.*
- delete rec.*
- delete [...]
If your site is following this sort of plan, it would be difficult to
call it censorship. If, however, they are nuking only "certain" alt.*
groups, you've got a legitimate beef.
Find out *exactly* what's going on before crying censorship; it will make
your arguments much more effective.
--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 Oct 5 09:36:46 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Sysadmin for a Day, was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.93255.3190@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:32:55 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>When a given piece of code can be compiled, executed, and deleted in one
>>hour (or less, if you've a faster system), how can we effectively control
>>the execution of a program WITHOUT controlling the source code?
>
>>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?
You didn't remark on this notion; is it acceptable?
>>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?
>[...]
>
>Disclaimer: I have no experience as a sys admin.
>
>Well, a given piece of code can also be *copied from another machine*,
>compiled, executed, and deleted in an hour. Also, in the case of
>Crack, the passwd and .rhosts files can be copied to other machines in
>a matter of minutes with almost no trace.
This is true, but that implies that Crack isn't running on the machine
in the first place, doesn't it?
>So I'm not sure that trying
>to control source code is effective.
I didn't ask about its effectiveness, I asked how you would handle it.
Some sysadmins are bluntly told, "Keep Crack/IRC/MUD code off our sys-
tems"; how should they handle it? Let's hear some concrete ideas!
>In the case of IRC, I'd likely notice if it was running again and
>using up needed resources. In the case of Crack, ??.
"Cleaning up after the fact" != "effective resource management".
--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 Oct 5 09:49:03 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.134856.18355@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:48:56 GMT
Hank Nussbacher writes:
[...]
>Is your list just for academic institutions or for every Internet
>site?
[...]
Just for academic institutions.
========= Excerpt from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/banned.1992 ====
Banned Computer Material 1992
Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
banned or challenged in academia in 1992.[...]
The list proper starts after a list of the academic institutions where
bans or challenges have occurred.[...]
[....]
==================================================================
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 10:05:49 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.95517.6873@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:55:17 GMT
mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
By the way, you need to fix your news software; it doesn't give a proper
return address......8)
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?
>
>No.
>
Why not? If you're interested in the approach, why wouldn't the
program (and its documentation) be enough?
>>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?
>
>Well, first off, I wouldn't look arround in people's accounts unless
>they were readable.
Whoa! There are those who argue that a sysadmin shouldn't look ANYWHERE,
whether or not the user has left their files readable......
>Secondly, if I found a possibly offensive program I would ask the
>owner why he had it and inform him that running it, except under
>limited and controlled circumstances is prohibited.
OK, my "limited and controlled circumstances" are "not on our systems".
If he wants to port it to a PC, or if he has access to other systems on
campus, I'm not going to stop them; in fact, I couldn't!
(There are public-access NeXTs and PCs across this campus; some of those
PCs are even running Unix. I don't manage those systems, so I can't com-
ment on their policies)
>Then, depending on the difficulty, I might write a watchdog program or
>two to look for the programs being run.
Oh, but I've also been told that such "watchdogs" are improper.
>After all, do you really object if someone is fooling arround with
>IRC, debugging it and enhancing it as long as a lot of people aren't
>using it?
With our resources, we don't have that luxury. I'd also point out
that inexperienced "tweaking" of network code (such as IRC) can wreak
havoc on one's network (that happened at this site, although IRC was
not involved).
>Or if someone is going through the Crack source code to
>learn more about security?
You infer here that the user is only "going through the ... code"; why
can't they do it with hardcopy?
--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 Oct 5 10:20:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Let's try a different tack......
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.101825.12251@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:18:25 GMT
I've seen dozens of situations described in these newsgroups; the concept
of "academic freedom" is usually used in defense of the "oppressed party".
In fact, "academic freedom" has been used as a defense for almost every
questioned action. I've often asserted that academic freedom is not a
"blank check", but other have asserted that it is.
We have some very good definitions of academic freedom, but we have very
few definitions of its limitations. We've discussed the boundaries, but
we've never really reached a consensus.
Therefore, my question is rather elemental:
What are the limitations of "academic freedom"?
--
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 Oct 5 11:23:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:22:57 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
> What are the limitations of "academic freedom"?
[...]
Here are some examples of limitations.
Freedom of Expression:
"[Students are not free to support causes by means that] disrupt
the regular and essential operation of the institution."
- student.freedoms.aaup
"Institutions should ... penalize conduct and behavior [such as ...]
harassment, or disruption of campus activities."
- speech-codes.auup
"The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of
expression so as to prevent disruption of the educationally
process or interference with the rights of others, and prevent
placing persons or property in danger."
- constraints.constitutional
"[F]or proper and stated causes [...] editors and managers [of
student publications may] be subject to removal [...] by orderly
and prescribed procedures."
- student.freedoms.aaup
"The student press at public institutions is subject to
restrictions [...] where college official can 'reasonable forecast
substantial disruption of material interference' with educational
activities, or that the material is clearly libelous or obscene."
- constraints.constitutional
Conduct for which students are subject to discipline or expulsion
include, without limitation, knowingly engaging in disruptive or
coercive action. Disruptive or coercive action include the
following:
(1) Participation in a disruptive or coercive demonstration. A
demonstration is disruptive or coercive if it substantially
impedes University operations, or substantially interferes with
the rights of others, or takes place on premises or at times where
students are not authorized to be. There is no requirement that
University authorities order students to cease participation in a
disruptive or coercive demonstration.
[... (2) use of force or violence ...]
(3) Unauthorized entry to or use of property or facilities owned or
controlled by the University.
[... (4) physical abuse ...]
[... (5) endangering the safety or health of others ...]
[... (6) Theft and vandalism ...]
(7) Failure to comply with direction of a member or agent of the
University acting in the performance of her or his duty in
connection with a potential or actual disorder.
(8) Any conduct which substantially threatens or interferes with
the maintainence of appropriate order and discipline in the
operation of the University, or any conduct on University property
or in connection with a University activity which invades the
rights of others. Without excluding other situation, examples
include shouting, noisemaking, obstruction and other disruptive
actions designed or intended to interfere with or prevent
meetings, assemblies, classes or other scheduled or routine
University operations or activities.
(9) Inciting, aiding, or encouraging others to engage in a
disruptive or coercive action.
When, through the disciplinary process, a student is found to have
knowingly engage in a disruptive or coercive action, as above
defined, the penalty will be dismissal or, upon a finding that
substantial mitigating circumstances exist, suspended dismissal or
other sanctions or coercive actions. [....]
- The U. of Illinois at Urbana Handbook of Polices and Regulations
Due Process:
Pending action on the charges, the status of a student [may be] be
altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend
classes suspended, [...] 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."
- speech-codes.auup
Privacy:
"[U]nder extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied by
students and the personal possessions of students [may be]
searched [without] appropriate authorization ..."
- student.freedoms.aaup
"Information from disciplinary or counseling files [may] be
available to unauthorized persons on campus, or to any person off
campus [...] under legal compulsion or in cases where the safety
of persons or property is involved.
- student.freedoms.aaup
"Under emergency conditions, a search without a warrant possibly
would be permitted."
- constraints.constitutional
"There may be entry without notice in emergencies where imminent
danger to life, safety, health, or property is reasonably feared
and for custodial service."
- student.code.uiuc
Participation:
"[T]he actions of the student government within the areas of its
jurisdiction [may] be reviewed [...] through orderly and
prescribed procedures."
- student.freedoms.aaup
- 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.
=================
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================
On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes Expression - An
official statement of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)
It says in part: "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be
banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful
or disturbing that it may not be expressed."
=================
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.
=================
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.freedoms.aaup
pub/academic/academic/speech-codes.aaup
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
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.freedoms.aaup
send acad-freedom/academic speech-codes.aaup
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
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 Oct 5 11:36:55 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.153212.9154@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:32:12 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> "The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
> regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of
> expression so as to prevent disruption of the educationally
> process or interference with the rights of others, and prevent
> placing persons or property in danger."
> - constraints.constitutional
This would seem to provide an adequate basis for reasonable restrictions
on what can be placed in '.plan'.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 11:58:21 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.144437.19923@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:44:37 GMT
In article <1992Oct4.114434.16434@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>Come on now, this discussion has really become silly. IMNSHO, there
>is no basis for the regulation of "obscenity" in the Constitution.
OK - the discussion has gotten to a disagreement on semantics, but
what I'm saying here is that the semantics are important. Ie. if I
(not a lawyer etc.) said without qualification that "obscenity is
regulable under the U.S. Constitution" it would seem to me to be an
implicit admittance that the SC interpretation is correct. I
understand that from a legal reference point (language used among
lawyers etc.) the meaning is clear and few will see such admittance
but I am saying that in political connections it would be a good idea
to not implicitly support _all_ the interpretations.
>But that ain't the way the SC sees it--and I wouldn't think of making
>the above statement without prefacing it with the IMNSHO.
I hope I have expressed myself more clearly now.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 12:15:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.161525.21851@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:15:25 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
> "The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
> regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of
> expression so as to prevent disruption of the educationally
> process or interference with the rights of others, and prevent
> placing persons or property in danger."
> - constraints.constitutional
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
> This would seem to provide an adequate basis for reasonable restrictions
> on what can be placed in '.plan'.
If by "reasonable" you mean banning, for example, a very long .plan, I
agree. If you mean content restrictions, one what grounds? No person
or property was put in danger. The educational process was not
disrupted. If a right was interfered with, which right?
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
law/cohen-v-california.3
=================
Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions inclusing
_Cohen v. Calfiornia_. They say that offensive public expression is
protected if those offended can "effectively avoid further bombardment
of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes."
=================
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/tinker_v_des_moines
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition)
by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It says that school
cannot prohibit students from handing literature such as underground
newspapers on school property.
=================
=================
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/cohen-v-california.3
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines
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 cohen-v-california.3
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/law tinker_v_des_moines
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 12:26:12 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.142847.19633@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:28:47 GMT
In article <1992Oct3.085046.23065@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>Rather, one should fell completely free to cite SC interpretation as *the*
>meaning of the Constitution.
I am saying that one shouldn't and the SC doesn't have a monopoly to
interpret the Constitution since it isn't given such a monopoly in the
U.S. Constitution.
>Where an individual disagrees with the SC as to the "proper" interpretation
>of the document, he or she should feel free to say "According to the SC..."
>And where one provides one's *own* interpretation, it should be prefaced
>with something to the effect of "IMHO..."
Best would be to use to use both, but to make a point it is IMHO
sufficient to say "The Supreme Court says that censoring obscenity is
constitutional, while the Constitution itself doesn't prohibit
obscenity and thus the prohibition on obscenity is unconstitutional".
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 12:26:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 15:14:32 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct05.151432.22918@digibd.com>
In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
> I'm not a prude, I read some of the more offbeat newsgroups myself.
>I just dont want to have bathroom limericks scrolling across my
>screen.
It's ^S you're wanting, then.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Glad to be of cervix...
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 12:38:15 1992
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: bibliographies on sexuality
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.163808.22596@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:38:08 GMT
cbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Syed) writes:
[...]
> Is there evidence that the banners and burners are becoming
> a threat, say, to medical libraries?
[...]
No.
But I think the bans do hurt students, especially undergraduates, who
have less chance to learn about and discuss topics that may be of
interest to them. Seeing your bibliography on alt.sex, for example,
may help a student decide to study sexuality formally. Even even the
student doesn't pursue formal study, access to such information helps
further the general academic mission:
"Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals. As members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth."
- 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.
=================
=================
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
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
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 14:05:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.175250.20138@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:52:50 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.161525.21851@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
>Kadie) writes:
>
>> "The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
>> regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of
>> expression so as to prevent disruption of the educationally
>> process or interference with the rights of others, and prevent
>> placing persons or property in danger."
>> - constraints.constitutional
>
>rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>> This would seem to provide an adequate basis for reasonable restrictions
>> on what can be placed in '.plan'.
>
>If by "reasonable" you mean banning, for example, a very long .plan, I
>agree. If you mean content restrictions, one what grounds?
Restrictions based on '.plan' reasonably serving the intended purpose
of the 'finger' network protocol, and not being unduly annoying to those
who use 'finger'. An excessively long '.plan' is a problem. A '.plan'
with terminal escape sequences is a problem. Putting the complete
contents of /etc/passwd in '.plan' is a problem. So far the only problem
I have had to deal with was with terminal escape sequences, and the user
was quite cooperative.
> If a right was interfered with, which right?
The right to use 'finger' for the intended purpose.
However, after reading all of your arguments on freedom of expression,
I hereby announce that I am a convert. In future if a user has something
inappropiate in his '.plan', I will take no action. Instead I will
relax and amuse myself by exercising my freedom of expression with the
contents of /etc/passwd :-) .
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 14:17:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material
Message-ID: <9210051809.AA02747@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:09:52 GMT
In reply to the mail from ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <1992Oct3.085046.23065@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>>Rather, one should fell completely free to cite SC interpretation as *the*
>>meaning of the Constitution.
>
>I am saying that one shouldn't and the SC doesn't have a monopoly to
>interpret the Constitution since it isn't given such a monopoly in the
>U.S. Constitution.
>
>>Where an individual disagrees with the SC as to the "proper" interpretation
>>of the document, he or she should feel free to say "According to the SC..."
>>And where one provides one's *own* interpretation, it should be prefaced
>>with something to the effect of "IMHO..."
>
>Best would be to use to use both, but to make a point it is IMHO
>sufficient to say "The Supreme Court says that censoring obscenity is
>constitutional, while the Constitution itself doesn't prohibit
>obscenity and thus the prohibition on obscenity is unconstitutional".
>
>//Jyrki
>
I'm afraid your premise isn't correct. The jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court has been extended by the Court to include matters of Constitutional
interpretation. For you to assert something is constitutional or
unconstitutional does not make it so. At this point only the Supreme Court
can make it so. (Although Congress may pass laws defining or limiting the
Court's jurisdiction. In fact, this happened at least once. The Court was
barred from hearing certain habeus corpus cases during and just after the U.S.
Civil War. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court concerning a writ of
habeus corpus, but the Court declined to reach the facts of the case, since
its jurisdiction had been limited by Act of Congress. The decision rendered
the Court of Appeals the highest court for the case, since the Appeals Court's
decision could not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. )
Just because the Constitution does not mention a particular topic does not
mean anything not mentioned is automatically constitutional.
Bob
Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- DRMS
"We Code, You Explode!!"
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 14:31:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.183059.26431@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:30:59 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.161525.21851@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
>If by "reasonable" you mean banning, for example, a very long .plan,
>I agree. If you mean content restrictions, one what grounds?
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>Restrictions based on '.plan' reasonably serving the intended purpose
>of the 'finger' network protocol, and not being unduly annoying to those
>who use 'finger'. An excessively long '.plan' is a problem. A '.plan'
>with terminal escape sequences is a problem. Putting the complete
>contents of /etc/passwd in '.plan' is a problem.
[...]
Agree, I wouldn't object to any of these restrictions.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 15:33:04 1992
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Sysadmin for a Day
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.140523.10094@bsu-ucs.uucp>
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:05:23 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>When a given piece of code can be compiled, executed, and deleted in one
>>hour (or less, if you've a faster system), how can we effectively control
>>the execution of a program WITHOUT controlling the source code?
>
>>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?
You didn't remark on this notion; is it acceptable?
>>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?
>[...]
>
>Disclaimer: I have no experience as a sys admin.
>
I'll try to pull together some thoughts I've expressed elsewhere in this group
and answer the question above.
My responsibility does not extend to the contents of users' offices, domiciles,
cars, brief cases, etc. If they want to have hardcopy--or even an electronic
copy on a floppy or on their personal computer--of a password cracker or other
code designed to break system security, that is their concern. If they want to
study such code, they can contact systech and arrange for permission and time
to do so, under some sort of agreed-upon oversight. We draw the line at
storing such code university systems without prior arrangement. The line has
to be drawn somewhere, and we've found this an effective and not overly
restrictive place to draw it. What I've described here is what we ask of our
users, as I wrote in another post: reasonable and responsible behavior.
Incidentally, our systech staff do not enter user directories without user
permission or prior authorization from the Associate Director or Director of
University Computing Services, and we give such authorization rarely and with
great care. We too regard user accounts as private and respect that privacy.
The question that has no easy or general answer is, "When do security or legal
considerations outweigh the user's right to privacy?" The answer has to be,
"Not very readily, but conditions may force them to." To speculate as to what
those conditions might be would be to invite more of the casuistry that a few
participants in this discussion have shown a readiness to wallow in.
Herb Stahlke
Ball State University
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 15:43:53 1992
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.180715.11666@panix.com>
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:07:15 GMT
In <1992Oct5.153212.9154@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu sez:
>In article <1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>
>> "The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
>> regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of
>> expression so as to prevent disruption of the educationally
>> process or interference with the rights of others, and prevent
>> placing persons or property in danger."
>> - constraints.constitutional
>
>This would seem to provide an adequate basis for reasonable restrictions
>on what can be placed in '.plan'.
Wrong on two counts:
1) Time/place/manner restrictions must be content-neutral.
2) It confounds logic to assert that the contents of a .plan file
disrupt the educational process, interfere with anyone's rights, or
imperil persons or property,
--
The sleep of reason begets Limbaughs.
Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 16:30:08 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.203001.29827@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:30:01 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.142847.19633@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>I am saying that one shouldn't and the SC doesn't have a monopoly to
>interpret the Constitution since it isn't given such a monopoly in the
>U.S. Constitution.
I think it is probably not a good idea to insist that the Supreme Court's
power of judicial review is not grounded in the Constitution, even though
it is not explicitly granted there. Article III says that the judicial
branch has jurisdiction over all cases and controversies that arise under
the law and the Constitution of the United States. No other branch is
granted this authority.
Your position about the Supreme Court's role is contrary to the generally
accepted view in the United States of the role of the United States
Supreme Court.
>Best would be to use to use both, but to make a point it is IMHO
>sufficient to say "The Supreme Court says that censoring obscenity is
>constitutional, while the Constitution itself doesn't prohibit
>obscenity and thus the prohibition on obscenity is unconstitutional".
Why? Almost everyone knows that when the subject is Constitutional Law,
one is talking about either the Constitution itself or aboutwhat the
Supreme Court says the Constitution says. No need for a continual
qualifier.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --John Stuart Mill
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 18:08:30 1992
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.215217.19037@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:52:17 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.95517.6873@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>By the way, you need to fix your news software; it doesn't give a proper
>return address......8)
>>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?
>>No.
>Why not? If you're interested in the approach, why wouldn't the
>program (and its documentation) be enough?
Well, if nothing else, sometime you have to run it or pieces of it to
understand it.
>>>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?
>>Well, first off, I wouldn't look arround in people's accounts unless
>>they were readable.
>Whoa! There are those who argue that a sysadmin shouldn't look ANYWHERE,
>whether or not the user has left their files readable......
Well, I think that's silly. I'm not one of the absolutists. If the
user leaves a file readable he no longer has an expectation of privacy
and anyone can read it.
>>Secondly, if I found a possibly offensive program I would ask the
>>owner why he had it and inform him that running it, except under
>>limited and controlled circumstances is prohibited.
>OK, my "limited and controlled circumstances" are "not on our systems".
>If he wants to port it to a PC, or if he has access to other systems on
>campus, I'm not going to stop them; in fact, I couldn't!
Seems a bit unreasonable. If he is running IRC but no one else can
log in what's the problem?
>>Then, depending on the difficulty, I might write a watchdog program or
>>two to look for the programs being run.
>Oh, but I've also been told that such "watchdogs" are improper.
By who? Again, I think that's ridiculous. After all, it's not like
you are looking at info that there is an expectation of privacy one.
>>After all, do you really object if someone is fooling arround with
>>IRC, debugging it and enhancing it as long as a lot of people aren't
>>using it?
>With our resources, we don't have that luxury. I'd also point out
>that inexperienced "tweaking" of network code (such as IRC) can wreak
>havoc on one's network (that happened at this site, although IRC was
>not involved).
So then don't let people tweak network code and explain why.
>>Or if someone is going through the Crack source code to
>>learn more about security?
>You infer here that the user is only "going through the ... code"; why
>can't they do it with hardcopy?
Depends how well it is written. Some code can't be understood without
going through it with a debugger.
OR say they are enhancing it?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman. I speak for myself and no one else.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 22:43:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.024020.30797@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:40:20 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 22:43:36 1992
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 17:21:09 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.172109.17874@mtek.com>
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
>> [ deleted ]
>I confess that an implicit premise of the List is that academic
>censorship of computer media is generally wrong. I'm sorry if this was
Your premise is, imo, both overstated and undersupported, since you
introduce the word "generally", which allows for exceptions. If this
is so, then the basis upon which such exceptions might occur must be
objectively understood, else such occult criteria are available in
this particular temple to only the one Head Priest: Carl Kadie.
This was one basis of my original objection. And, I think, of not a
few other people.
Or do you wish to withdraw the qualifying word "generally" to rule
out the possiblity that there could ever be *any* basis for such
limitation of action (I'll not accept your prejorative term "censor-
ship", since that has specific connotations that may have no bearing
upon other possible motivations or needs for such limitation)?
>unclear. Now that you have "caught" me, you are welcome to argue
>against this premise. A good forum for this continuing debate might be
>alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk (or the corresponding mailing list).
I accept. :-) But not the forum: I have no intention of moving outside
the comp.admin.policy group, since "policy" is really the underlying
subject of our disagreement. Not whether academic freedom is, per se,
a "good thing" (since like apple-pie and motherhood, it gains only
fools for opponents, and may thus be viewed as something of an
"attractive nuisance"). :-)
Also, I frankly have little patience for dealing with what some snot-
nosed teenager whose parents have come up with tuition may have to say
on the subject, based solely upon his belief that one slow reading of
the Bill of Rights entitles him to thus draw sweeping conclusions
about what *must* have been in the minds of the Founding Fathers with
regard to his personal login privileges.
Most of the people who post here, by contrast, bring at least some
modicum of experience and thoughtfulness to the discussion. This is,
I imagine, mostly because they frequently have some real, everyday
*responsibility* for such decisions, and eventually have begun to
recognize that "it ain't all that simple".
Unfortunately, my response will have to wait, since I am pressed for
time over the next two days to complete necessary duties, and will
therafter be out of town until Saturday. I believe (obviously) that
the subject is deserving of a more-than-casual response, and I'll want
to take the time necessary to be forthcoming. My apologies for the
delay.
I'll also caution any other posters that we expire news after only
three days (the reality of limited disc-space), and I will probably
miss postings that show up here before next Sunday.
--
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 5 23:12:33 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.030348.31593@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:03:48 GMT
bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
[...]
>Also, I frankly have little patience for dealing with what some snot-
>nosed teenager whose parents have come up with tuition may have to say
>on the subject, based solely upon his belief that one slow reading of
>the Bill of Rights entitles him to thus draw sweeping conclusions
>about what *must* have been in the minds of the Founding Fathers with
>regard to his personal login privileges.
>
>Most of the people who post here, by contrast, bring at least some
>modicum of experience and thoughtfulness to the discussion.
[...]
It appears that one person who posts here brings a modicum of rudeness
to the forum.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 03:48:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:19:33 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.093442.24753@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>: In article <1992Oct1.141116.10025@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>:
>: >Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
>: >rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools
>:
>: What are "burglary tools?" Putty knives? Glass cutters? You know,
>: burglars don't put on a little black mask and send away to ACME for
>: "Burglar's Kits."
>
>Tools used for burglary, which are posessed with INTENT to use them for
>that purpose.
Uh-huh. And what *are* those tools? How do you identify them?
Attempting to bust me for owning a set of small screwdrivers and
X-acto knife would be pretty ridiculous, even if I *intended* to use
them for burglary. There are too many legitimate uses for the tools
most often used in burglary: the guy next door might own an identical
collection of items but use them only for his model trains.
Similarly, I could own a copy of Crack, or some other security
protection software, simply because I wanted to learn more about
security or coding system software. I could own this program but
divide it into unrelated parts to avoid detection. If my system
manager went stomping through the filesystem, searching for "burglary
tools," he'd either not find me, or he'd find me and a couple dozen
other people.
>: I could see a perfectly legitimate use for owning even a small set of
>: lockpicks: my lock is such that I cannot *leave* it unlocked, but must
>: always have my key if I wish to open the door.
>
>Could try a (spare) key on a neck chain, though even this is not fool
>proof.
>(though maybe a spare key is not on where you are)
Alas, getting a second set of keys here is akin to cleaning the Aegean
stables. A friend of mine actually had less hassle, two years ago,
ordering a lockpick set than he did trying to get another key through
the administration.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 03:48:27 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.203656.9529@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 20:36:56 EDT
In article <14743@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>>Certainly, all nations which are part of the United Nations must have
>>accepted that document--so in an abstract, legal sense, they have
>>freely accepted the responsibility to protect free expression rights.
>
> There is also (in the UN charter, I think) a rule that says that member
>nations should ban racist orgainzations (it is usually used as an argument in
>political discussions about the (lack of) merits a law that can ban
>organizations depending on their views. The proponents of such laws always
>claim that Sweden is the only country that hasn't got such a law, believe that
>those who may:).
>
> If this is true, it means that two UN rules directly contradict eachother.
Well, if the UN has such a rule, it is not part of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. There are several provisions that protect the right to be
free from discrimination by the UN and by individual governments--but that's
a far cry from a rule banning racist organizations...
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 03:54:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 02:16:34 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct06.021634.9558@mongrel.UUCP>
In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.
True. So wear a long-sleeved shirt and nobody will mind. Just ask
Gwen Jacob.
--
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
: Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) :
: "AT&T thinks Usenet is an Underground organization" - are we really? :
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 07:48:04 1992
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <718349227.11579@zooid.guild.org>
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:27:07 GMT
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
>
>Well this should at least be a message to those hapless students who happen
>to have a shred of code in their $HOMEs that somebody might not like:
>encrypt everything. It's the only way to keep unprincipled people
>from snooping in your stuff, whether they have "legal" access or not.
>A little script prompting for passwords that would encrypt and decrypt
>one's $HOME would be a useful little thing to make.
>
>Paul Southworth | ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
I always found it a hoot to keep an execute only program in my directory that
claimed to be a Star Trek program, "detected" unauthorized access, then erased
itself after sending codes to scramble the computer lab tech's terminal. (Why
they gave her sysadmin caps, I'll never know.) It kept her from blatently
stupid snooping after that. This was perhaps a little mean, but I was
provoked, and as I had the system master passwords at the time, quite a
limited response. (My error that year was in reporting obvious system
breeches--passwords left in public readable files. Bad move.)
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 07:48:05 1992
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <718348832.11442@zooid.guild.org>
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:20:32 GMT
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
>
>The speech could not be composed without running the program. Of
>course, the act of composing the speech and the act of producing it
>are two different things.
>
>--
>____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
>\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Why should they be forced to pay for your "free speech"? It sounds like a
load of stuff from a computer addict to justify his addiction.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 08:34:46 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.83007.7571@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:30:07 GMT
ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>I always found it a hoot to keep an execute only program in my directory that
>claimed to be a Star Trek program, "detected" unauthorized access, then erased
>itself after sending codes to scramble the computer lab tech's terminal. (Why
>they gave her sysadmin caps, I'll never know.) It kept her from blatently
>stupid snooping after that.
>This was perhaps a little mean, but I was
>provoked, and as I had the system master passwords at the time, quite a
>limited response. (My error that year was in reporting obvious system
>breeches--passwords left in public readable files. Bad move.)
Geez, your sysadmins must have been rather stupid IF you merely reported
the problem; thin skins are everywhere......
However, let's see if I understand this:
1) You found system passwords in publicly readable files. (I'm
assuming that these files were not in your disk space). There-
fore, you imply that you were wandering around looking for
publicly readable files.
2) You deliberately set a trap in a publicly executable file to
prevent "blatantly stupid snooping".
Regardless of other actions, this seems like "Pot -- Kettle -- Black".
--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 Oct 6 08:34:51 1992
From: joslin_paul@ae.ge.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:23:26 GMT
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>10. (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
>You may think this a violation of academic freedom. I don't. If the
>situation arose here, I would have no choice but to act quite similarly.
I believe you are missing the point.
I have no problem with a computer center allocating resources; if UWy
thought that IRC users used too much of a limited resource, I believe
they certainly had the right to limit IRC (up to and including banning
the use of an IRC client or server on UWy computers). The academic
freedom issues are that UWy acted in an arbitrary manner, that it did
not have a policy which let students know what behavior was proscribed,
and that they (UWy) banned simple possesion of IRC source code.
--
____________________
Paul R. Joslin / __________________O
joslin@c0223.ae.ge.com / /|________________
+1 513 583 3537 / /_/________________O
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 08:45:44 1992
From: joslin_paul@ae.ge.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:38:44 GMT
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
>foreign policy to Carl Kadie.
However, he has done more than his share to increase the amount of
traffic on the Internet. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Seriously: does anyone think the world would be a better place if people
like Carl didn't care?
Paul
Yea, Yea, I know: "How is Sep_20 CAFNEWS coming?"
Real Soon Now. Really
--
Paul R. Joslin |
joslin@c0223.ae.ge.com | When you have a new hammer,
+1 513 583 3537 | everything looks like a nail.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 09:57:00 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.135227.256@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:52:27 GMT
In article <1992Sep28.151440.25798@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>
>Look at the Simpsons, a popular cartoon show known for its frank talk;
>"eat my shorts, man" describes pedophilia and perversion. Matt
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey, SuperEd! Cleanup in Galaxy Seven, please report stat! We'll
all cover for you here...
I think Ed could find deep meaning and inherent contradictions
in the list of ingredients for a box of baking soda.
>Groening, prior to hitting it Big with the Simpsons, drew bizarre little
>cartoons for years characterised by a surreal outlook that did not
>target "real" personality types. Prototypes of Homer and Marge
>appeared, but not identified as such; instead they were actors in strips
>concerning family dysfunction, as in one identifying the types of Dads
>available today (the alcoholic, the violent, the absent, the simply
>embarrassing.) This changed when it hit TV. Homer and Marge were
>identified as specific members of the lower middle class and as
>permissible targets of abuse, people who children could identify with
>their real parents. The toleration of Bart's attitude is actually
>repressive because the mechanism of TV finance and production ensures
>that Bart's targets won't be able to sue. Ergo, Bart's dad won't be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't know about this, I've seen Simpsons episodes poking fun at
among others: the Democratic Party, Ted Kennedy, Arnold Schwartzeneger
(please not the spelling flame, argghhh!), the NRA, etc. Hardly
a group of the politically uninfluential and impoverished (although
a case could be made that Teddy is somewhat morally bankrupt :-).
>(say) a Henry Kissinger lookalike with a big job in Washington where he
>gets to send men to die; he'll be a powerless safety inspector in a
>nuclear plant (and a convenient focus for our ignorance and fear of
>technology). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^
I hope you are referring to your own multicellular (presumably)
structure in the collective sense rather than trying to drag in any large
quantity of the USENET readership with this observation.
After reading all of this post, one could well ask just exactly
what point Ed was trying to get across, or indeed if he had one at all.
Ed must be trying to secretly top Carl's USENET posting bandwidth
record :-).
--
==========================================================================
Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's
"If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 10:35:30 1992
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.085545.10128@bsu-ucs.uucp>
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:55:45 GMT
In article , twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.093442.24753@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>:
>>: What are "burglary tools?" Putty knives? Glass cutters? You know,
>>: burglars don't put on a little black mask and send away to ACME for
>>: "Burglar's Kits."
>>
>>Tools used for burglary, which are posessed with INTENT to use them for
>>that purpose.
>
> Uh-huh. And what *are* those tools? How do you identify them?
>
> Similarly, I could own a copy of Crack, or some other security
> protection software, simply because I wanted to learn more about
> security or coding system software. I could own this program but
> divide it into unrelated parts to avoid detection. If my system
> manager went stomping through the filesystem, searching for "burglary
> tools," he'd either not find me, or he'd find me and a couple dozen
> other people.
>
As I've noted several times, there are acceptable ways of studying security
measures. A Computer Science course dealing with operating systems and
security systems might legitimately arrange for time develop, test, and run
code, within limits that would be worked out with the instructor. On the other
hand, there may also be security measures that the university doesn't want
people looking at because they would then cease to provide the intended
security. It's unlikely, for example, that a university would allow users to
roam at will through security on an administrative mainframe where a lot of
critical and confidential data is stored, and someone attempting to break into
that might be subject to prosecution.
I'd like to see the budget of the school where system managers have time to go
'stomping through the filesystem, searching for "burglary tools,"' not to
mention their ethics code.
> Alas, getting a second set of keys here is akin to cleaning the Aegean
~~~~~~
> stables.
I believe that's "Augean" stables, the cleaning of which, after thirty years,
was one of the labors of Hercules. I do like the image.
Herb Stahlke
Ball State University
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 10:58:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:13:37 GMT
In article <718348832.11442@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
>>
>>The speech could not be composed without running the program. Of
>>course, the act of composing the speech and the act of producing it
>>are two different things.
>
>Why should they be forced to pay for your "free speech"?
Calm down. Who's being forced to do what? Insofar as a college or
university is a private entity (and most universities are not
completely private) it has every legal right to place arbitrary
restrictions on what users may and may not do. I claim, though, that
the restrictions in question are inconsistent with other regulations
and simply not in the spirit of free speech.
On the other hand, if you'll reread that quote in the context of the
discussion, you'll see that it supports the notion that the act of
running a program is not "speech." Take a Valium already.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 10:58:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:17:08 GMT
Hey, Mud Man, you might want to stop sending out articles with
malformed Newsgroups lines. Be a little *less* antisocial, and all
that rot.
In article <718349227.11579@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>I always found it a hoot to keep an execute only program in my directory that
>claimed to be a Star Trek program, "detected" unauthorized access, then erased
>itself after sending codes to scramble the computer lab tech's terminal.
When I was in second grade, I knew a kid who loved nothing in the
world more than to stomp on slugs on the sidewalk.
I don't know what happened to him. He seemed like a grade-A alpha
male candidate for a straitjacket, though.
>This was perhaps a little mean, but I was
>provoked, and as I had the system master passwords at the time, quite a
>limited response.
Can we say "sting?" Can we say "power trip?" Can we say it loud?
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 11:42:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: whitbeck@EAGLE.MIT.EDU (Caroline Whitbeck)
Subject: Information, please
Message-ID: <9210061542.AA25218@EAGLE.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:49:48 GMT
Hi,
Hal Abelson forwarded materials to me on academic freedom
and computers which had this address. Please send me more
information about the group/list/whatever. I would like to
stay informed if I can do so without choking my electronic
mail.
Caroline Whitbeck
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 11:51:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.edu, et al.] Computers for students, by students.
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.154413.8980@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:44:13 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 11:51:59 1992
From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Computers for students, by students.
Message-ID: <1992Oct5.233518.27290@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 23:35:18 GMT
We (The association for Computing Machinery, IIT chapter) are working to get
a computer for student use, to provide the students and student organizations
with a Bulletin Board System for announcements, discussion, and the like.
One of the requests the Finance Board (the student "leaders" who make
financial decisions) has made before they will consider approval is that we
provide them with information from:
"... other universities or groups outside of IIT who could advocate
the additon of such a system, or ideally, have made such an addtion themselves."
--
Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down.
technews@iitmax.iit.edu kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
My Employer Disagrees.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 12:25:35 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.161144.12741@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:11:44 GMT
In <1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com> waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com writes:
> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
> [Process names restriction]
>
> >Any thoughts? This seems like a borderline case to me.
>
> In the University of Limerick, Ireland, there was a security incident involving
> a user who had the process name "Baader". Subsequent to his "trial" and
> expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his process name to
> "Baader" and promptly found himself disusered.
>
> A touch rough, no?
I agree that it is a touch rough. But I'm curious whether the name
"Baader" in the first case had anything to do with the German
terrorist Andreas Baader, or if this was just coincidence?
MfG,
Olaf
--
o Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
_ /<_ s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_) +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
BUGS: As given by the -roaches option. Default is 10. - man xroach
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 14:04:33 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.175025.4096@mtu.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:50:25 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.142847.19633@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI
(Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> In article <1992Oct3.085046.23065@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top
> (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
> >Rather, one should fell completely free to cite SC interpretation as *the*
> >meaning of the Constitution.
>
> I am saying that one shouldn't and the SC doesn't have a monopoly to
> interpret the Constitution since it isn't given such a monopoly in the
> U.S. Constitution.
"You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and
one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy....
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thomas Jefferson, 1820.
Thomas Jefferson, 1789: "The new Constitution has secured these
[individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments:
but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by
the people themselves, that is to say, by jury."
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by
which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Thomas Jefferson
As the courts are generally the last in making the decision
[on laws], it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to
execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes
^^^^^^^^^^
the Judiciary dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
was never intended, and can never be proper.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
James Madison, 1788.
It looks like Jefferson and Madison disagree with Greeny. (there are
others, if these aren't enough... ;-)
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed
power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
courts must abide by that decision."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006
I assume this means a Grand Jury could overrule the supreme Court?...
(on Constitutional issues, too!)
> >Where an individual disagrees with the SC as to the "proper" interpretation
But Madison (a proponet of a strong central government) says that this
is not "proper"!
BTW, supreme is not capitalized, only Court is capitalized. The
capitalization rules look much like modern German. I suspect that
a reference to God (pick your god of choice) would be referred to
as a "Supreme Being", while the SC is the "supreme Court". I'm sure that
they would *like to be* the "SUPREME COURT", however.... (god-like in
origin, and all that... ;-)
> >of the document, he or she should feel free to say "According to the SC..."
This is reasonable, however.
> >And where one provides one's *own* interpretation, it should be prefaced
> >with something to the effect of "IMHO..."
>
> Best would be to use to use both, but to make a point it is IMHO
> sufficient to say "The Supreme Court says that censoring obscenity is
> constitutional, while the Constitution itself doesn't prohibit
> obscenity and thus the prohibition on obscenity is unconstitutional".
I like your notation better, Jyrki. It's certainly reasonable for a
Citizen to state, expound, or complain that the Federal government is
passing laws in excess of their Constitutional powers. The supreme
Court's decisions are no more valid than mine.
--
Charles Scripter * cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 14:50:57 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 02.45
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.185044.20505@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:50:44 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/cafv02n45".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n45
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending September 13, 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.
===============================================================
[This week's guest editor is John B. Tan.
We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. Issues #41,43,46-48 are in production.
- Carl]
Notes 1-2 are about an incident of intellectual property theft
1. ("A definite beginner in my profession":) One of my projects is being
distributed as networked resources without my consent or the copyright
statement intact. This person is influential and powerful within my
profession and by fighting I may put my fledgling career at risk. I need
advice badly.
<199209080137.AA01381@eff.org>
2. Only you yourself can decide whether or not to resist. Should you
decide to fight: (1) Keep a meticulous log of all contacts and
conversations regarding the incident. (2) Seek out allies stronger than
your offender. 'Many schools have some form of "professional conduct"
board who's mission is to review such charges. In other cases, it may be
the Dean or VP for Academic Affairs.' (3) Make your case with the key
individual(s) identified above.
<1992Sep8.120236.4910@scott.skidmore.edu>
Note 3 is a critique of the computer policy of University of Hawaii,
College of Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
3. The policy, although a pretty good attempt at making the rules
explicit, violates legal and moral requirements for due process, privacy,
free expression, and user participation in some places. It asserts that
computer use is a privilege and not a right, which, if not well clarified,
will allow "sys admins the authority to summarily suspend users from the
computer *before* establishing that the user has done anything". The
policy also empowers a sys admin to search a user's email and files without
having to seek higher authorization or to notify the user. The policy was
apparently created and enforced without the participation of the user
community.
<1992Sep8.163018.8554@eff.org>
Note 4-5 is about a student being denied a hearing under the Student Due
Process Policy at WSU.
4. Things have not changed in WSU (writes John Palmer). Only recently in
1991, the "C&IT denied a student account to someone, and when that someone
tried to get a judicial hearing under the Student Due Process Policy, the
C&IT (and university attorneys) argued that the student wasn't being
disciplined, but was being denied access to "protect other users", so he
didn't have any rights at all." A letter from the C&IT said that the
Student Due Process Policy "applies only when the University (or another
charging party) seeks to discipline a student, [and] 'Discipline' consists
of expulsion, suspension, probation, etc." The letter goes on to add that
"What has happened [is not disciplinary action but] is that the C&IT has
declined to facilitate your access to the computer because of your past
history of abusing the University computing system."
<1992Sep8.171858.8639@tygra.Michigan.COM>
5. [Carl writes,with supporting annotated references available from ftp.]
"Ohio State University used the same kind of Humpty Dumpty redefinition of
words when they expelled Steven Brack from the computer. (We are not
authorized to punish you, therefore the stuff we did to you must not be
punishment.) I'm confident that if such a case every got the court, the
University would lose."
<1992Sep8.212232.16054@eff.org>
Note 6 is about a court decision on a free speech dispute at SFA University
6. A year ago, a group of students at Stephen F. Austin University (the
Young Conservatives of Texas) hung fliers which read, "SEX and politics are
a lot alike. You don't have to be good at them to enjoy them." SFA
officials called the fliers sexist and tried to bar the group from posting
them. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the
students filed a federal lawsuit May 15, asking that the SFA sign-posting
policy be overturned. A settlement has apparently being reached, with an
undetermined amount of money included, and the new policy agreed to allows
the poster that started the controversy, and allows school officials "to
regulate how large posters can be and where they are placed." However,
"the school may take down a sign that the president deems will incite
fights or ``imminent lawlessness'' - concepts defined strictly by federal
courts."
<1992Sep8.183722.834@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 7 is summary of the 1992-1993 Guidelines for use of Campus and Network
Computing Resources at Princeton University
7. This framework for "responsible, considerate, and ethical behavior" in
the use of the university's computing resources include reminders to users
not to: "intentionally seek information ... belonging to other people";
"decrypt or translate encrypted material, or obtain [unauthorized] system
privileges"; tie up computing resources in "excessive game playing or
other trivial applications [such as the] sending [of] frivolous or
excessive mail". A user's absence from a public computer or workstation
should be "no longer than warranted by a visit to the nearest restroom" and
"a device unattended for more than ten minutes may be assumed to be
available for use". Electronic mail "must meet the same standards for
distribution or display as if they were tangible documents" and changes to
electronic information contained in the network "will be considered forgery
if it would be considered so on a tangible document or instrument."
<1992Sep8.193517.12597@eff.org>
Notes 8 - 10 discusses some issues on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
8. The Background: A staff worker of MCI Mail, looked into the contents
of ex-employee Eugene Wang's MCI Mail account, and discovered Borland's
marketing plans and other confidential information sent to Symantec Corp.
This brought civil suits against Gordon Eubanks, president of Symantec, and
Wang. The Question: Did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's
email?
<1992Sep9.231718.1863@PacBell.COM>
9. What the staff worker did seems apparently legal. The Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 specifically exempts providers of
electronic communications services from the prohibitions against seeing the
messages. In addition, the worker has the right to divulge what is
inadvertently discovered to law enforcement agencies if it pertains to a
crime. However, did the worker stumble upon the evidence by chance or was
he actually snooping around?
10. When I was a LAN administrator for a medium sized company, what I did
when closing a user account was nuke the email, make a quick pass through
their directories and nuke anything that appeared to be personal.
Remaining files were referred to their supervisor. "Yes, we read 'private'
files. But it was our job to cleanup the account, and better *us* than
their supervisor! I frankly couldn't have told you the next day what had
been in 90% of the files that got deleted as 'personal'". I could read any
file on the LAN, but there are something like 4 gigabytes of files out
there and therefore if I *wanted* to snoop, it will not be possible,
there's just too much to go thru!
<1992Sep11.234228.25430@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
11. "This isn't necessarily true, particularly if you want to "target" a
few individuals with well-organized directories."!
12. Although the employee of the mail provider is permitted some access, I
don't think they are allowed to go on snooping expeditions. However, from
the [long sections from the law apart from the ECPA quoted], it would
appear that employees of service providers are definitely protected if they
access messages as part of their normal duties. "It's not clear what the
penalties are for improper disclosure by an employee as they are not
directly listed. The previous section ... includes fines of $5000 and
imprisonment up to 6 months for unlawful access if no commercial advantage
occurs (much worse if commercial advantage occurs), but says that conduct
authorized by a provider is excepted. Very confusing." If reading someone
else's mail, before it is deleted, is normal procedure at MCI Mail,
customers should be told and they might be upset.
<1992Sep12.165743.7720@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
- John B. Tan]
--- 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 Oct 6 15:28:14 1992
From: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Banned List Reminds me of National Enquirer Tactics!
Message-ID: <7863@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:26:45 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.172525.17375@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Randy,
>
>I'm sorry the original version of the Banned List didn't mention that
>the Virginia Tech policy was being revised. I based the list mostly on
>the CAF-News abstracts, I forgot about your email message to me last
>April. The current version of the List (the version included in new
>CAF-News) notes that the Virgina Tech policy is currently being
>revised.
>
>- Carl
>
Carl, thank you for the apology but I'm still perturbed over the intent
of posting a "Sites that BAN stuff" list. Certainly, other sites as well
as our own are in the process of adopting and revising acceptable use
policies but your original post served no real purpose other than to
misrepresent the entire issue of "what is acceptable use" at a site.
All you have to do is check out the spinoffs from your original thread
in order to see how far we've drifted away from the issue.
I do appreciate the fact that the new version of your post states that
our policy is under revision. As I mentioned in previous posts, you've
created the scenario where the revised 'list' is similar to a a
retraction that appears in the back pages of the newspaper. Technically,
you have corrected an error but in reality, the majority
of readers will only remember the original message.
Carl, the thing that I really don't understand is that you published a
'List' without contacting the named institutions IN ADVANCE. The failure
to do this indicates 1) you didn't verify the accuracy of your
information. You had contact names since most of these sites submitted
policy statements to you for review. 2) you failed to give the named
institutions due process by not giving them an opportunity to verify
the information you were planning to publicize.
I do object to the creation of any such 'list' in this form. Handled
improperly (as I feel was done in this case), such a list creates an
atmosphere of suspicion toward the named entities.
I hate to use the term, "McCarthyism" but that's what this whole affair
smacks of. Enlightening the Usenet community via a "list" is noble but
make sure your information is accurate and that you've contacted the
affected parties beforehand.
-Randy Marchany
VA Tech Computing Center
Blacksburg, VA 24060
INTERNET: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 15:44:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.193133.15320@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:31:33 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 15:44:05 1992
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:13:01 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.161301.2354@mtek.com>
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
>[...]
>>Also, I frankly have little patience for dealing with what some snot-
>>nosed teenager whose parents have come up with tuition may have to say
>>on the subject, based solely upon his belief that one slow reading of
>>the Bill of Rights entitles him to thus draw sweeping conclusions
>>about what *must* have been in the minds of the Founding Fathers with
>>regard to his personal login privileges.
>>
>>Most of the people who post here, by contrast, bring at least some
>>modicum of experience and thoughtfulness to the discussion.
>[...]
>It appears that one person who posts here brings a modicum of rudeness
>to the forum.
Dispute the content. Else push off. If my statement above does injury
to one of your major constituencies, then that is one of the several
hazards which accompanies the presumed benefit of accepting their
undiscriminating support.
And as to rudeness, your list is rude in the extreme. I've not been
the only person to point that out. You seem to be highly selective
about where you choose to apply your alleged standards. And that is
*precisely* the concern being expressed.
Again.
--
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 15:56:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:43:06 GMT
In article <1992Oct6.085545.10128@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>I'd like to see the budget of the school where system managers have time to go
>'stomping through the filesystem, searching for "burglary tools,"' not to
>mention their ethics code.
Agreed. On the other hand, when you say that you "do not allow" users
to keep such tools on the university computer system, either you do
such a thing or the policy largely goes unenforced.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 16:01:43 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.195154.18500@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:51:54 GMT
bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
[...]
>You seem to be highly selective about where you choose to apply your
>alleged standards. And that is *precisely* the concern being
>expressed.
[...]
Can you be more specific? What evidence of "highly selective"
application do you see?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 16:12:42 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.200521.794@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:05:21 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I confess that an implicit premise of the List is that academic
>censorship of computer media is generally wrong.
bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
>Your premise is, imo, both overstated and undersupported, since you
>introduce the word "generally", which allows for exceptions.
[...]
Here is my premise in more detail:
========Excerpts from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/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 is made up of two kinds of
statements. The first, labeled as principles, are premises. The
second, labeled as interpretations, are conclusions drawn from the
principles.
The two kinds of statements can be thought of as axioms and theorems.
An axiom (principle) is most likely to be criticized for being
unreasonable. A theorem (interpretation) is mostly likely to be
criticized for not following from the principles.
[...]
- Carl
-------------------------------------------
I. General
Principle: The principles of academic freedom apply to academic
computer systems. Computer polices should be consistent with general
university codes and widely accepted statements on academic freedom
such as the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
[...]
IV. Computer Expression
Interpretation: "Academic institutions exist for the transmission of
knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the
general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth." [Joint Statement]
Principle: The principles of intellectual freedom developed by
libraries should 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.
Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select
newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and
books.
Interpretation: "Every [academic computer] system should have a
comprehensive policy on the selection of [information] materials."
[ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing]
Interpretation: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because
of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" [Article 2, Library Bill of
Rights].
Principle: The principles of academic freedom applicable to student
and faculty publication in traditional media, apply to student and
faculty publication in computer media.
Interpretation: An article or note posted by a student to a newsgroup
is a student publication.
Interpretation: "Student publications [and the publications of other
users] are a valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an
atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual
exploration on the campus. They are a means of bringing [...]
concerns to the attention of the faculty and the institutional
authorities and of formulating [...] opinion on various issues on the
campus and in the world at large." [Joint Statement]
Interpretation: "The institutional control of campus facilities should
not be used as a device of censorship." "[User publications] should be
free of censorship and advance approval of copy ..." [Joint Statement]
Interpretation: "All university published and financed [user]
publications should explicitly state [...] that the opinions there
expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or
student body. [Joint Statement]
[...]
====================== end of excerpt ========
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.
=================
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/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
=================
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/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
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/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/library freedom-to-read.ala
send acad-freedom/library int-freedom.ala
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 16:48:20 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: Banned List Reminds me of National Enquirer Tactics!
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.204811.23731@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:48:11 GMT
marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:
[...]
>Carl, thank you for the apology but I'm still perturbed over the intent
>of posting a "Sites that BAN stuff" list.
I think I see the problem. It was not my intent to list only material
that *is currently* banned. As you point out, creating such a list
would require extensive verification.
It was my intend to list material that *was* banned (or challenged) in
1992. To quote the original first line of the List:
"Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
banned or challenged in academia in 1992."
I think this says what I intended, but it is not as clear as it could
be. A better first line is:
"Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
that was banned or challenged in academia in 1992."
^^^^^^^^
- Carl
p.s. I'm posting this clarification to all the newsgroups I posted the
original List to.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992.
=================
old.banned.1992
=================
The first posted version of the list of computer material that was
banned or challenged in academia in 1992.
=================
=================
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.1992
pub/academic/old.banned.1992
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.1992
send acad-freedom old.banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 18:12:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] acceptable use bill passes
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.221239.25509@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:12:39 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 18:12:46 1992
From: KAHIN@hulaw1.harvard.edu (BRIAN KAHIN)
Subject: acceptable use bill passes
Message-ID: <01GPMXF30I3E8WWOYP@HULAW1.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:32:00 GMT
Reliable sources tell me that S. 1146 passed the Senate Friday night
with the same language found in the bills that have passed the house:
"....the Foundation is authorized to
foster and support access by the research and education communities to
computer networks which may be used substantially for purposes in addition
to research and education in the sciences and engineering, if the
additional uses tend to increase the overall capabilities of the networks
to support such research and education activities."
Brian Kahin
Director, Information Infrastructure Project
Science, Technology and Public Policy Program
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
79 John F. Kennedy St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-495-8903
Fax: 617-495-5776
kahin@hulaw1.harvard.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 18:46:49 1992
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: System security versus censorshipDIR
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.170501.10145@bsu-ucs.uucp>
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:05:01 GMT
In article , twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.085545.10128@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>
>>I'd like to see the budget of the school where system managers have time to go
>>'stomping through the filesystem, searching for "burglary tools,"' not to
>>mention their ethics code.
>
> Agreed. On the other hand, when you say that you "do not allow" users
> to keep such tools on the university computer system, either you do
> such a thing or the policy largely goes unenforced.
>
Your implied syllogism doesn't compute, Tim.
We do not allow our users to keep in their accounts code that will, if run,
threaten system security. Does it happen? I'm sure of it. Does the policy go
unenforced? Not if someone runs that code or does something else that
necessitates our review of his/her user account. I won't suggest a legal
analogy, but I'm sure you can think one up if you wish. OK, speeding comes to
mind.
We don't inspect user accounts unless probable cause exists that we'd better do
so, and then it is done only with proper, fairly high-level authorization. I'd
be surprised if we've had to do this half a dozen times a year, and I don't
recall that many in the last year.
Can a user get away with violating the policy? Easily. Is that the same as
saying that the policy goes unenforced? Not in my opinion, but then we differ
as to what enforcement means.
Herb Stahlke
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 20:01:16 1992
From: rsm@math.arizona.edu (Robert S. Maier)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin
Subject: Princeton policy on From lines
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:35:04 GMT
I just reviewed Princeton's "1992-1993 Guidelines for Use of Campus and
Network Computing Resources", and had to chuckle at the following sentence:
Attempts to alter the "From" line or
other attribution of origin in electronic mail,
messages, or postings, will be considered
transgressions of University rules.
I think the authors of the Guidelines meant to refer to _obfuscatory_ or
_deceptive_ alterations of the From: line, not just any alteration!
My personal .emacs file, a copy of which is on every machine I have an
account on, contains the following lines:
(setq gnus-user-login-name "rsm"
gnus-use-generic-from "math.arizona.edu")
For those who don't use the GNUS news reading & posting package, what these
lines do is simple. They set up a fixed From: line,
From: rsm@math.arizona.edu
which will always appear on my postings. No matter which NNTP server
I post articles to (I have access to several), or what machine I post
articles from.
Apparently straightforward standardizations of this sort violate the
Princeton Guidelines! And what about all the people who append funny
parenthetical comments to their From: lines? Princeton sysadmins,
please note.
--
Robert S. Maier | Internet: rsm@math.arizona.edu, rsm@cs.arizona.edu
Asst. Professor | UUCP: uunet!arizona!amethyst!rsm
Math Department | Bitnet: maier@arizvms
Univ. of Arizona | FAX: +1 602 621 8322
Tucson, AZ 85721 | PHONE (dept.): +1 602 621 6893
U.S.A. | PHONE (office): +1 602 621 2617
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 20:24:11 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct6.230616.28120@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:06:16 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.203001.29827@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>I think it is probably not a good idea to insist that the Supreme Court's
>power of judicial review is not grounded in the Constitution, even though
>it is not explicitly granted there. Article III says that the judicial
>branch has jurisdiction over all cases and controversies that arise under
>the law and the Constitution of the United States. No other branch is
>granted this authority.
This is probably the (or a) relevant quote?
" [2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
as the Congress shall make."
>Your position about the Supreme Court's role is contrary to the generally
>accepted view in the United States of the role of the United States
>Supreme Court.
OK, I probably wasn't very clear with the idea (in my head or in my
writing). How about the issue of a jury or a government employee
interpreting the Constitution? This is where it is important what the
Constitution means? As an example, when in
" [3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
the Constitution is mentioned, does this mean "Constitution as
interpreted by the Supreme Court" or "Constitution as interpreted by
each person having sworn the oath"? What is the answer in US
Constitutional Law tradition, and in opinions of Mike or anyone else?
Sorry if this is old hat to everyone else.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 6 21:53:58 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.010909.22723@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:09:09 GMT
In article <1992Oct5.203001.29827@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>I think it is probably not a good idea to insist that the Supreme Court's
>power of judicial review is not grounded in the Constitution, even though
>it is not explicitly granted there. Article III says that the judicial
>branch has jurisdiction over all cases and controversies that arise under
>the law and the Constitution of the United States. No other branch is
>granted this authority.
Having this jurisdiction doesn't mean they have the power to make final,
binding interpertations of the Constitution. It at least implies that
they can make rulings on specific cases, based on their understanding
of the Constitution. But it does _not_ even hint that everyone else
is required to defer to their interpertation. For them to have such
power is a good idea, and one that the people expect elected officials
to go along with, but there is nothing constitutional about it.
By the way, since you seem to think Supreme Court rulings carry
great weight in matters of interperting the Constitution, can you
cite a single ruling, where the jurisdiction clause of Article Three
was interperted as a grant of the ultimate authority to interpert
the Constitution? Or that this clause (or any other in the Constitution)
compels the rest of the government to accept and support the Court's
rulings? (Don't waste your time: There are no such rulings. The
Court has only claimed these powers, without reference to the
Constitution.)
>Your position about the Supreme Court's role is contrary to the generally
>accepted view in the United States of the role of the United States
>Supreme Court.
The generally accepted view, is that they have the power to make
binding interpertations of the Constitution. However, it is _not_
the accepted view, that this power comes from the Constitution. Rather,
it comes from the people's expectations, and the political pressure
this puts on elected officials.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 00:01:21 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Princeton policy on From lines
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.035444.8042@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:54:44 GMT
In article rsm@math.arizona.edu (Robert S. Maier) writes:
>I just reviewed Princeton's "1992-1993 Guidelines for Use of Campus and
>Network Computing Resources", and had to chuckle at the following sentence:
>
> Attempts to alter the "From" line or
> other attribution of origin in electronic mail,
> messages, or postings, will be considered
> transgressions of University rules.
>My personal .emacs file, a copy of which is on every machine I have an
>account on, contains the following lines:
>
> (setq gnus-user-login-name "rsm"
> gnus-use-generic-from "math.arizona.edu")
I think, under a very strict interpretation of those rules, you are not
altering the "From:" line at all - you are creating it before it otherwise
exists.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 00:28:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.news, et al.] EFF announces gopher access to their online documents
Message-ID: <9210070431.AA01599@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:31:42 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.infosystems.gopher
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: EFF announces gopher access to their online documents
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:18:10 GMT
+=========+==================================================+==============+
| F.Y.I. | Newsnote from the Electronic Frontier Foundation | Oct 6, 1992 |
+=========+==================================================+==============+
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION OPENS GOPHER SERVER TO THE INTERNET
The Electronic Frontier Foundation announced today that they now offer
access to their online document library via the Internet Gopher protocol,
developed at the University of Minnesota. Gopher access joins WAIS,
electronic mail service, and anonymous ftp as an electronic means of
access to EFF documents.
Gopher clients are available for Mac, NeXT, GNU Emacs, X11, VM/CMS, VMS,
and curses interfaces. Many of these are available for anonymous ftp from
boombox.micro.umn.edu in pub/gopher. Those without clients can telnet to
consultant.micro.umn.edu and login as "gopher" to try it out. (EFF's
Gopher server is listed under "Other Gopher and Information Servers".)
The EFF Gopher service is available on gopher.eff.org, port 70. WAIS
access is available on wais.eff.org, port 210. Anonymous ftp access to
the document library is available on ftp.eff.org, in directory pub/EFF.
Mail service is handled through archive-server@eff.org; use "index eff"
for a list of documents and document sections.
For more information on the EFF or online access to our documents, send
electronic or postal mail to the addresses below.
+=====+=======================================================+=============+
| EFF | 155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141 +1 617 864 0665 | eff@eff.org |
+=====+=======================================================+=============+
--
Christopher K. Davis | NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
EFF #14 | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665 [CKD1] | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 01:58:30 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
Subject: Re: Princeton policy on From lines
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 05:39:04 GMT
In article <1992Oct7.035444.8042@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>My personal .emacs file, a copy of which is on every machine I have an
>>account on, contains the following lines:
>>
>> (setq gnus-user-login-name "rsm"
>> gnus-use-generic-from "math.arizona.edu")
>
>I think, under a very strict interpretation of those rules, you are not
>altering the "From:" line at all - you are creating it before it otherwise
>exists.
hmm...
% telnet favorite.smtp.host 25
.....
HELO myhost
MAIL FROM <....>
Yep, I guess it applies here too. Rules like this are just leverage
in case someone needs to actually use it. I can create a news posting,
have a From: line that is completely bogus, and be outside the letter
of the rule, but clearly within the spirit of it. Rules like this
really must specify what is considered an unaltered From: line.
--Dave
--
System Administrator, Population Research Institute barr@pop.psu.edu
Emacs is a fine operating system, but I still prefer UNIX. - Tom Christiansen
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 03:02:15 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Princeton policy on From lines
Message-ID: <3863@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:59:56 GMT
In article rsm@math.arizona.edu (Robert S. Maier) writes:
|I just reviewed Princeton's "1992-1993 Guidelines for Use of Campus and
|Network Computing Resources", and had to chuckle at the following sentence:
| Attempts to alter the "From" line or
| other attribution of origin in electronic mail,
| messages, or postings, will be considered
| transgressions of University rules.
|I think the authors of the Guidelines meant to refer to _obfuscatory_ or
|_deceptive_ alterations of the From: line, not just any alteration!
|My personal .emacs file, a copy of which is on every machine I have an
|account on, contains the following lines:
| (setq gnus-user-login-name "rsm"
| gnus-use-generic-from "math.arizona.edu")
|For those who don't use the GNUS news reading & posting package, what these
|lines do is simple. They set up a fixed From: line,
| From: rsm@math.arizona.edu
|which will always appear on my postings. No matter which NNTP server
|I post articles to (I have access to several), or what machine I post
|articles from.
|Apparently straightforward standardizations of this sort violate the
|Princeton Guidelines! And what about all the people who append funny
|parenthetical comments to their From: lines? Princeton sysadmins,
|please note.
What's even more amusing is that Princeton (perhaps only some machines,
perhaps having changed recently) was/were generating non RFC compliant
From: lines as well. Namely, they were generating a bang address
(princeton!user or suchlike) instead of an "at" (eg: user@princeton.edu
or suchlike).
B news has this unfortunate tendency to discard From: lines that
look like this.
--
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 06:15:30 1992
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1675@frackit.UUCP>
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:23:58 GMT
In article , twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.064733.22424@terminator.cc.umich.edu> pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
>
> >In article twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> >
> >>What if users include sexually explicit text in their .plans, preceded
> >>by a sequence of form feeds (^L) and the statement "Sexually explicit
> >>material follows; press ^C now if it is likely to offend you?"
> >
> >I take exception to the suggestion that Ice T lyrics are no more than
> >an indulgence in "dirty words".
>
> For Christ's sake, who said anything about Ice-T? Stick to the
> subject.
Here's who:
In <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) said:
>Banned Computer Material 1992
>Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
>banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State University has
>the dubious distinction of being listed most often (three times).
[lots deleted to get to the mention of Ice-T]
>Lyrics to Ice-T's Cop Killer in a .plan file at *Boston University*
> "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."
> REFERENCE:
> news/cafv02n35:
Does THAT refresh your memory any?
--
...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or- | Dave Ratcliffe |
frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or- | Sys. <*> Admin. |
vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu | Harrisburg, Pa. |
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 08:22:10 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.122204.4588@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:22:04 GMT
In article <1992Oct7.010909.22723@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>Having this jurisdiction doesn't mean they have the power to make final,
>binding interpertations of the Constitution.
No. But the lack of any legislative or executive power to overrule the
federal courts does in fact mean just this.
> It at least implies that
>they can make rulings on specific cases, based on their understanding
>of the Constitution. But it does _not_ even hint that everyone else
>is required to defer to their interpertation.
I think there's just such a hint, actually, in the language of Article
III.
>By the way, since you seem to think Supreme Court rulings carry
>great weight in matters of interperting the Constitution, can you
>cite a single ruling, where the jurisdiction clause of Article Three
>was interperted as a grant of the ultimate authority to interpert
>the Constitution?
You probably should read Charles Alan Wright's FEDERAL COURTS.
>(Don't waste your time: There are no such rulings. The
>Court has only claimed these powers, without reference to the
>Constitution.)
Frank, you should be cautioned about attempting to prove a negative.
Try going to the law library and researching judicial review.
>The generally accepted view, is that they have the power to make
>binding interpertations of the Constitution. However, it is _not_
>the accepted view, that this power comes from the Constitution. Rather,
>it comes from the people's expectations, and the political pressure
>this puts on elected officials.
You are mistaken. Spend some time in a law library and read a few
law-review articles on the possible sources of judicial review.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --John Stuart Mill
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 09:31:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.libadmin] academic computing
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.133126.5934@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:31:26 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 09:31:33 1992
From: P_PARTELLO@UNHH.UNH.EDU
Subject: academic computing
Message-ID: <199210071228.AA04748@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:24:54 GMT
I am interested in the various structures for academic computing, esp. as
it relates to small-medium institutions. Do people think the Columbia
model, with a vice president for information systems, works? How about
a merger between the library and academic computing? I would like to hear
about structures that are in place now and the success rate. I would be
happy to summarize if people respond directly to me.
Peggie Partello
Keene State College, NH
P_PARTELLO@UNHH.UNH.EDU
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 09:36:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: steveh@orbital.demon.co.uk (Stephen Hebditch)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct4.144809.28833@orbital.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 14:48:09 GMT
In article <1992Oct1.140851.10720@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>The document was not about illegalities or illegal censorship, it was
>about banning material in general.
There is a problem, though, that the document could be viewed as a list
of organisations with bad policies on academic freedom. Carl Kadie
himself wrote in another article:-
>Also, if your school is on the list, you might want to send it to your
>campus paper as a press release with a catchy title: "University of
>Somewhere on international list of computer censors".
This would not seem to be fair on educational establishments in some
countries which might have admirable policies on such matters and where
the staff are all highly committed to academic freedom, but are
constrained by local laws prohibiting them carrying certain material on
their computer networks.
--
Stephen Hebditch TQM Communications steveh@orbital.demon.co.uk +44 836 825962
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 10:51:23 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Princeton policy on From lines
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.104657.4432@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:46:57 GMT
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>rsm@math.arizona.edu (Robert S. Maier) writes:
>>I just reviewed Princeton's "1992-1993 Guidelines for Use of Campus and
>>Network Computing Resources", and had to chuckle at the following sentence:
>>
>> Attempts to alter the "From" line or
>> other attribution of origin in electronic mail,
>> messages, or postings, will be considered
>> transgressions of University rules.
>
>>My personal .emacs file, a copy of which is on every machine I have an
>>account on, contains the following lines:
>>
>> (setq gnus-user-login-name "rsm"
>> gnus-use-generic-from "math.arizona.edu")
>
>I think, under a very strict interpretation of those rules, you are not
>altering the "From:" line at all - you are creating it before it otherwise
>exists.
Hmmmm....if I was writing that particular policy, I'd say something like:
The "From" line of electronic mail, messages, and postings
must include the following information:
Your name (the name under which your access has been granted)
A valid electronic reply address for you
While you may certainly *add* information to the From line, it
MUST contain YOUR valid name/address information. Deceptive or
evasive modification of this information is a violation of this
policy.
With something like this, you could take care of forgers and black-holers
(those who set From lines to "/dev/null@princeton.edu" or whatever, to
avoid replies/accountability), while regular folks could still inject a bit
of humor/sarcasm/wit into the otherwise boring header lines......
--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 Oct 7 11:02:39 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.101854.10380@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
From: sbrack@jupiter (Steven S. Brack)
Date: 7 Oct 92 10:18:53 EST
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
:
: [...]
:
: > True, plenty of other stuff (reading news, etc.) goes on and the
: >rule isn't enforced when the outside activities don't interfere with
: >those who are using their accounts to the end for which they were
: >issued.
"We'll hold this club over your head, but as long as you don't
upset us, we won't use it." Selective enforcement of the rules
has never been good policy, because it is too open to abuse.
The same rule must be applied to everyone, everytime, the same
way. Anything else engenders special privelege.
:
: > But you're still using the university's resources. If you
: >keep doing something you've been asked to stop because it eats
: >resources others need to use, then as far as I'm concerned they've got
: >all the right in the world to pull the rug out from under you and
: >start due process. I don't see why due process can't start _after_
: >the rug pulling, since the perpetrator likely to keep pulling the same
: >stunts if the account remains in place.
: [...]
The same reason that persons accused of crimes should be released
on reasonable bail whenever possible. The denial of computing
resources is a punishment, whether intended that way or not.
: [...]
: >As for having the right to express yourself, you've got it. But as
: >was pointed out in another thread on another newsgroup, just because
: >you've got the right to express yourself doesn't mean that others have
: >to provide the soap box.
: [...]
:
: Actually, at a university to some degree they do. For example, most
: universities guarantee students and faculty the right to use
: classrooms for meetings and to hear invited speakers.
:
But many public universities still have codes restricting these
speakers, & restricting the character of the meetings. e.g.:
1) Communist Party meetings, or
2) Gay student organizations' meetings.
These have most often been prohibited on the grounds that their purpose
is the discussion of illegal acts.
: ANNOTATED REFERENCES
:
: (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
:
: =================
: faq/media.control
: =================
: q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
: public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
: owns, right?
:
: =================
: academic/student.freedoms.aaup
: =================
: Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
: U.S. statement on student academic freedom.
:
: =================
: =================
:
: These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
: method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
: to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
:
: pub/academic/faq/media.control
: pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
:
: To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
: Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
: name):
:
: send acad-freedom/faq media.control
: send acad-freedom/academic student.freedoms.aaup
: --
: Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Steven S. Brack | B0 w+f s+k+c+v a!v | sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive \____________________/ STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, OH 43613-1605 / \ brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
+1 419 GR4 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 14:41:03 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.183423.18741@morrow.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:34:23 GMT
In article <1992Oct7.010909.22723@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
(Frank Crary) writes:
>The generally accepted view, is that they have the power to make
>binding interpertations of the Constitution. However, it is _not_
>the accepted view, that this power comes from the Constitution. Rather,
>it comes from the people's expectations, and the political pressure
>this puts on elected officials.
The Constitution uses the term "judicial power" without
really defining it. It sets the scope within which this
power may be used ("all cases, in law and equity, arising
under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made under their
authority") but does not say explicitly what the power is.
--
Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com
(415) 323-9000 x117 karish@forel.stanford.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 14:53:06 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Pragmatic approach to .plan (Re: Let's try a different tack...)
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.184625.24535@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:46:25 GMT
In <1992Oct5.180715.11666@panix.com> eck@panix.com writes:
> >> "The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
> >> regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of
> >> expression so as to prevent disruption of the educationally
> >> process or interference with the rights of others, and prevent
> >> placing persons or property in danger."
> >
> >This would seem to provide an adequate basis for reasonable restrictions
> >on what can be placed in '.plan'.
>
> Wrong on two counts:
>
> 1) Time/place/manner restrictions must be content-neutral.
A limit of (e.g.) 20 lines for plan files *is* content-neutral and
matches the definition given above. I would consider that appropriate,
more on that below.
> 2) It confounds logic to assert that the contents of a .plan file
> disrupt the educational process, interfere with anyone's rights, or
> imperil persons or property,
You surely don't want to finger a plan file that contains the right
escape sequence to reprogram your terminal's Return key to
'rm -rf ~/* [return]', do you? This surely would interfere with your
rights, wouldn't it? It could even imperil your property, or couldn't
it? What about some nasty code embedded in plan files that erases your
master thesis files one week before completion? You really should
agree that there *is* a limit somewhere...
But now...
I don't understand the heated debate about .plan files. Why not take
the pragmatic approach and say, "Look people, you know what plan files
are for - giving out information about the user, the project she's
working on or similar things; and you supposedly have used a finger
command yourselves already; now look what do YOU expect to find in a
plan file?"
I expect the following:
- At most 20 lines of text. I don't want to scroll the output away so
I cannot read it, and what I want to read from finger is not that
much.
- A plain text file, no special formatting, no escape codes, no
binaries linked or whatever.
- The content should be informational; I want to read about the user's
occupation, advertising for the project she's currently working on,
Phone or Fax or Email addresses, pointers to persons to contact if she
is away and so on. HOWEVER this is MY opinion only and every user may
put into her plan what she wants, IMO. (Apart from the usual
restrictions: what you should not post to USENET, e.g. libelous
insults or the like, you should not place in plan files either.)
Now I ask if that are restrictions you can't live with! If I say,
"please shorten your 350-line plan file", you really should not cry
"You try to impose censorship on plan files!", you should rather ask:
"Why?" and let me explain the issue.
An example: The following used to be my plan file. [Until the
operating system got updated - its-all-not-that-easy-VMS - and the new
one didn't have a finger server, so you need not try to finger me :-(]
------------------------------------------------
Olaf Titz, Karlsruhe/Germany, Tel. +49-721-60439
Email: s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de or uknf@dkauni2.bitnet
ircle [pronounced irk-le] - a small IRC client for the Macintosh.
Currently in beta testing, version 0.4.7 available from
sumex-aim.stanford.edu: /info-mac/comm
and associated mirrors.
" System debugging has always been a graveyard-shift occupation, like
astronomy. Twenty years ago, on the 701, I was initiated into the
productive informality of the predawn hours, when all the machine-room
bosses are fast asleep at home, and the operators are disinclined to be
sticklers for rules. Three machine generations have passed; technologies
have changed totally; operating systems have arisen; and yet this
preferred method of working hasn't changed. It endures because it is
most productive. The time has come to recognize its productivity and
embrace the fruitful practice openly. "
Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month, 1975
-------------------------------------------------
(The -------s were not part of the plan file.)
This contains email addresses, information on what I'm working on
[obsolete now, you can get ircle 1.0 :-)] and a snippet of text I like
to quote. (If someone had told me, "Leave out the Brooks quote, we
want project information ONLY", I had left it out and tried to talk
with him over the issue instead of posting on USENET: "U Karlsruhe
censors plan files!" Something like that did NOT happen, though.)
Restrictions != censorship. If there are reasons for that
restrictions, they *may* be O.K. Hopefully you see the difference
between the plan file issue in my view and, e.g., the cancelling of
certain newsgroups because of *content*. (If I had a campus news
server running on a Sun-3 and said, "Look people, we cannot carry
binaries groups because we don't have the storage for them", they
should not cry censorship. If I said to them, "We don't carry sex
groups because my wife's a feminist", they really *should* cry
censorship. Agreed?)
The restrictions I proposed for plan files are all either technical or
based on reasonable assumptions about their purpose. Not a big fuss to
make about.
MfG,
Olaf
--
o Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
_ /<_ s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_) +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
What high-level language should one use for system programming? The only
reasonable candidate today is PL/I. - Fred Brooks (1975)
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 16:11:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: CAF gopher
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.201010.20402@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:10:10 GMT
The CAF gopher is set up. For browsing the archive, I think it is great --
much better than anonymous ftp.
If you are lucky, all you need to do to access it is to type the command:
gopher gopher.eff.org
then selection menu option 4.
- Carl
p.s. If you can't do anonymous ftp's then you can't access it. If you
can do anonymous ftp's but your machine doesn't have a "gopher" client
installed:
[from Chris Davis' note]
>Gopher clients are available for Mac, NeXT, GNU Emacs, X11, VM/CMS, VMS,
>and curses interfaces. Many of these are available for anonymous ftp from
>boombox.micro.umn.edu in pub/gopher. Those without clients can telnet to
>consultant.micro.umn.edu and login as "gopher" to try it out. (EFF's
>Gopher server is listed under "Other Gopher and Information Servers".)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 16:43:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.203730.1205@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:37:30 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 16:43:51 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.190538.6218@ERA.COM>
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:05:38 GMT
On comp.admin.policy, sbrack@jupiter (Steven S. Brack) posts:
>
> : feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
> : > True, plenty of other stuff (reading news, etc.) goes on and the
> : >rule isn't enforced when the outside activities don't interfere with
> : >those who are using their accounts to the end for which they were
> : >issued.
>
> "We'll hold this club over your head, but as long as you don't
> upset us, we won't use it." Selective enforcement of the rules
> has never been good policy, because it is too open to abuse.
> The same rule must be applied to everyone, everytime, the same
> way. Anything else engenders special privelege.
Okay, Steve, let's look at that from the other end of the spectrum:
"I have this rule here against xyz, and I've got every
intention of enforcing the hell out of it. To do that, I'm
going to watch your every move while within ten feet of any of
my hardware, demand an inspection of the source for every
program you wish to run before you are permitted to execute
it, screen your e-mail, et cetera. This means, of course,
that you don't get anything done in a decent amount of time
because you're busy getting your every move approved, and I
don't get anything done because I'm busy crawling up your tail
with a microscope. But by God that rule against xyz is going
to be enforced, and nobody's going to slip through the
cracks."
If that's the way you think everything should be enforced, you're
living in the wrong country. Selective enforcement goes on every day.
Look at traffic. If we tried to eliminate it by stationing a police
officer every quarter-mile on every street to catch and enforce
EVERYTHING, none of us would ever make it to work in the morning.
There's a tradeoff here: Society won't keep you under constant
scrutiny, and in exchange society expects you to be responsible enough
to follow the rules. They call that SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, and it's
something I think a lot of people in this country have lost sight of.
> : > But you're still using the university's resources. If you
> : >keep doing something you've been asked to stop because it eats
> : >resources others need to use, then as far as I'm concerned they've got
> : >all the right in the world to pull the rug out from under you and
> : >start due process. I don't see why due process can't start _after_
> : >the rug pulling, since the perpetrator likely to keep pulling the same
> : >stunts if the account remains in place.
> : [...]
> The same reason that persons accused of crimes should be released
> on reasonable bail whenever possible.
People get released on bail under the assumption they're not likely to
repeat the same crime while they're out. But you can bet your bottom
dollar that bail will be revoked if they're arrested for the same
thing. And if you're denied bail and tossed in the clink until your
trial comes up, you're still being deprived of your rights to go out
and frolic as you please without instant due process. (Perhaps the
time is ripe for the Court of Appeals on Wheels?)
> The denial of computing
> resources is a punishment, whether intended that way or not.
Bull. Same story as above. Re-read what I wrote:
"If you keep doing something you've been asked to stop because
it eats resources others need to use..."
I really don't have any problem with asking somebody to stop doing
something that's "against the rules" -- the first time around. I'm
always willing to forgive an innocent mistake even when ignorance of
the rules is involved. But if I'm heard and ignored, it crosses over
the line and becomes intentional. And THAT, I believe, is where
"selective enforcement" comes into play in this case. Ever drop
something you were holding in frontof a police officer and got a
ticket for littering before you were able to bend over and pick it up?
I didn't think so. That's selective enforcement.
There's a trade-off (yes, another one) of responsibility for freedom
once you start dealing with the freedoms of others. If you've got a
system of your own (and that's not "somebody else's but all to
yourself," BTW) you're free to make your own rules and do whatever the
heck you feel like. But once you've agreed to share that system with
others, you're responsible for making sure you don't deny someone else
their rights by your actions -- especially when that someone else has
chipped in the same share you have to have a subset of the freedoms
they'd have on their own systems if they had them. Again, SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY.
> : >As for having the right to express yourself, you've got it. But as
> : >was pointed out in another thread on another newsgroup, just because
> : >you've got the right to express yourself doesn't mean that others have
> : >to provide the soap box.
>
> But many public universities still have codes restricting these
> speakers, & restricting the character of the meetings. e.g.:
> 1) Communist Party meetings, or
> 2) Gay student organizations' meetings.
>
> These have most often been prohibited on the grounds that
> their purpose is the discussion of illegal acts.
That's true. And as long as the organizations are recognized by the
university and nothing illegal is going on (conspiring counts here,
IMHO), I can't agree with those policies either. (Does the U of T
have a Criminal Justice club? Do they discuss illegal acts?) But
that's an entirely different issue, which I'll leave for another
thread on another newsgroup.
- Mark
................................. .................................
: Mark A. Feit KD4TAJ : Internet: feit@era.com :
: Engineering Research Associates : USENET: ...!uunet!era!feit :
................................. .................................
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 17:50:51 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Selective Enforcement (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:35:24 GMT
In article , sbrack@jupiter (Steven S. Brack) writes:
|> "We'll hold this club over your head, but as long as you don't
|> upset us, we won't use it." Selective enforcement of the rules
|> has never been good policy, because it is too open to abuse.
There is, however, a difference between selective enforcement and
imperfect detection. Some people do things and get away with them not
because the adminstration is selectively enforcing the rules, but
because no one in authority caught the perpetrator doing it, or can
prove that it was done by a particular person. Sometimes it seems that
users confuse the two (selective enforcement and imperfect detection).
They see someone violating a policy, and after not seeing any action
taken against them, conclude that either the policy is not being
enforced at all, or it is being selectively enforced, when neither
situation is the case. Why do users conclude this? Is it because they
also assume that the sysadmins are effectively omniscient, that they
can know everything that happens on on the computer? In other words,
do they assume perfect detection? Sysadmins would probably agree that
omniscience on their part is a useful myth to foster amongst the users
:-), however, I fear that it may work against us by leading too quickly
to charges of selective enforcement, with its undertones of banana
republic repression of the masses while those with connections go scot
free. (I'm sure that many sysadmins would argue (fear) that if most
users knew that detection was imperfect, wholesale "lawlessness" would
ensue. And we control freaks know how disconcerting that would be! :-))
|> The same rule must be applied to everyone, everytime, the same
|> way. Anything else engenders special privelege.
I would argue that this is a noble, but unrealistic sentiment. Not
even our civil and criminal justice system, in its purest form,
operates this way. There are often mitigating or exacerbating
circumstances that require judgement and will alter the "breaking rule
(law) A requires punishment B" reasoning. That is why we have judges
and juries. This is also why the "rules" usually delineate a broad
range of punishment and do not exhaustively detail every possible
mitigating or exacerbating circumstance. Is this special privilege?
No. It is an understanding that human events are rarely simple, and
should not be taken in isolation. Context is very important. This
system, like any other, can be abused. I would suggest that in those
instances, the correct thing to do is to get rid of the abuser, not the
system. I recognize that in some cases, getting rid of the abuser is
difficult, even seemingly impossible. I assert that the difficulty of
doing the right thing should not be used as an excuse to do the wrong
thing.
|> :
|> : >start due process. I don't see why due process can't start _after_
|> : >the rug pulling, since the perpetrator likely to keep pulling the same
|> : >stunts if the account remains in place.
|> : [...]
|> The same reason that persons accused of crimes should be released
|> on reasonable bail whenever possible. The denial of computing
|> resources is a punishment, whether intended that way or not.
|> : [...]
Here again, context is important. There are people accused of crimes
who are *not* released on bail because they are a continuing threat to
society (they would commit more crimes while out on bail), or they are
likely to flee. The same applies to computing "crimes". Some users
should be locked out during the due process because they are a
continuing threat to the "society" of other users and equipment. Doing
this requires good judgement, and realistically, should be quite rare.
Frequent and heavy handed use of resource denial backed by erroneous
attitudes such as "... the perpetrator [is] likely to keep pulling the
same stunts if the account remains in place." is an error on the part
of system administrators. We need to be careful about how we use
resource denial, because it is a powerful tool. I think
that sysadmins/managers often ascribe more evil intent to users than
is warranted, but conversely, users ascribe the same to system
administrators. Both groups need to consciously back away from those
attitudes.
|> Steven S. Brack | B0 w+f s+k+c+v a!v | sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
|> 2021 Roanwood Drive \____________________/ STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
|> Toledo, OH 43613-1605 / \ brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu
|> +1 419 GR4 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Oct 7 20:23:58 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:39:36 GMT
In article <1675@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>In article , twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Oct1.064733.22424@terminator.cc.umich.edu> pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
>>
>> >I take exception to the suggestion that Ice T lyrics are no more than
>> >an indulgence in "dirty words".
>>
>> For Christ's sake, who said anything about Ice-T? Stick to the
>> subject.
>
> [reference deleted]
>
>Does THAT refresh your memory any?
Yes. Now why don't you run along and discuss it in a relevant thread?
--
____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 11:47:26 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.153350.19159@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 15:33:50 EDT
In article <1992Oct6.175025.4096@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>> >Rather, one should fell completely free to cite SC interpretation as *the*
>> >meaning of the Constitution.
>>
>> I am saying that one shouldn't and the SC doesn't have a monopoly to
>> interpret the Constitution since it isn't given such a monopoly in the
>> U.S. Constitution.
>
> [quotes deleted]
>
>It looks like Jefferson and Madison disagree with Greeny. (there are
>others, if these aren't enough... ;-)
Actually, it looks as though they both *agreed* with me that the SC's
interpretation is the *legal* interpretation (at least in practice),
though they obviously weren't too thrilled that this was, in fact, the case.
>> >Where an individual disagrees with the SC as to the "proper" interpretation
>
>But Madison (a proponet of a strong central government) says that this
>is not "proper"!
Read my statement. The word "proper" (and note--in quotes) refers to the
*individual's* belief as to what the "proper" interpetation of the Constitution
is.
>BTW, supreme is not capitalized, only Court is capitalized. The
>capitalization rules look much like modern German. I suspect that
>a reference to God (pick your god of choice) would be referred to
>as a "Supreme Being", while the SC is the "supreme Court". I'm sure that
>they would *like to be* the "SUPREME COURT", however.... (god-like in
>origin, and all that... ;-)
I fail to see how this is at all relevant...
>> >of the document, he or she should feel free to say "According to the SC..."
>
>This is reasonable, however.
>
>> >And where one provides one's *own* interpretation, it should be prefaced
>> >with something to the effect of "IMHO..."
>>
>> Best would be to use to use both, but to make a point it is IMHO
>> sufficient to say "The Supreme Court says that censoring obscenity is
>> constitutional, while the Constitution itself doesn't prohibit
>> obscenity and thus the prohibition on obscenity is unconstitutional".
>
>I like your notation better, Jyrki. It's certainly reasonable for a
>Citizen to state, expound, or complain that the Federal government is
>passing laws in excess of their Constitutional powers. The supreme
>Court's decisions are no more valid than mine.
In your philosphical interpretation, they may not be any more valid than
your own. As a practical matter, the SC interpretation is far more
legally binding than your own, however.
Furthermore, you can choose to use whatever notation you like. But if you want
the rest of the 99% of the world to understand what you mean, you should
state (or otherwise make clear) that it is *your* interpretation, and not the
SC's, to which you are refering.
You can also choose to define "Constitution" to mean those small pebbles
used to pave roads--since Webster's interpretation is no more valid than
yours. To the vast majority of the english-speaking world, however, you will
be completely misunderstood (unless you explicitly qualify your use of
"Constitution" with your own definition).
Likewise, to the vast majority of the world, an unqualified remark about the
meaning of the US Constitution will suggest that the interpretation of the SC
is being discussed.
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 14:21:46 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.162357.19429@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:23:57 GMT
In article <1992Oct7.010909.22723@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>I think it is probably not a good idea to insist that the Supreme Court's
>>power of judicial review is not grounded in the Constitution, even though
>>it is not explicitly granted there. Article III says that the judicial
>>branch has jurisdiction over all cases and controversies that arise under
>>the law and the Constitution of the United States. No other branch is
>>granted this authority.
>
>Having this jurisdiction doesn't mean they have the power to make final,
>binding interpertations of the Constitution. It at least implies that
>they can make rulings on specific cases, based on their understanding
>of the Constitution. But it does _not_ even hint that everyone else
>is required to defer to their interpertation. For them to have such
>power is a good idea, and one that the people expect elected officials
>to go along with, but there is nothing constitutional about it.
I don't follow your logic. If the courts have jurisidiction over all
"cases and controversies" and, presumably, a claim that a statute/policy/etc.
conflicts with the Constitution is a "controversy," then doesn't the
courts' right to decide the controversy give them, at least, a de facto
ability to make final, binding decisions (if that was not, in fact, the
intent)?
Sure, the courts can't issue an a priori order to prevent the legislature from
passing a court-nullified law over again (or to prevent the executive from
establishing a court-nullified administrative policy over again), but the
court *does* have the ability to immediately enjoin any such statute/policy
from being enforced. This means that, ultimately, the constitution *has*
given the courts this power.
With regards to the few quotes cited in a previos post, was anybody else
struck that Jefferson and Madison were upset that they *had*, in fact, given
the courts more power in the Constitution than had been their intent. Their
statements sound like those of people who are waxing philosphical over their
own *failure* to come up with (what was in their minds) an adequate solution.
>By the way, since you seem to think Supreme Court rulings carry
>great weight in matters of interperting the Constitution, can you
>cite a single ruling, where the jurisdiction clause of Article Three
>was interperted as a grant of the ultimate authority to interpert
>the Constitution? Or that this clause (or any other in the Constitution)
>compels the rest of the government to accept and support the Court's
>rulings? (Don't waste your time: There are no such rulings. The
>Court has only claimed these powers, without reference to the
>Constitution.)
You are incorrect on this part. One of the earliest and best known cases,
Marbury v. Madison (1803), makes specific reference to Article II:
"The judicial power of the of the United States is extended to all cases
arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave
this power, to say, that in using it, the constitution should not be looked
into? That a case under the constitution should be decided, without
examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to
be maintained..."
There's more there, but you get the point. Clearly, Marshall (and the
rest of the SC in that unanimous opinion) *did* cite Article III (section 2,
clause 1).
>>Your position about the Supreme Court's role is contrary to the generally
>>accepted view in the United States of the role of the United States
>>Supreme Court.
>
>The generally accepted view, is that they have the power to make
>binding interpertations of the Constitution. However, it is _not_
>the accepted view, that this power comes from the Constitution. Rather,
>it comes from the people's expectations, and the political pressure
>this puts on elected officials.
I'm not sure what you mean here--that most people reject the idea that
the Constitution gives this right to the courts? If so, I sincerely doubt
that this is, in fact, the case.
One last thing. While Article VI, Clause 3 has already been cited, this
discussion has ignored Clause 2, which states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution
or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
[Note: the "supreme" for "Law of the Land" is not capitalized either. So
much for the theory that this meant something with respect to the SC's powers.]
Clearly, the Constitution recognizes state courts to hold the final, binding
authority in matters of state law. Are we truly to believe that the the
Constitution recognizes the states courts in this capacity wrt state laws/
constitution, but does *not* recognize the analogous capacity of federal
courts wrt to federal law/constitution?
To me, such an interpretation seems completely unsupported by any reasonable
logic.
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 14:54:16 1992
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <718545866.2786@zooid.guild.org>
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:04:26 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
>
>However, let's see if I understand this:
>
> 1) You found system passwords in publicly readable files. (I'm
> assuming that these files were not in your disk space). There-
> fore, you imply that you were wandering around looking for
> publicly readable files.
>
> 2) You deliberately set a trap in a publicly executable file to
> prevent "blatantly stupid snooping".
>
>Regardless of other actions, this seems like "Pot -- Kettle -- Black".
>
>--Wes
>
I wasn't quite clear in my message, sorry.
1 - The publicly readable batch files were publicly readable. What's your
point? Remember, I pointed out the problems I found.
2 - The trap program was in my own directory, and wasn't publicly executable.
The tech had a habit of scanning my account every couple of days or so. She
had previously complained that a text encryption program was a "game". I was
one of the few people that was doing more than small assignments. (My usage
was in the evening, when nothing else was running.)
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 17:43:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.sex.bondage] Re: Anonymity (Was Re: How to do ACS right (was: Software Failure))
Message-ID: <1992Oct8.213842.12594@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:38:42 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 17:43:00 1992
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Subject: Re: Anonymity (Was Re: How to do ACS right (was: Software Failure))
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:29:33 GMT
wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com (StarOwl) writes:
>Last spring, e-privacy was a big topic here at UIUC. The sysadmins on
>uxa, the big free student account UNIX machine, changed the fingername
>policy unannounced. Overnight, we went from being able to customize
>our fingernames on that machine, to having our full legal names returned
>in a finger query. The powers that be wanted all news posts and email
>coming out of UIUC to have a real name attatched to them, and all IRCNAMES
>to reflect the RL identity of the account holder. Their premise was
>that "a user who has to reveal his real name is a responsible user."
I still believe that premise and fifteen years experience in the computer
field has not shown me significant counter-evidence. I dropped the finger
names because of FERPA. FERPA does not, however, cover news or irc.
>From my point of view, this premise was utter BS. There are many
>precidents in U.S. History regarding using some sort of pseudonym
>under which one could make his or her opinions known without much
>fear of being harassed in hir (I'm sorry, I am going to get tired
>of writing "his or her" and "he and she" over and over again)
>normal everyday life. The same sort of protection should (IMHO)
>be availible to net.users.
Certainly. That's what public Internet providers are there for.
Don't ask the University to provide that service since it doesn't
mesh with either academic freedom or our educational mission.
>Obviously this is not the case, for a number of reasons that I won't
>go into here now. However this sort of "protection" had been
>availible here until that night, when the policy was changed unannounced.
>A good friend of mine received a harrassing/obscene phone call for
>something sie said on IRC, because it became so easy to identify hir.
>I got pissed and started a flamefest on three local newsgroups, threatening
>a lawsuit that I would have lost, but would have been potentially
>very embarassing for the University. Besides their premise didn't
>work well -- it was still very easy to send email and news off that
>machine using handles, and to change one's IRCNAME. Possibly because
>of the stink I and a few other people caused, the policy was changed.
Nope, just FERPA. Tools to track email connections are already in
place. Forged email from uxa is quite easy to trace now. News is
next and in some ways easier because hosts that accept outside posts
are relatively rare and bothersome to use. The University hasn't a
care in the world what you call yourself in email as long as it
doesn't involve the University in any legal troubles.
/pbp
--
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the People to keep and read Books shall not be infringed."
-- J. Neil Schulman
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 17:49:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Anonymity (Was Re: How to do ACS right (was: Software Failure))
Message-ID: <1992Oct8.214538.25285@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:45:38 GMT
Here are points to articles about the UIUC experience.
- Carl
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/cafv02n06: Message-Id: <1992Feb3.224647.28831@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.06
Notes 7-9 are about the disclosure of personal information on the U of
Illinois systems through such programs as finger.
7. [A U of Illinois student:] "Before the new software was installed, an
account holder could alter how he/she was identified when another
computer user on the same or a connected system requested information
about that person using the finger program. The current software has the
fingerd program return part or all of the person's legal name. I must
protest this change, and request
that the problem be fixed."
=================
news/cafv02n06: Message-Id: <1992Feb4.193335.16780@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.06
Notes 7-9 are about the disclosure of personal information on the U of
Illinois systems through such programs as finger.
8. [A member of the U of Illinois Computing Services Office:] "CCSO
believes the perception of anonymity leads to increased belligerence and
decreased sense of responsiblity for one's actions. The fact that one
is ultimately traceable does not have the same effect as being
immediately identified."
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Notes 5-7 are about privacy.
7. Under what circumstances can the university disclose personal
information about a student computer user, say, through 'finger'?
Enclosed excerpts from the Family Education and Privacy Rights of Act
provide a partial answer.
=================
=================
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/news/cafv02n06
pub/academic/news/cafv02n06
pub/academic/news/cafv02n11
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/news cafv02n06
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n06
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 20:01:11 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: Re: Sysadmin for a Day, was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.000104.18126@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:01:04 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>I didn't ask about its effectiveness, I asked how you would handle it.
>Some sysadmins are bluntly told, "Keep Crack/IRC/MUD code off our sys-
>tems"; how should they handle it? Let's hear some concrete ideas!
[...]
Do you mean how should they handle the risks of Crack or how should
they handle being told bluntly to keep Crack off the system?
Just to inject some information/confusion into the discussion, here
are some library policy excerpts on dangerious material. (They
sound a little lofty, even to me.)
============ excerpt ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/int-freedom.ala ====
We state these propositions with conviction, not as easy
generalizations. We advance a noble claim for the value of ideas,
freely expressed, as embodied in books and other kinds of
communications. We do this in our belief that a free intellectual
climate fosters creative endeavors capable of enormous variety,
beauty, and usefulness. and thus worthy of support and preservation.
We recognize that application of these propositions may encourage the
dissemination of ideas and forms of expression that will be
frightening or abhorrent to some. We believe that what people read,
view, and hear is a critically important issue. We recognize, too,
that ideas can be dangerous. It may be, however, that they are
effectually dangerous only when opposing ideas are suppressed.
Freedom, in its many facets, is a precarious course. We espouse it
heartily.
============ excerpt ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/freedom-to-read.ala ====
We state these propositions neither lightly nor as easy
generalizations. We here stake out a lofty claim for the value
of books. We do so because we believe that they are good,
possessed of enormous variety and usefulness, worthy of
cherishing and keeping free. We realize that the application of
these propositions may mean the dissemination of ideas and
manners of expression that are repugnant to many persons. We do
not state these propositions in the comfortable belief that what
people read is unimportant. We believe rather that what people
read is deeply important; that ideas can be dangerous; but that
the suppression of ideas is fatal to a democratic society.
Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it is ours.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
* Intellectual Freedom Statement -- American Library Assoc
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/freedom-to-read.ala
=================
* Freedom to Read Statement (ALA)
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."
=================
=================
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.ala
pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala
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.ala
send acad-freedom/library freedom-to-read.ala
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 20:18:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Enforcement, Selection, and on-the-fly policy making
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.001624.30091@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:16:24 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 20:18:18 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Enforcement, Selection, and on-the-fly policy making
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:25:03 GMT
There's another thing about these threads that is bothering me; the
implication that policies can't be made or modified on the fly, that
only written-in-stone policies are fair.
I am a manager. I make policy decisions all the time, often standing
on one foot. This is what I get paid to do; someone has to make
decisions. Trying to write every small policy down can lead to the
situation where you have rule books which are hundreds of pages long
and where even the most trivial situations are covered by masses of
rules.
Keeping rules simple has the consequence that interpretation of the
rules falls to the management more frequently. A rule of "no
interfering with other users" leaves room for interpretation;
itemizing possible ways of interference could run into the dozens of
pages.
Take this plan thing. Right now we have no written rule on .plan
files, and an unwritten policy that they not be obscene and that they
not interfere with others. If we itemized this, we could run on for
pages and pages about flow control, ascii sequences, buffer overflow,
obscenity trials...and end up with a much less comfortable situation
where instead of a few extreme cases, every user was under scrutiny.
It might be "fair" in the sense that BANNING .plan files would apply
equally to all users. It might be enforceable, if I said "plan files
must contain only a subset of the following categories of information
appropriate to a telephone service....")
But Yecccch! Who wants to live with that many rules? As it is, we've
asked three students in two years to change their .plan files, out of
about 500. Everyone is happy (at our site anyway; not everyone on the
net is pleased that we are happy.) I don't have tenure; if the
university is unhappy with my management style they could ask me to
modify it and/or they could fire me and replace me with someone else.
Meanwhile, I don't think we are confusing management with
"benevolent dictatorship."
--
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....
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 21:00:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.010021.18858@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:00:21 GMT
Question [inspired by an email message]:
What should sys admins do about nude pictures and displays of nude
pictures in public terminal rooms? Is a special rule banning such
pictures and/or displays needed?
Tenative Answer:
The problem is not the pictures themselves, but rather their display.
By way of analogy, your library likely contains thousands of nude
photos (many academic libraries, for example, subscribe to _Playboy_).
The existence of these pictures on university property is not
harassment because no one is compelled to keep looking at the
pictures.
If that same _Playboy_ pictures, however, were *displayed* in a
university office or lab where employees or students must work, the
person displaying the picture might be guilty of sexually harassing a
person in the office or lab. Likewise the *display* of nude pictures
in a public terminal room (or university office) might be found to be
sexual harassment.
So what should a sys admin do? Your university almost certainly has a
written policy on sexual harassment, that policy almost certainly
details the sexual harassment enforcment procedure. It is very
unlikely that an ordinary university department or staff person is
authoritized by the school to enforced the sexual harassment policy
(by, for example, expelling students from the computer system or by
searching for *.gif files).
You can, however:
1) Find out if your university's "sexual harassment" officer thinks
that public display of nudes is, in more situations, sexual
harassment. If so, post notices that public display of sexual
material is *likely* a violation of the school's sexual harassment
policy. Quote the policy and the opinion of the university's
"sexual harassment" officer.
2) If anyone engages in what appears to be sexual harassment,
* warn them informally (at your discretion)
* charge them with sexual harassment (or tell the harassed
person how to charge them) following your schools's sexual
harassment procedure.
Note you are not creating a new rule; rather you are helping to
explain the University's existing rule. This is important because it
is very difficult to create and enforce a good sexual harassment rule.
For example, the Computer Science department at the University of
Texas at Austin forbids:
"[...] displaying materials that are unsuitable for public display."
This rule is almost certainly unconstitutionally vague. The
alternative is a nonrule rule. For example, a draft policy for
University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences, says:
"You are reminded that the University does have policies against
racism, sexism, and sexual harassment; if necessary, you may
direct your problems to the appropriate University office."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
policies/cs.utexas.edu
=================
Computer Use Policy of the Department of Computer Science at the
University of Texas.
(Critiqued)
=================
policies/cs.utexas.edu.critique
=================
Critique of Computer Use Policy of the Department of Computer Science
at the University of Texas
Summary: The policy is better than most but 1) due process procedures
should be detailed, 2) privacy should be better protected, and 3)
unconstitutional speech restrictions should not be imposed.
=================
policies/engr.uky.edu
=================
An unofficial, draft of a "Student Access and Use Policy"
critiqued
=================
policies/engr.uky.edu.critique
=================
A critique of an unofficial, draft of a "Student Access and Use
Policy" including a discussion of requiring users to register their
mailing lists and restricting students from the computer.
=================
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?
=================
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/cohen-v-california.1
=================
Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended
The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_
and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court
saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive
expression.
=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."
=================
law/cohen-v-california.3
=================
Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions inclusing
_Cohen v. Calfiornia_. They say that offensive public expression is
protected if those offended can "effectively avoid further bombardment
of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes."
=================
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?
=================
=================
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/policies/cs.utexas.edu
pub/academic/policies/cs.utexas.edu.critique
pub/academic/policies/engr.uky.edu
pub/academic/policies/engr.uky.edu.critique
pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.3
pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability
pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
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/policies cs.utexas.edu
send acad-freedom/policies cs.utexas.edu.critique
send acad-freedom/policies engr.uky.edu
send acad-freedom/policies engr.uky.edu.critique
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.3
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.liability
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 23:20:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.031934.21874@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:19:34 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 23:20:08 1992
From: GLWARNER@SAMFORD.bitnet (THE GAR)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <199210072113.AA22128@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:31:19 GMT
On Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:39:30 GMT Carl M. Kadie said:
>
>Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
>banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State University has
>the dubious distinction of being listed most often (three times).
More power to Iowa State University!
The mere existence of this list implies that there is something
improper about electronic censorship. The truth of the matter
is that it is probably MORE important than print censorship.
Enough Americans feel that there should be some limit to what
can be depicted and described that we have obscenity laws in
this country. Why should we ridicule universities and other
organizations that choose to enforce the law of the land?
or the laws of their university for that matter? It is as
if people think that because their words or graphics appear
via computer that they have special rights. The nature of
the internet makes these words and graphics contain even
more potential for harm than their spoken or printed counter
parts. It would not be so very difficult for a library or
bookstore to have certain sections of their establishment
marked "adults only" and enforce these areas. It would also
not be very difficult for the management of these establishments
to refuse to carry a certain publication. On the internet we
have no such luxuries. Children and minors can go where they
wish, and see whatever is available. Something posted on the
net one locale may very well violate the "acceptable community
standards" of another. Most universities would not allow a
student to rise in class and spew obscenities at a class mate,
or post obscene materials on the bulletin boards, or stand
in the hallways and recite erotica. They have the right to
make these choices TO PROTECT THEIR STUDENT BODY from what
they feel are detrimental influences and TO PROTECT THEIR
INSTITUTION from that which violates local ordinances.
Universities who recognize their responsibility in these areas,
and rise to take that responsibility should not be demeaned by
the EFF, or any other organization, but rather their actions
should be studied, and considered by other organizations so that
they may implement similar "censorship" at their own
institutions, correcting mistakes they feel their predecessors
may have made. Don't criticize their computer actions without
looking at the underlying causes. If its the obscenity laws
that are not appreciated, complain to Congress, don't demean
the enforcers. If the computer policies of an organization
match the policies for print and voice communication at a campus,
I believe that the EFF is stepping beyond their charter to make
changes. As I understood the EFF, they were trying to give the
computerized citizen equal rights with the rest of society. Not
allow them to "get away" with things with which non-computerized
citizens must deal.
In "the real world" most of the things that you listed would
either be crimes, or subject to censorship. Distribution of
erotica and pornography to minors? illegal. Possession of
materials for criminal intent? illegal (where I live, try and
buy or advertise lock-picks!) Calling for assassination sounds
like incitement to riot, and religious activism in Turkey,
well, it fits the laws of the nation.... "Offensive" materials
are not allowed on many campuses in any form, and a call for the
ban of Ice-T lyrics went out from many organizations. To be
asked to not post them publicly is certainly reasonable. They
certainly weren't getting any air time that I know of on the
radio! While it may be extreme to not allow criticism of the
host university, if they own the computer, that's their right.
If students don't like it, they have the right to go to another
university. Would the university allow them to hang a demeaning
poster on the gate to the university?
It sounds as if in these cases, the computerized citizen is
being treated the same as the non-computerized citizen. EFF,
please return to your calling.
(Standard Disclaimer: The views expressed in this note are
my own and do not reflect the positions of my employer, my
department, or my mother-in-law.)
/++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\
! Later + Systems Programmer !
! Gary Warner + Samford University Computer Services !
! + II TIMOTHY 2:15 !
\+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 23:21:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.032058.21930@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:20:58 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 23:21:06 1992
From: CROSEN@OPIE.BGSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <199210072231.AA24441@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:19:00 GMT
Greetings,
The only remotely interesting aspect of this diatribe is the reference to
"community standards." One wonders whether the traditional notion of
community based in geographic proximity is at all relevant to the
net. Certainly, the notion that a university should restrict access to
information based on the possibility that a minor could gain access is
and ought to be anathema to all academics. In point of fact,
universities and university libraries do protect the rights of their
students and scholars to use and disseminate information that some find
offensive (including information having to do with sex).
It's clear the poster believes that sysops, by virtue of their control
over a machine, ought to be able to violate important aspects of
academic freedom. This is nonsense tantamount to suggesting that the
person who oversees the typing room (in institutions that still have
them) should be able to regulate the content of the materials typed.
The job of a sysop is, or ought to be, to keep the plumbing working;
faculties ought to decide what kind of shit runs through the pipes.
Marty
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 23:57:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.libadmin] RE: Academic Computing
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.035739.22290@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:57:39 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 8 23:57:47 1992
From: ACADHALL@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject: RE: Academic Computing
Message-ID: <199210081444.AA06886@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:14:00 GMT
Peggie,
We've struggled a bit with the isue of "where" academic computing
belongs here at St. Mary's University and have at least discussed
the possibility of merging with the computer center, the media production
center, telephone folks and a few others to create a new entity similar
to the Columbia model.
I suspect it's more difficult, not less, for a small institution with
a proportionally smaller bureaucracy than the big Univ.'s have. Adding
anothe VP position at a small school is a large investment, not just
in dollars, but also in power-sharing. Among other things, computer
centers traditionally started out, in small universities, as part of
a "financial administration" operation, mostly taking care of university
business. Over time, most of them began to support academics as well
and their missions sprawled across a number of heirarchically distinct
parts of the campus: financial, academic student development, institutional
relations. Yet, most remained reporting to the financial VP.
I think it makes sense to merge these functions, but have some
hesitation that makes me resist pushing it at this time:
1) We're a faculty status for librarians institution with all
the perks and responsibilities. Faculty status here is conferred only
by the academic wing of the institution and we wold lose that status
for all new librarians if were not a part of that group, reporting to
that VP.
2) Probably, the current library director (me) would take over
direction of the combined centers (the LRC and Learning Assistance
Center already report to me), but there's no way to guarantee that until
after the decision is made. I wold not want to "report" to the current
Computer Center Director, though he's a good friend, and, because of the
nature of academic libraries wold prefer reporting to the current
Academic VP instead of a new VP whose primary focus may not be
academics.
Our current structure works for us: The computer Center Director
and Library Director are permanent members of the university Computer
Policy committee (a twelve member organization that charts our automated
course and reports directly to the President). The two directors work
closely on all network implentations (whether library-related or not).
I'm not sure, in a small institution, that (considering potential
problems) we need much mmore than that close working relationship.
With a plea that all those typos above be excused,
--Palmer Hall
Library Director
St. Mary's University
San Antonio, Texas [Internet ACADHALL@vax.stmarytx.edu]
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 01:33:27 1992
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Academic Gun Rights 1992 (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.052036.6651@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 05:20:36 GMT
>From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
>>
>>Not neccessarily, but if i had a nice gun behind my desk here at the library
>>i'd probably get fewer stupid questions.....
Who do you think you are? Conan the Librarian?
--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
| cheap. -- Thomas Jefferson
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 02:10:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.061017.24809@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 06:10:17 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 02:10:25 1992
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <199210090359.AA22655@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:54:18 GMT
GLWARNER@SAMFORD.bitnet (THE GAR) writes:
>Why should we ridicule universities and other
>organizations that choose to enforce the law of the land?
Iowa State U. is not enforcing the law. Virtually all the material
restricted is constitutionally protected. Morever, in Iowa,
universities are excepted from the state obscenity law. [see ref.] The
material apparently restricted not because it was illegal, but because
someone finds discussion of sex offensive.
[...]
>It would not be so very difficult for a library or
>bookstore to have certain sections of their establishment
>marked "adults only" and enforce these areas.
[...]
Such a policy in a library would be a violation of the intellectual
freedom policies of the American Library Association [see refs].
[...]
>Most universities would not allow a student to rise in class and spew
>obscenities at a class mate, or post obscene materials on the
>bulletin boards, or stand in the hallways and recite erotica. They
>have the right to make these choices TO PROTECT THEIR STUDENT BODY
>from what they feel are detrimental influences and TO PROTECT THEIR
>INSTITUTION from that which violates local ordinances.
[...]
Universities have the authority to protected their students from
harassment. State Universities do not have the authority to protect
students from mere offense [see refs].
[...]
>I believe that the EFF is stepping beyond their charter to make
>changes. As I understood the EFF, they were trying to give the
>computerized citizen equal rights with the rest of society. Not
>allow them to "get away" with things with which non-computerized
>citizens must deal.
"Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu ="
Moreover, the computerized student at Iowa State does not have equal
rights. Sexual material is not restricted in the Univeristy library;
it is only restricted on the University computer. (Sexual material is
considered necessary for a library collection [see refs].)
[...]
>Possession of materials for criminal intent? illegal (where I live,
>try and buy or advertise lock-picks!)
[...]
Books on lock picking are not illegal. My academic library (U. of
Illinois at U-C) contains _Steal This Book_. Many public and academic
libraries in my state have books on locksmithing.
[...]
>While it may be extreme to not allow criticism of the
>host university, if they own the computer, that's their right.
[...]
Not true. Universities can only act within the scope of their charter
and their contracts with their students. Students at public schools
have a constitutional (charter) right to criticize their school [see
refs]. Students at all most all universities also have a contractual
right to free expression.
- Carl
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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.
=================
law/obscenity.iowa
=================
IOWA CODE CHAPTER 728 - OBSCENITY
It explicitly exempts public libraries and educational institutions.
=================
library/labeling.ala
=================
* Labeling (ALA)
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It gives three reasons why labeling is bad. The first is that
"[l]abeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
censor's tool."
=================
library/access.children.nonprint.ala
=================
* Access for Young People to Nonprint Material (ALA)
"Access for Children and Young People to Videotapes and Other Nonprint
Formats"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/access.minors.ala
=================
* Free Access to Libraries for Minors (ALA)
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
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/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.
=================
law/cohen-v-california.1
=================
Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended
The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_
and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court
saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive
expression.
=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."
=================
law/cohen-v-california.3
=================
Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions inclusing
_Cohen v. Calfiornia_. They say that offensive public expression is
protected if those offended can "effectively avoid further bombardment
of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes."
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
* Diversity in Collection Development (ALA)
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/challenged-materials.ala
=================
* Challenged Materials (ALA)
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
a: No, ....
=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
* 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/constraints.contractual
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).
=================
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)
It is the contract that gives students at UIUC a right to free expression.
(It is typical of most university policies.)
=================
=================
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/news/cafv02n11
pub/academic/news/cafv02n11
pub/academic/news/cafv02n08
pub/academic/news/cafv02n30
pub/academic/law/obscenity.iowa
pub/academic/library/labeling.ala
pub/academic/library/access.children.nonprint.ala
pub/academic/library/access.minors.ala
pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
pub/academic/law/young-conservatives-v-sau
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2
pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.3
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/challenged-materials.ala
pub/academic/faq/media.control
pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
pub/academic/law/constraints.contractual
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/news cafv02n11
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n08
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n30
send acad-freedom/law obscenity.iowa
send acad-freedom/library labeling.ala
send acad-freedom/library access.children.nonprint.ala
send acad-freedom/library access.minors.ala
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan
send acad-freedom/law young-conservatives-v-sau
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.3
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/library challenged-materials.ala
send acad-freedom/faq media.control
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
send acad-freedom/law constraints.contractual
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 =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 03:24:55 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:42:27 GMT
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.203001.29827@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>I think it is probably not a good idea to insist that the Supreme Court's
>>power of judicial review is not grounded in the Constitution, even though
>>it is not explicitly granted there. Article III says that the judicial
>>branch has jurisdiction over all cases and controversies that arise under
>>the law and the Constitution of the United States. No other branch is
>>granted this authority.
>
>This is probably the (or a) relevant quote?
>
>" [2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
>and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme
>Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
>mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
>as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
>as the Congress shall make."
Sort of. The point Mike was making was that judicial review over
laws passed by Congress and signed by the President was NOT explicitly
granted, in the sense that the Court could strike them down as if they
had not been passed. This was a PRACTICE of the court started in the
case Marbury v. Madison, around 1810 or so. The first time, in short,
that an actual LAW was challenged as being unconstitutional.
The court ordered it struck down, and this has been the bulk of its
job ever since -- and the bulk of its controversy.
>>Your position about the Supreme Court's role is contrary to the generally
>>accepted view in the United States of the role of the United States
>>Supreme Court.
>
>OK, I probably wasn't very clear with the idea (in my head or in my
>writing). How about the issue of a jury or a government employee
>interpreting the Constitution? This is where it is important what the
>Constitution means? As an example, when in
>
>" [3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
>Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
>judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
>States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
>Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
>Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
>
>the Constitution is mentioned, does this mean "Constitution as
>interpreted by the Supreme Court" or "Constitution as interpreted by
>each person having sworn the oath"? What is the answer in US
>Constitutional Law tradition, and in opinions of Mike or anyone else?
Wouldn't we ALL like to know. The truth is that the court has been
quite happy to contradict itself on these matters as its membership,
and the times, change.
>Sorry if this is old hat to everyone else.
No, no, you're quite welcome to ask. Heck, most Americans don't
understand this stuff.
It is probably important to mention that many conservatives believe
that the Constituion gives Congress the right to remove various
kinds of cases from the court's jurisdiction, but that the public
in general -- and more to the point, Congress -- feel that this is
a Bad Idea and will lead to even worse kinds of jurisdictional
fights than we have now. (In other words, put hot potatoes in the
hands of congressmen who don't want to deal with them, especially
in reelection years....)
--
HYPOCRISY HALL OF FAME: | Dan Hartung | Ask me
"I would think very hard and long about | dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us | about
voting for a presidential candidate who | Birch Grove Software | Rotaract!
has had an affair." -- Gennifer Flowers!
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 07:52:19 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.115212.26640@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:52:12 GMT
In article dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
>It is probably important to mention that many conservatives believe
>that the Constituion gives Congress the right to remove various
>kinds of cases from the court's jurisdiction, but that the public
>in general -- and more to the point, Congress -- feel that this is
>a Bad Idea and will lead to even worse kinds of jurisdictional
>fights than we have now.
It is just as important to note that many nonconservatives (take me, for
instance) believe that the Constitution gives Congress the right to limit
the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. It's right there in the
language of Article III.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --John Stuart Mill
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 08:53:14 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.84918.24068@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:49:18 GMT
ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>
>I wasn't quite clear in my message, sorry.
> 1 - The publicly readable batch files were publicly readable. What's your
> point? Remember, I pointed out the problems I found.
Yeah, there's no excuse for the way they treated you (if everything is as
aboveboard as it seems to be).......
> 2 - The trap program was in my own directory, and wasn't publicly executable.
>
>The tech had a habit of scanning my account every couple of days or so. She
>had previously complained that a text encryption program was a "game". I was
>one of the few people that was doing more than small assignments. (My usage
>was in the evening, when nothing else was running.)
My apologies; when reading your original message, I got the impression
that your trap program was explicitly made publicly readable.
There's no excuse for the tech using system privileges to examine your
stuff UNLESS he/she had been directed to do so by 'the boss'; in that case,
your beef is with the managment, not the tech. 8)
Years ago, I was in a similar situation; I was learning languages other than
the one for which I was given access, and my stuff started disappearing mys-
teriously. Of course, the fact that I'd found a way to implement networked
printing 'off the cuff' could have had something to do with it.....8)
--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 Oct 9 09:42:05 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Sysadmin for a Day, was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.93735.4584@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:37:34 GMT
In article <1992Oct9.000104.18126@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>[...]
>>I didn't ask about its effectiveness, I asked how you would handle it.
>>Some sysadmins are bluntly told, "Keep Crack/IRC/MUD code off our sys-
>>tems"; how should they handle it? Let's hear some concrete ideas!
>[...]
>
>Do you mean how should they handle the risks of Crack or how should
>they handle being told bluntly to keep Crack off the system?
>
Either, both, I don't care; I'd just like to hear some concrete
discussion, as opposed to the endless discussion of "what *should*
be". Discussions of "what should be" are great (I've certainly done
my share in this area), but they inevitably lead to questions of
concrete implementation. If we want to change things, we need to
develop concrete steps; I can toss citations from policy statements
on any desk I choose, but they won't do any good until I can say:
".....and here's how XXX implements them: "
or
".....and here's how I plan to implement this: "
>Just to inject some information/confusion into the discussion, here
>are some library policy excerpts on dangerious material. (They
>sound a little lofty, even to me.)
They are lofty indeed. 8)
I have maintained for some time that library policy, despite its
strengths, cannot be applied to computer systems. There is a huge
difference between libraries and computer systems:
Libraries provide information; however, they do not (in most
cases) provide a means of implementation. In addition, library
resources are (in many cases) nonintrusive; if one person trashes
a library book, the other patrons can easily use other copies or "get
another copy of their books" from other branches/libraries.
Computer systems, on the other hand, provide *both* information
and the means of implementation. If a particular piece of source
code is online, it's a quick (and immediate) step to execution. In
addition, misuse (or incorrect use) of computing resources can be
extremely intrusive; if one person crashes a computer system, the
other users cannot easily "use other systems" or "get another copy
of their stuff". (This is the rationale behind my limitations on
networking code.)
Additionally, computing systems are the basis for daily academic
and research work. One does not often hear of research projects
or student work being delayed due to "library problems"; however,
failure of computational resources has derailed many such projects.
Therefore, computational resources must be governed by policies
which are, out of necessity, more restrictive than those governing
library.
Don't misunderstand me; many areas of computational use (notably BBS and
Usenet usage) are directly comparable to library/free-speech policies.
However, we must protect the computational users of our systems. With
this necessity, we are often forced to implement policies that may
be construed as "suppressive".
I offer alternatives in every situation. For those interested
in Crack, I offer various texts on cryptography, the DoD Password
Management Guideline (which includes some interesting information),
"sanitized" log files from my own runs of Crack, and the source code
in hardcopy form. [If someone can argue that the only way to under-
stand Crack is to run it, I'd like to hear it.]
Would you support a student who wanted to use the Chemistry lab to make
nitroglycerin "for the heck of it"? If you did support such an endeavor,
wouldn't you implement certain safety precautions? Wouldn't those pre-
cautions be for the protection of ALL lab users? Why shouldn't a com-
puting facility be protected by similar procedures?
--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 Oct 9 09:47:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.94557.5983@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:45:57 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>This rule is almost certainly unconstitutionally vague. The
>alternative is a nonrule rule. For example, a draft policy for
>University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences, says:
>
> "You are reminded that the University does have policies against
> racism, sexism, and sexual harassment; if necessary, you may
> direct your problems to the appropriate University office."
>
While such a positive mention from Carl is certainly flattering (*grin*),
I think the old saw about "being associated with your hostname" is being
reinforced.
My draft policy is for UK ENGINEERING, not Math Sciences. I only use
Math Sciences systems to read/post news, but many (MANY!) people seem
to think that I speak for the Math Sciences department, even after re-
peated reminders to the contrary.
Those of you who believe that your hostname is irrelevant, take note;
you ARE associated with the system(s) you use.
I guess I need to write an auto-disclaimer.....8)
--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 Oct 9 10:09:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computer and Academic Freedom Law -- Subject Index
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.140857.378@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:08:57 GMT
This is a subject index for the CAF Law subarchive. Access information
follows.
=== Subject Index =====-========================================= File Name ===
Law related to Computers and Academic Freedom : README
Constitution -- Arizona -- U.S. (excerpts) : constitution.az.us
Constitution -- How to access Supreme Court decisions : court-decisions
Constitution -- Justices of the Suprme Court : justices
Constitution -- Public University -- Constraints : constraints.constitutional
Constitution -- U.S. -- Full Text : constitution.us
Due Process -- Finding of Fact -- Mt Healthy v. Doyle : mt-healthy-v-doyle
Due Process -- Notice of Charges -- Buchanan : due-process.buchanan
Due Process -- Notice of Charges -- French : due-process.french
Due Process -- Notice of Charges -- Mills v. Bd of Ed : mills-v-bd-of-ed
Due Process -- Notice of Charges -- Weckstein : due-process.weckstein
Expression -- Anonymity -- NAACP v. Alabama : naacp_v_alabama
Expression -- Anonymity -- Tally v. California : tally-v-california
Expression -- Child Porn -- Jocobson v. USA : jocobson-v-usa
Expression -- Child Porn -- Silvers : child-porn.silvers
Expression -- Gag Rule -- Rust v. Sullivan : rust-v-sullivan
Expression -- Harassment -- E-mail -- Gates v. Brewer : gates-v-brewer
Expression -- Harassment -- Meritor v. Vinson : meritor-v-vinson
Expression -- Hate Crimes -- Ohio : hate-crime.ohio
Expression -- Hate Crimes -- Wisconsin v. Mitchell : wisconsin-v-mitchell
Expression -- Hate Speech -- Doe v. U of Michigan : doe-v-u-of-michigan
Expression -- Hate Speech -- RAV v. St Paul -- 1 : rav-v-st-paul.1
Expression -- Indecency -- NEA : indecency.nea
Expression -- Liability -- BBS -- Kahn : bbs.kahn
Expression -- Liability -- BBS -- Riddle : bbs.riddle
Expression -- Liability -- Cubby v. Compuserv : cubby-v-compuserv
Expression -- Minors -- Access : access.minors
Expression -- Nude Dancing -- Barnes v. Glen Theatre : barnes-v-glen-theatre
Expression -- Obscenity -- Canada -- Ms. -- R. v. Butler : r-v-butler.ms
Expression -- Obscenity -- Canada -- R. v. Butler : r-v-butler
Expression -- Obscenity -- Forfeiture : rico-porn
Expression -- Obscenity -- History -- U.S. : obscenity.history.us
Expression -- Obscenity -- Law -- Iowa : obscenity.iowa
Expression -- Obscenity -- Law -- Miller : miller
Expression -- Obscenity -- Penthouse v. Meese : penthouse-vs-meese
Expression -- Obscenity -- Two Live Crew : two-live-crew
Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 1 : cohen-v-california.1
Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 2 : cohen-v-california.2
Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 3 : cohen-v-california.3
Expression -- On Campus -- Tinker v. Des Moines : tinker_v_des_moines
Expression -- On Campus -- Tinker v. Des Moines -- 2 : tinker_v_des_moines.2
Expression -- Public Forum -- Airports -- Iskcon v. Lee : iskcon-v-lee
Expression -- Public Forum -- Campus Mail -- Perry v. Perry : perry-v-perry
Expression -- Silence -- Wooley v. Maynard : wooley-v-maynard
Misc -- Index of directory ftp.eff.org:pub/EFF/papers/legal. : eff.legal
Misc -- Other on-line collections of legal information : other
Privacy -- E-mail -- Bibliography : email.bib
Privacy -- E-mail -- ECPA - University Site : ecpa.1986.godwin
Privacy -- E-mail -- ECPA -- Excerpts : ecpa.1986
Privacy -- E-mail -- Law -- Hernadex : privacy.email
Privacy -- E-mail -- Search -- Berkeley : search.berkeley
Privacy -- High School Students -- New Jersey v. TLO : new-jersey-v-tlo
Privacy -- School -- Staff Desk -- Gillard v. Schmidt : gillard-v-schmidt
Privacy -- School Records -- FERPA -- Excerpts : ferpa
Privacy -- Video Rental Records -- ECPA - Excerpts : ecpa.1986.video
Privacy -- Workplace : privacy.workplace
Privacy -- Workplace -- Proposed Law : privacy.electronic.bill
Universities -- Contractual Constraints : constraints.contractual
=============== ACCESS =================
If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
gopher -p academic/law gopher.eff.org
Alternatively, suppose you want files "ferpa" and "README".
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/ferpa
pub/academic/law/README
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 ferpa
send acad-freedom/law README
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 10:22:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computer Policies -- Subject Index
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.142243.805@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:22:43 GMT
This is a subject index for the CAF Computer Policy subarchive. Access
information follows.
=== Subject Index =============================================== File Name ===
Computer policies from many schools (with critiques) : README
Canada -- Dalhousie U : dal.ca
Canada -- U. of Manitoba -- Critique : umanitoba.ca.critique
Canada -- U. of Toronto : utoronto.ca
Canada -- U. of Waterloo : waterloo.edu
Canada -- U. of Waterloo -- Mathematics : watmath.waterloo.edu
Edu -- Baylor U : baylor.edu
Edu -- Baylor U. -- Critique : baylor.edu.critique
Edu -- Boston U : bostonu.edu
Edu -- Boston U. -- Critique : bostonu.edu.critique
Edu -- Boston U. -- Old : old.bostonu.edu
Edu -- Case Western Reserve U : cwru.edu
Edu -- Central Michigan U : cmich.edu
Edu -- Central Michigan U. -- Critique : cmich.edu.critique
Edu -- Columbia U. -- Center for Telecom. Research : ctr.columbia.edu
Edu -- Columbia U. -- Computer Center : cc.columbia.edu
Edu -- Iowa State U. -- Ethics : ethics.iastate.edu
Edu -- Iowa State U. -- Ethics -- Critique : ethics.iastate.edu.critique
Edu -- Iowa State U. -- Netnews : netnews.iastate.edu
Edu -- Iowa State U. -- Netnews -- Critique : netnews.iastate.edu.critique
Edu -- Iowa State U. -- Old : old.iastate.edu
Edu -- Marquette U : mu.edu
Edu -- Marquette U. -- Critique : mu.edu.critique
Edu -- North Dakota State U : ndsu.edu
Edu -- Ohio State U. -- Computer & Information Sci : cis.ohio-state.edu
Edu -- Ohio State U. -- O. of Academic Computing : acs.ohio-state.edu
Edu -- Purdue U. -- Computing Center -- Staff : staff.cc.purdue.edu
Edu -- Rice U. : rice.edu
Edu -- Rice U. -- Old : old.rice.edu
Edu -- Rice U. -- Old -- Critique : old.rice.edu.critique
Edu -- Stanford U. : stanford.edu
Edu -- U. Michigan : umich.edu
Edu -- U. of Cal. at Los Angeles -- SEAS : seas.ucla.edu
Edu -- U. of Cal. at Los Angeles -- SEAS -- Critique : seas.ucla.edu.critique
Edu -- U. of Delaware : udel.edu
Edu -- U. of Delaware -- Critique : udel.edu.critique
Edu -- U. of Delaware -- Old : old.udel.edu
Edu -- U. of Delaware -- Old -- Critique : old.udel.edu.critique
Edu -- U. of Delaware -- Old -- Very -- Critique : old.very.udel.edu.critique
Edu -- U. of Delaware -- Very -- Old : old.very.udel.edu
Edu -- U. of Florida -- Dept. of Mathematics : math.ufl.edu
Edu -- U. of Hawaii -- College of Eng : eng.hawaii.edu
Edu -- U. of Hawaii -- College of Eng. -- Critique : eng.hawaii.edu.critique
Edu -- U. of Illinois -- NCSA -- Critique : ncsa.uiuc.edu.critique
Edu -- U. of Illinois at Chicago : uicvm.uic.edu
Edu -- U. of Illinois at Chicago -- Critique : uicvm.uic.edu.critique
Edu -- U. of Illinois at U-C -- CCSO : cso.uiuc.edu
Edu -- U. of Illinois at U-C -- NCSA : ncsa.uiuc.edu
Edu -- U. of Illinois at U-C -- Privacy : uiuc.edu
Edu -- U. of Kentucky -- Eng. Computing Cen -- Draft : engr.uky.edu
Edu -- U. of Pennsylvania -- PennInfo : penninfo.upenn.edu
Edu -- U. of Pennsylvania -- SEAS : seas.upenn.edu
Edu -- U. of Pennsylvania -- SEAS -- Critique : seas.upenn.edu.critique
Edu -- U. of Pittsburgh : pitt.edu
Edu -- U. of San Diego -- Draft : usd.edu
Edu -- U. of Texas -- Computer Science : cs.utexas.edu
Edu -- U. of Texas -- Computer Science -- Critique : cs.utexas.edu.critique
Edu -- U. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee -- Netnews : netnews.uwm.edu
Edu -- Virginia Tech : vt.edu
Edu -- Virginia Tech -- Critique : vt.edu.critique
Freenet -- Cleveland : cleveland.freenet.edu
Freenet -- Cleveland -- Critique : cleveland.freenet.edu.critique
Net -- Corporation for Research and Educational Networking : crenuse.txt
Net -- John von Neumann Computer Network : jvncuse.txt
Net -- National Science Foundation : nsf
Net -- National Science Foundation -- Old : old.nsf
Net -- Northwestnet : nwnetuse.txt
Net -- Virginia -- PEN : virginia.pen.edu
Net -- Virginia -- PEN -- Critique : virginia.pen.edu.critique
Org -- Electronic Frontier Foundation : eff.org
Turkey -- Middle East Technical U : metu.bitnet
Turkey -- Middle East Technical U. -- Critique : metu.bitnet.critique
=============== ACCESS =================
If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
gopher -p academic/policies gopher.eff.org
Alternatively, suppose you want files "uiuc.edu" and "README".
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/policies/uiuc.edu
pub/academic/policies/README
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/policies uiuc.edu
send acad-freedom/policies README
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 10:49:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: danc@gmail.psi.com (danc)
Subject: RE: [clari] Nude dancing club's manager, two dancers arrested
Message-ID: <199210091449.AA01324@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:50:45 GMT
I hear they chased Mr. Cooper to a nearby church
where they nabbed him by the organ.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Deputies arrested Daniel R. Cooper, 36, the manager of the 40-seat
Heavenly Angel, on Wednesday on charges of aiding and abetting the
exposure of sexual organs. Two of the club's dancers also were charged
with exposure.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 10:58:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Enforcement, Selection, and on-the-fly policy making
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.150004.20238@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:00:04 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 10:58:56 1992
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Re: Enforcement, Selection, and on-the-fly policy making
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.140945.27729@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:09:45 GMT
In betsys@cs.umb.edu writes:
> There's another thing about these threads that is bothering me; the
> implication that policies can't be made or modified on the fly, that
> only written-in-stone policies are fair.
I agree, but you have to consider the limits of on-the-fly decisions,
however. I assume you would not justify the ad-hoc taking out of
entire services with this reason. (I suspect you wouldn't *do* that in
the first place.)
>...
> Keeping rules simple has the consequence that interpretation of the
> rules falls to the management more frequently. A rule of "no
> interfering with other users" leaves room for interpretation;
It even leaves room for discussion between managers and users...
>...
> But Yecccch! Who wants to live with that many rules? As it is, we've
> asked three students in two years to change their .plan files, out of
> about 500. Everyone is happy (at our site anyway; not everyone on the
And you have settled with them? You seem to have exactly the thing
many sites lack most: a good climate of the management-user
relationship.
>...
> Meanwhile, I don't think we are confusing management with
> "benevolent dictatorship."
Makes me happy to read that there are still people that reasonable. I
fully agree.
MfG,
Olaf
--
o Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
_ /<_ s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_) +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. - Shakespeare, Caesar
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 11:51:35 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom -- Subject Index
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.155128.4511@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:51:28 GMT
Subject index for ftp.eff.org:pub/academic
(Information on gopher, ftp, and e-mail access follows.)
=== Subject Index ================================ File or /Directory Name ===
About the CAF mailing lists (and newsgroups) : caf
Academic Freedom Statements : /academic
Administrative Archive : /admin
Bibliography : /books
CAF-Talk Archive : /batch
Civics Archive : /civics
Civil Liberty Archive : /civil-liberty
Computer material that was banned/challenged in academia in 1991 : banned.1991
Computer material that was banned/challenged in academia in 1992 : banned.1992
Computer policies from many schools (with critiques) : /policies
Computers and Academic Freedom News (CAF-News) -- Abstracts : abstracts
Computers and Academic Freedom News (CAF-News) -- Back Issues : /news
Computers and Academic Freedom Statements : /statements
EDUCOM servey on computer networking in K12 education : k12.networks.survey
Electronic Frontier and the Bill of Rights : eff.rights
Frequently Asked Questions : /faq
Glossary of CAF-releted terms : glossary
How Unix users can filter out harassing email by themselves : filters.email
Information about specific CAF cases : /cases
Law related to Computers and Academic Freedom : /law
Library Policy Statements : /library
Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/* : /widener
Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/* -- old version : /oldwidner
On individual privacy and the use of "handles" : anonymity
README : README
Recent changes to the CAF Archive : recent-changes
The history of student regulations at the University of Illinois : reg2rights
=============== ACCESS =================
If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
gopher -p academic gopher.eff.org
The archive is also accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory pub/academic.
For email access to a file or directory, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom
OR
send acad-freedom/ README
where is a list of the files that you want or
is the name of the directory you want. File README
is a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 12:25:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Sysadmin for a Day, was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.151746.15783@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:17:46 GMT
In article <1992Oct9.93735.4584@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>[...]
[talking about banning Crack code from system]
>I offer alternatives in every situation. For those interested
>in Crack, I offer various texts on cryptography, the DoD Password
>Management Guideline (which includes some interesting information),
>"sanitized" log files from my own runs of Crack, and the source code
>in hardcopy form. [If someone can argue that the only way to under-
>stand Crack is to run it, I'd like to hear it.]
I think there is a better way to stop the execution of Crack. It is the
same thing used to halt runaway programs written by students. Have a policy
of CPU time limits on processes. They do that at Columbia's central computer
center (I'm in the bio department).
This means a content neutral ban that will effectively stop students from
using Crack. It really sucks up the computer time. I run it regularly even
though I am not the sysadmin here. The last time I did a complete run, it
used about 10000 CPU minutes (on an otherwise idle workstation).
I won't say that the only way to understand Crack is to run it, but
you will get a much better feel for it easier if you do. I don't have a
deep understanding of it even now, but it is by playing with it that you
learn.
Of course, it is by running Crack yourself that you make your system
safe. There is very little stopping anyone on your system from running
Crack on thier own machines at home or something.
DanZ
--
"I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
-Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 12:41:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.163728.31063@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:37:28 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 12:41:31 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:14:10
Message-ID:
About a year ago, immediately after we installed a lab of color
workstations, a number of students began displaying pictures of women in
various stages of dress or undress. The computer science faculty discussed
the situation (this is a departmental laboratory) and decided to follow, at
least for the time being, the following policy:
We do not dictate what students may or may not display on their computer
screens. We do, however, feel free to exercise our own rights to free
speech and tell students precisely what we think of their actions.
I am personally not comfortable with attempting to set rules on this
subject. Would we, for example, ban the display of the image of a painting
of a nude which might appear in any art gallery? Probably not. Many of the
images being displayed on screens in our lab were very far from art (in my
opinion), but where do you draw the line (what is the objective standard)?
Of course, this is a very difficult and probably unanswerable question.
On the other hand, I know it when I see it. Therefore I see no problem at
all with calling a student in and telling him the following (I say him,
because my institution does not currently admit women at the undergraduate
level -- this will change in 2 years, and so far I have not felt the need
to have a conversation of this type with a female graduate student or
faculty member):
1. Our department has no policy against display of the kind of material in
question.
2. I am not going to tell him that he has to remove the pictures.
3. My personal opinion is that he is acting like a adolescent jerk.
4. He should spend some time thinking about the effect the material being
displayed might have on:
parents of prospective students who are visiting the campus,
female staff and faculty members who might feel that they are being
sexually harassed.
5. He should reflect on the fact that soon he will graduate and find
himself working with, and quite possible for women, and that perhaps he
should review his attitudes towards women, if for no other reason, than out
of self interest.
A little over a year ago, I had this conversation with 4 students, and I
have not seen nudes displayed in our lab since that time.
Now you can say that although I explicitly told the students they were under
no compulsion, there was nevertheless coercion on my part. That is no doubt
true. However, my (admittedly limited) experience indicates that students
react much better to being told to grow up and begin to adopt a professional
attitude than they do to being told to remove pictures of nudes.
--
Fred Sullivan 6060 Wabash Avenue
Computer Science Department Terre Haute, IN 47803
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 13:21:15 1992
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.153146.16409@news.columbia.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:31:46 GMT
In article <1992Oct9.010021.18858@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Question [inspired by an email message]:
>
>What should sys admins do about nude pictures and displays of nude
>pictures in public terminal rooms? Is a special rule banning such
>pictures and/or displays needed?
[...]
> 2) If anyone engages in what appears to be sexual harassment,
> * warn them informally (at your discretion)
> * charge them with sexual harassment (or tell the harassed
> person how to charge them) following your schools's sexual
> harassment procedure.
>
I'm a little concerned about the words 'appears'. Isn't it true that
for it to be harrasment, there must be either a complaint, or a situation
where it is obvious (such as a number of people running acreaming out of
the terminal room).
Of course, the sysadmin may be the one who feels they are harrased, but
the 'appears' words seems to indicate that you could be warned or charged
by a sysadmin who does a ps, and sees 'igif ds-x-003.gif' being executed
by you. It may be in violation of the rules if there are other people in
the room. With something as ephemeral as a computer screen, can something
count as 'public' if there is noone else there at the time?
DanZ
--
"I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
-Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 14:40:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.184036.8001@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:40:36 GMT
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
[...]
> I'm a little concerned about the words 'appears'. Isn't it true that
>for it to be harrasment, there must be either a complaint, or a situation
>where it is obvious (such as a number of people running acreaming out of
>the terminal room).
[...]
I think you are right. At my school (U. of Illinois at U-C), the policy
says:
"Individuals who believe they have been harassed sexually should first
seek the advice of their academic dean, their supervisor, the dean of
students, the assistant chancellor and director of affirmative action,
the director of affirmative action -- academic, the directory of
affirmative action -- staff, or the ombudsman, in order to determine
whether there can be a satisfactory informal resolution to the matter.
If such is not possible, individuals should utilize appropriate and
existing grievance procedures for claims of discrimination. The person
of initial contact (one of the campus representative mentioned above)
will advise on steps to be taken to begin this process. Grievants
shall follow procedures outlined in the following documents for the
groups indicated: [List of procedures document and where to find them
for faculty, students, etc.]"
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 16:11:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.200758.9033@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:07:58 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 16:11:18 1992
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.185121.12205@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:51:21 GMT
In <1992Oct9.010021.18858@eff.org> kadie@eff.org writes:
> Question [inspired by an email message]:
>
> What should sys admins do about nude pictures and displays of nude
> pictures in public terminal rooms? Is a special rule banning such
> pictures and/or displays needed?
This is from our (Uni Karlsruhe Comp. Center) HP Workstation Manual:
(note that other departments have policies not that restrictive)
"Use of the workstations not related to scientific research and
education, especially playing games and the abuse of graphic displays
for displaying non-work-related pictures, is prohibited. This is to
explicitly notify you that abuse can result in account revocation."
(please forgive me any translation errors, this is Germany :-)
Every new user gets this manual. I think that they can live with it.
MfG,
Olaf
--
o Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
_ /<_ s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_) +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
Eine Zensur findet nicht statt. N"aheres regelt der RZ-Leiter! - Terra
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 16:20:14 1992
From: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Sysadmin for a Day, was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.200956.27594@ra.msstate.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:09:56 GMT
In article <1992Oct9.151746.15783@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) says:
:
: I think there is a better way to stop the execution of Crack. It is the
: same thing used to halt runaway programs written by students. Have a policy
: of CPU time limits on processes. They do that at Columbia's central computer
: center (I'm in the bio department).
Huh? What if you want users to be able to run simulations of gum wrappers
in a wind tunnel but still don't want them running crack?
Yes, crack is moderately CPU intensive. But, unless a machine is
dedicated to "light" tasks like email and news reading it is unlikely to
be more CPU intensive than a lot of other "legitimate" programs.
: This means a content neutral ban that will effectively stop students from
: using Crack. It really sucks up the computer time. I run it regularly even
: though I am not the sysadmin here. The last time I did a complete run, it
: used about 10000 CPU minutes (on an otherwise idle workstation).
But it means none of your users can do anything else that is as big as
or bigger than Crack.
: Of course, it is by running Crack yourself that you make your system
: safe. There is very little stopping anyone on your system from running
: Crack on thier own machines at home or something.
A lot of UNIX systems (most?) now support some sort of shadow password
system even if it isn't on by default. If your users can't get at your
passwords then Crack does them no good.
You still have a policy issue though, since users can run Crack on your
system to crack some other system's passwords.
--
Frank Peters - UNIX Systems Programmer - Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu - Phone: (601)325-7030 - FAX: (601)325-8921
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 17:18:50 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: I'm confused about these newsgroups
Message-ID:
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:37:04 GMT
Why is the discussion on comp.admin policy, much of which is
cross-posted to comp.org.eff.talk, being re-posted here? What is
this groupp for?
thanks, Betsy
--
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 Oct 9 17:38:46 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Sysadmin for a Day, was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.165941.10427@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:59:40 EST
this may be a silly question, but doesn't anyone use lastcomm or other
methods of keeping track of where system resources are going?
as someone else mentioned, Crack eats a -lot- of cycles. most other
"harmful" programs are also quite visible in the amount of time/disk
space/network load/whatever.
what is wrong with a policy of
"We don't care what data/source files you have. Running programs
that violate the security of our system or use of resources that
are otherwise needed is prohibited."?
you might get one person who gets away with something -once-. in most
cases i've seen, a simple warning is enough to keep it from happening
again. if it -does- happen a second time around there is no excuse. the
user is clearly in the wrong and the sysadmin has every right to
remove their access.
this has the side effect of making the sysadmin look good in the eyes
of most users.
"He lets us do about anything we want as long as we don't !@#$
things up."
it makes the offenders look stupid and selfish.
"He was -deliberately- trying to break into our accounts. If he was
-really- just trying to learn about encryption why didn't he just
read the source in my directory?
it scares potential troublemakers into compliance.
"Damn, he lost his access & only did it once or twice. maybe i'll
just look at the source."
and there shouldn't be any nasty rumors about censorship at your site.
so what do you think? am i missing something big here? or does the
combination of liberal policies combined with draconian disciplinary
measures work?
jason
--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 21:16:29 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct10.000958.22039@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:09:58 GMT
In article <1992Oct7.153350.19159@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>To the vast majority of the english-speaking world, however, you will
>be completely misunderstood (unless you explicitly qualify your use of
>"Constitution" with your own definition).
>
>Likewise, to the vast majority of the world, an unqualified remark about the
>meaning of the US Constitution will suggest that the interpretation of the SC
>is being discussed.
I don't think so. I think that to a vast majority of people,
English-speaking or not, a remark about what the U.S. Constitution
says would be taken as a remark on what the U.S. Constitution says,
not what any of the U.S. supreme Courts have said it is.
It might well be that for the vast majority of people with legal
education what you say is correct, though.
Followups directed to alt.politics.usa.constitution.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 21:49:14 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct10.003047.22368@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:30:47 GMT
This is a very interesting discussion. Here's a writing by someone
who prefers to remain anonymous:
Mike and Jyrki:
RE:
>Article III says that the judicial branch has jurisdiction over all cases and
>controversies that arise under the law and the Constitution of the United
>States. No other branch is granted this authority.
I believe that you are incorrect. There is a flaw in the Constitution in
Article I, Sect. 8, Clause 17. This clause gives the U.S. Congress exclusive
rule over an area of land and a body of people that was originally sharply
delimited but eventually (and unconstitutionally) grew to engulf the entire
country. Soon after the Civil War, Congress got wise to the
flaw in the wording of the Constitution, and started applying its
statutory power over ALL of the states, not just the District of Columbia and
the territories. When this started to happen, most of the states didn't complain because they got a lot of benefits (roads, bridges, etc.), and little taxation.
This changed after 1914, with the advent of fractional banking, the Federal
Reserve, and later the advent of a nearly universal Federal income tax,
profligate defecit spending, et cetera. The down side to accepting all the
benifits was that the states (and by extension alll of their citizens, and by
further extension all of their citizens) became accomodation parties to the
National Debt!
Thus there are two jurisdictions used in U.S. courts: Article I (U.S. Congress
courts) and Article III courts. Most of the trials for mala prohibita (statutory
crimes), and are tried under Article I jurisdiction, whereas most mala in se
(Common Law crimes such as robbery, rape, murder, etc.) are tried under Artcle
III jurisdiction. Most judges in Article I trials are either ignorant of which
jurisdiction under which they are operating, or if they know, don't want to
admit it.
Also, did you realize that there are actually two distinct entities known as the
United States of America? One is the Federal United States (which consists of
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Western Samoa, and a few other
territories. The other entity is properly termed "These united States"
(note the use of the lower case "u"). This second united States is sometimes
referred to as the "Continental" united States. The latter are the sovereign 50
states of the union. Unfortunately, the distinction between the two entities was lost decades ago, and state soverignty is virtually a thing of the past.
Find a copy of Government Code 242. It defines the difference between citizens
of either of the two "United States" entities. The supreme court has stated that the term United States is a metaphor or figure of speech. (There are technically three distinct definitions.) See Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon 262 US 100 p. 122,
dealing with the 18th Amendment, in which the court stated:
"The immediate context and the purport of the entire section show that the
term is used in a physical and not metaphorical sense."
Also see Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.) p. 1375. Also see:
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652 pp. 672-673:
"The term 'United States' may be used in one of several senses. It may be the name of a soverign occupying the position analogous to that of soverign in a
family of nations. It may designate territory over which soverignty of the
United States extends, or it may be a collective name of the States which
are united by and under the Constitution."
(Note that the words "created by" were not used.)
Also see in re Miriam, which defined the District of Columbia as a foreign
corporation in regard to the other 50 states. Think about it. Most of us
"citizens"--unless we live in D.C. or Guam--are non-resident Aliens to the
Federal United States. (The IRS even has a form available for you to file as
such and thus be exempt from the Federal income tax. The form is a W-8.)
The key change occured sometime between 1934 and 1938. The international
bankers took advantage of the bankrupt status of the United States, and
effectively foreclosed on the Roosevelt administration. This was all done in
great secrecy. Find a description of the 1938 supreme court case, Erie Railroad
Co. v. Tompkins. 304 US 64. This pivotal case overturned the long standing
Swift v. Tyson (1-8 Pet 1-8 (1842)) case and replaced our traditional system of
Common Law with international maritime ("Admiralty") law. Admiralty law was
later codified in the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.).
Since 1938 the international bankers have basically "owned" the United States,
and have been calling the shots. This is why you can't cite a legal precedent
(even a supreme court decision) made before 1938 in your defense. It is not
admissible evidence because the courts started with a clean slate in 1938.
Ever since 1938, traditional Common Law was replaced by a blending of law and
equity. Before 1938, our courts judged the law. Since 1938, they have
administered public policy. This is an important distinction. Ever since 1938,
every judge in the U.S. has been sitting administerially, rather than
judicially--that is they have been administering public policy statutes for the
corporate state, rather than judging the Common Law. The "separation of powers"
has become a fiction. The current court jurisdiction is properly termed
"colorable admiralty." (See The Moses Taylor 71 US 411, which was decided
by the supreme Court in 1867.) In reality it is admiralty law jurisdiction, but
they call it something else--they call it "statutory jurisdiction."
Look at Art. III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Do you see a "Statutory"
jurisdiction listed there? Nope. You'll only see common law, equity (civil) law, and maritime contract/treaty (admiralty) law jurisdictions listed.
Turn to Article I, and you'll see the REAL source of the current jurisdiction of U.S. local, state, and federal courts in most cases. That's right. Ever since
1938, our three branch system was co-opted by Congress. Congress now both writes
AND administers the law, and calls it statutory jurisdiction. But it is really
admiralty law in disguise. ("under color of law.") This body of Admiralty law,
once known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, was codified under the U.C.C., and was rammed down the throats of the 50 state legislatures. The really sad part of the deal is that the spineless state legislators didn't want to risk losing the
Federal benefits, so they sold our lives and property down the river.) Up until
the Federal income tax was enacted, (and when all the citizens of the sovereign
States were fooled into believing that they owed it), the only accomodation
parties to the national debt were the residents of Washington D.C. Now we are
all accomodation parties to the debt.
Ever since 1938, the judicial system has taken "silent judicial notice" of the
nation's bankrupt status, and has made adjustments to the system accordingly.
If you have a friend who is a seasoned attorney (preferably who has worked at
the federal level) or better yet a judge, get together *in private*, and ask
their opinion about the REAL signifigance of the change in the law since Erie
Railroad v. Tompkins. They'll probably turn pale and try to change the subject,
or ask where you found out about the case. If they think you can be trusted not
to repeat what you'll be told or at least not to reveal who spilled the beans,
they'll admit to what happened. Publicly, however, everyonge in the judicial
system will tell a completely different story. It is the judicial system's
dirty little secret, and they will deny it. This is the "color" in the
colorable admiralty jurisdiction that I described.
If all this has you riled up, take the time to go to your local law library and
read U.C.C. 1-207 and U.C.C. 1-103. These show the remedy and recourse to the
U.C.C. (By the way, the U.C.C. is more readily understandable if you read the
Anderson's edition of the U.C.C. rather than the one published by West's Law
Publishing Co.) These two sections of the U.C.C. show that by marking all your
public documents (driver's license, Social Security card, checks, contracts,
etc.) with the words "'Without Prejucice' U.C.C. 1-207", you are effectively
exempt from statutory law, because you have thereby made a reservation of your
Common Law rights (which otherwise are forefeited!)
Some key points...
A. The Federal United States is a Federal legislative democracy.
B. What's left of the soverign Continental united States are the remnants of
our true three branch republic.
C. Never trust anything the government tells you.
D. You can use the remedy and recourse of the U.C.C. in your defense.
E. Find a copy of the Geneva Translation of the Bible. It is an accurate and
unbiased translation. It is also the one that the Founding Fathers used.
The Geneva Bible is not biased toward the governemnt like the King James
version.
F. Scrounge around your local used book stores and find a four volume set of
Blackstone's Commentaries on English Common Law. It was a key document used
by our Founding Fathers.
G. Read The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. These will show
you the Founders original intent.
H. Buy a recent edition (preferably 6th ed.) of Black's law Dictionary. The
only way to really understand the law is to understand the current meanings of terms like "resident", citizen", "colorable", "allocution", "corpus
delicti", "sui juris", "supervisory control", "mala prohibita", et cetera.
I. Find an older (pre-1900) edition of Bouvier's law dictionary, and see how
the damned politicians have corrupted the once clear and concise definitions of legal terms into meaningless legalese mumbo-jumbo.
J. Buy a copy of the small book "Legal Research" by Elias, available at almost
any college bookstore. It will show you how to read case citations.
K. When researching the law, read Anderson's rather than West's. It is more
understandable to the layman. West Publishing is a master of obfuscation.
L. The 14th Amendment cannot be challenged on its face, but it CAN be challenged as to how it applies to State citizens rather than Federal citizens.
M. Keep your powder dry.
Regards,
("Without Prejudice" U.C.C. 1-207) [ name withheld ]
P.S. : If you decide to post this to the net, please leave my name off!
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 22:23:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: I'm confused about these newsgroups
Message-ID: <1992Oct10.022301.20298@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:23:01 GMT
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>Why is the discussion on comp.admin policy, much of which is
>cross-posted to comp.org.eff.talk, being re-posted here? What is
>this groupp for?
> thanks, Betsy
[...]
CAF-Talk is a free-speech forum focused on computers and academic
freedom.
I repost relevent articles from other public newsgroups. This allows
people without netnews to see the articles. Also it makes the forum
more comprehensive.
Archives of the forum are available via ftp, wais, gopher, and email.
The dozen or so best articles of the week (as selected by an
editor) are selected and abstracted, becoming CAF-News.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 9 22:57:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Enforcement, Selection, and on-the-fly policy making
Message-ID: <1992Oct10.025539.15157@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:55:39 GMT
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
> There's another thing about these threads that is bothering me; the
>implication that policies can't be made or modified on the fly, that
>only written-in-stone policies are fair.
[...]
> Take this plan thing. Right now we have no written rule on .plan
>files, and an unwritten policy that they not be obscene and that they
>not interfere with others.
[...]
My main criticism of the .plan policy is not that it is unwritten and
vague but rather than it bans things that it shouldn't be banned.
Specifically, it bans not just legally obscene material but also
offensive, but constitutionally protected, material.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 10 10:20:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct10.141621.11169@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:16:21 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 10 10:20:30 1992
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID:
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:15:20 GMT
sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Fred Sullivan) writes:
>About a year ago, immediately after we installed a lab of color
>workstations, a number of students began displaying pictures of women in
>various stages of dress or undress. The computer science faculty discussed
>the situation (this is a departmental laboratory) and decided to follow, at
>least for the time being, the following policy:
>We do not dictate what students may or may not display on their computer
>screens. We do, however, feel free to exercise our own rights to free
>speech and tell students precisely what we think of their actions.
>........................................ Therefore I see no problem at
>all with calling a student in and telling him the following (I say him,
>because my institution does not currently admit women at the undergraduate
>level -- this will change in 2 years, and so far I have not felt the need
>to have a conversation of this type with a female graduate student or
>faculty member):
>1. Our department has no policy against display of the kind of material in
>question.
Or, "Nobody wants to take responsibility for making decisions around here."
>2. I am not going to tell him that he has to remove the pictures.
And, "I can't make decisions either."
>3. My personal opinion is that he is acting like a adolescent jerk.
---------------
You'd rather get personal and start calling him names.
And show him who's boss.
>4. He should spend some time thinking about the effect the material being
>displayed might have on:
> parents of prospective students who are visiting the campus,
> female staff and faculty members who might feel that they are being
>sexually harassed.
But calling someone an adolescent jerk is not an overt form of harassment?
This is a good way to sever communication and foster resentment.
BTW, are you teacher or administrator?
>5. He should reflect on the fact that soon he will graduate and find
>himself working with, and quite possible for women, and that perhaps he
>should review his attitudes towards women, if for no other reason, than out
>of self interest.
Finally you're getting somewhere!
Now repeat, discarding steps 1 through 4.
>A little over a year ago, I had this conversation with 4 students, and I
>have not seen nudes displayed in our lab since that time.
Are you and they still on speaking terms?
>Now you can say that although I explicitly told the students they were under
>no compulsion, there was nevertheless coercion on my part. That is no doubt
>true. However, my (admittedly limited) experience indicates that students
>react much better to being told to grow up and begin to adopt a professional
>attitude than they do to being told to remove pictures of nudes.
Professionalism works both ways.
>--
>Fred Sullivan 6060 Wabash Avenue
>Computer Science Department Terre Haute, IN 47803
>Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu
Curt Roelle
roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 10 14:44:00 1992
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <718728318.24004@zooid.guild.org>
Date: 10 Oct 92 14:45:18 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
>
>My apologies; when reading your original message, I got the impression
>that your trap program was explicitly made publicly readable.
>
>There's no excuse for the tech using system privileges to examine your
>stuff UNLESS he/she had been directed to do so by 'the boss'; in that case,
>your beef is with the managment, not the tech. 8)
>
>Years ago, I was in a similar situation; I was learning languages other than
>the one for which I was given access, and my stuff started disappearing mys-
>teriously. Of course, the fact that I'd found a way to implement networked
>printing 'off the cuff' could have had something to do with it.....8)
>
>--Wes
>
This was a number of years ago. (14 years? OhMyGawd...) My worst "sin" was
being off their curve for internal budgeting. They had pseudo-dollar amounts
for each department, based on CPU seconds of usage. (HP3000)
Most students spent many minutes (hours!) typing in assignments, doing brief
compiles, trying to fix typing errors... A very low ratio of CPU seconds to
connect minutes.
I wrote program that ate quite a few CPU seconds (in the evening), with less
connect minutes spent searching the keyboard.
I never could make them undestand that CPU time wasn't like an amount of money
to be spent or saved. It was like a waterfall. It was going to keep running
even if nobody stuck a waterwheel under it. Ah, the bad old days of computer
scarcity...
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 04:56:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: emr@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Elizabeth M. Reid)
Subject: Newsgroups not received in Australia.
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 08:49:21 GMT
The background for this article comes out of a discussion in aus.news.
Carl Kadie asked me to say something on the issue after I mentioned it
to him. I have included some quotes from aus.news articles.
About two years ago, AARNet (the Australian Academic Research Network
- our arm of the Internet) ceased to receive alt.sex* and alt.drugs,
and, although some of those groups have at times come in on alternate
paths, the official ban is still in place. Please note that this is
not a case of censorship based on content, but a matter of economics.
At that time the Aus-US satellite link was running at saturation point
and as a result, according to kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) in
<9226200.17613@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>:
> alt.sex* and alt.drugs don't come across the internet link because
> of a request from those paying for (most/part now) of that liFrom caf-talk Caf Oct 11 18:07:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct11.220727.11306@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:07:27 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 18:07:36 1992
From: BUNTON@UTSW.bitnet
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <199210102149.AA02334@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:23:00 GMT
Mr. Kadie has gone to great lengths in arguing his position regarding
intellectual freedom and should be commended for such a thorough treatment.
While I may not agree with his position, I can appreciate the work that
has gone into his consideration. I do believe, however, it is very important
to make a point very clear. He comments that "such a policy in a library
would be a violation of the intellectual freedom policies of the American
Library Association" regarding the idea of restrictive collection policies.
The point which needs to be emphasized and clearly understood is that the
ALA policies are simply the feelings of a particular group of people with
a particular political bent and do not hold any authority over individual
professional librarians nor to library organizations in general, nor should
they in any way be confused or considered in the same light as constitutional
and legal law and precedent. In any question of intellectual freedom and
first amendment considerations, the only area which ultimately holds weight
is what the law allows and provides, regardless of what a professional
organization may hold as their opinion.
Glenn Bunton
Head, Educational Technology Laboratory
UT Southwestern Medical Center
Dallas, Texas
bitnet: bunton@utsw
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 18:42:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] (none)
Message-ID: <1992Oct11.224209.11581@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:42:09 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 18:42:16 1992
From: POSTMASTER@POLYVM.BITNET (Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <199210111658.AA08609@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 07:54:58 GMT
I will give you an example. I now go to Empire State College, which
is part of SUNY. Here they have computer policies which I am quite happy
with. I admit my preferences are not all that objective. All students and
faculty can get an account on the college system, and as long as they change
their password every six months, they can keep it. Even after they leave the
college. It has dial-in numbers and can be reached from anywhere by an 800
number. There is no fee associated with the use of the computer. Each person
has an initial storage quota, with a 500-block overflow. I get 200-300 messages
a day and it was easy for me to get my quota increased. Nobody hassled me for
exceeding my quota. The drawbacks are that there are not many dial-in lines,
only two of them are 800 lines (which is usually OK because not many people
really use the system). But network access is limited to bitnet and Telnet
(which I haven't yet really learned to use yet). In order to download mail or
other files you have to transfer from one part of the Vax to another (I prefer
the CompuServe Information Get All Mail command, to read messages offline).
On the one hand, the system is a little primitive, but easy to use for anybody
to communicate around the world on subjects of interest. ESC has a library
software package, but the numbers used are all long-distance toll numbers so
I just use the SUNY New Paltz dizl-up card catalogue (which is also primitive
but easy to use. Their policy at ESC is to make computers and networks as
accessible as possible, and software and documentation are easy to get, as is
staff support. The staff is polite and helpful.
At SUNY New Paltz, I recently talked about my ESC network experiences
with the head of the political science department. He did not know very much
about networks at all, and the college had not encouraged him to learn. The
faculty at SUNY NP has email, but they mostly don't know how it works. I
was later told that their network is not tied into any outside network. There
were no plans anyone knew of to tie it in. The students have no email even
on campus. They can, if they use the communal file for beginning journalism
students, send each other messages, but most don't do that. There is no
communication outside of the campus via the college system for individual studen
ts
or for student organizations. It would be good for the various clubs on campus
to be able to tie into their counterparts on other campuses, but it can't
be done. I was asked by one of my teachers to run a statistical search on
the system and to get a computer account to do so. I talked to the college
computer people about such an account and never got an answer from them. They
kept asking me why I wanted it, and didn't seem to accept my explanations.
Finally I told them to just get in touch with the teacher if they didn't
believe me, and he would explain. While there I got a copy of the computer
system rules (I stole it). It talked entirely about data processing and
data processing students doing research and programming exercizes. It talked
in draconian language about how if anyone was caught doing anything not
connected to college work, especially if they were paid for it, they would
be kicked off the system and probably flunk their classes. It is obvious from
the rules and the way they run the system that they looked on the computer
system entirely as an administration tool, not to be used by students or faculty
any more than absolutely necessary. Their main concern was keeping control
over it, and they were terrified what anyone else would do if they had the
chance. Somewhat similar to Brezhnev peoples' ideas. The equipment in the
computer labs was nearly always in poor state of repair, with parts breaking
and being stolen. You would be lucky if two or three of the terminals you
needed (there were three or four different types of terminals) were working
and not being used. There was no documentation for any of the woftware being
used on the system, and there was never anyone in the computer office when
you went to ask for help or report a problem. If there was someone there it
was either the wrong person or they didn't want to talk to you anyway.
I think this is a nice contrast. I am just talking here about basic
approaches to the use of computers. I am not talking about places such as
Columbia University, where I guess many of us have heard about the computer
policies, the money charged, etc. Some of what I have heard makes it sound like
the computers and their use by the students are seen as a source of money for
the administration. I think the work of the students and faculty should
be a source of money, a source of prestige for the college, and a way for
the students to perform a socially useful task with their particular skills
and the work they do. I am also not discussing any policies of colleges for
controlling the content of what students send and receive. The one place I
have been to assumes that we're all adults and can be trusted. The other
doesn't let us send anything at all or receive anything at all, so what we
send and receive doesn't matter.
So what do you all think of ESC vs SUNY NP, and what are your
experiences?
Chris Morrison
CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 18:46:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Sysadmin for a Day, was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct11.223250.21193@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:32:50 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 18:46:19 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Sysadmin for a Day, was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <9210101214.aa14686@Paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:14:53 GMT
I think you make some interesting points, Wes. My observations are below.
> I offer alternatives in every situation. For those interested
> in Crack, I offer various texts on cryptography, the DoD Password
> Management Guideline (which includes some interesting information),
> "sanitized" log files from my own runs of Crack, and the source code
> in hardcopy form. [If someone can argue that the only way to under-
> stand Crack is to run it, I'd like to hear it.]
What about the guy at CMU who is doing research on password frequencies and
security? You might not have such a person at your institution, but it seems
like that might be a resonable field of inquiry.
> Would you support a student who wanted to use the Chemistry lab to make
> nitroglycerin "for the heck of it"? If you did support such an endeavor,
> wouldn't you implement certain safety precautions? Wouldn't those pre-
> cautions be for the protection of ALL lab users? Why shouldn't a com-
> puting facility be protected by similar procedures?
>
> --Wes
Let me offer a competing analogy (dueling analogies? 8^). The State
considers it necessary to limit drivers to 65mph on rural interstate
highways. Two approaches to this are: (a) post a speed limit, and nail
anybody who drives beyond the limit, or (b) prohibit cars from being sold in
the US that are capable of driving faster than 65mph. These can be though of
as "direct" and "indirect" approaches to the problem, I guess. (The indirect
approach is favored by religious institutions: for example,
Sabbath-observant Jews, prohibited from writing on Saturday, are also
prohibited from picking up a pencil, lest they be led into writing.)
The problem with the indirect approach is that it creates a larger
enforcement problem than may be warranted. If the goal of your policy is
that users not have illegal access to one another's accounts, there are ways
to enforce that directly, by observing who is logging in, when, and where
(let's save discussion on whether or not this observation is appropriate, for
now). By trying to indirectly enforce that goal, that is, by seeking out
"crack" programs, it seems that you may (a) create a bigger headache for
yourself, (b) create a negative impression with the users that you are
looking over their shoulders and at their files, and (c) you may walk into a
situation where you are interfering with legitimate activity.
In the specific case of password cracking programs you may have a stronger
case at a commercial institution, I think.
- Scott
E. Scott Menter escott%esm.com@uu4.psi.com
President Phone 714-432-6307
Enterprise Systems Management FAX 714-432-6506
575 Anton Blvd., Suite 300
Costa Mesa, California 92626 "Excellence in Open Systems Computing"
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 18:46:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct11.223322.8983@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:33:22 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 18:46:20 1992
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct11.162341.21988@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:23:41 GMT
In article , roelle@uars_mag (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>>5. He should reflect on the fact that soon he will graduate and find
>>himself working with, and quite possible for women, and that perhaps he
>>should review his attitudes towards women, if for no other reason, than out
>>of self interest.
>
>Finally you're getting somewhere!
I think I'm missing something here - what is the connection between
viewing or not viewing pictures of naked women and attitudes towards
women? Is there a similar connection of viewing pictures of naked
men? Animals? Food?
By the way, I find it more than a bit tragicomic that someone working
in a place which discriminates against women on student intake has the
arrogance to complain to _students_ about the attitudes towards women
they supposedly project to visitors.
//Jyrki
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 22:23:43 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Sm@cerberus.bhpese.oz.au (Scott Merrilees)
Subject: Re: Princeton policy on From lines
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:01:41 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct12.020141.7051@cerberus.bhpese.oz.au>
rsm@math.arizona.edu (Robert S. Maier) writes:
>I just reviewed Princeton's "1992-1993 Guidelines for Use of Campus and
>Network Computing Resources", and had to chuckle at the following sentence:
>
> Attempts to alter the "From" line or
> other attribution of origin in electronic mail,
> messages, or postings, will be considered
> transgressions of University rules.
>
>...
>
> From: rsm@math.arizona.edu
>which will always appear on my postings. No matter which NNTP server
>I post articles to (I have access to several), or what machine I post
>articles from.
>Apparently straightforward standardizations of this sort violate the
>Princeton Guidelines! And what about all the people who append funny
>parenthetical comments to their From: lines? Princeton sysadmins,
>please note.
Is this an alteration ? It would seem to me that you are not altering
the from line, but generating it. Alteration implies that the from line
already exists, and is changed.
Sm
--
Scott Merrilees, BHP Information Technology, Newcastle, Australia
Internet: Sm@bhpese.oz.au Phone: +61 49 40 2132 Fax: ... 2165
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 22:29:01 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct12.022935.28095@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:29:35 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 22:29:01 1992
From: gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Dmitry Gokhman)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct11.234300.13595@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:43:00 GMT
In article <1992Oct7.190538.6218@ERA.COM> feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
>If that's the way you think everything should be enforced, you're
>living in the wrong country. Selective enforcement goes on every day.
In general, I think selective enforcement comes into
play when the rules are a little too strict, so that too many
ordinary people are breaking them in the course of their routine activities.
I cases like these, since enforcers often cannot change the rules,
they must resort to selective enforcement. Computer admins are often
in an exceptional situation of being able to write the rules as well
as being the ones enforcing them. Since selective enforcement relies
on their own discretion, they tend to ignore the fact that such a system
is inherently susceptible to corruption (to be extreme, consider
Stalin's purges as selective enforcement). There is though a great
opportunity to taylor the rules in such a way as to not hinder the
ordinary user, but still have a system where the few irresponsible users
can be dealt with (after all that's what rules are for).
>Look at traffic. If we tried to eliminate it by stationing a police
>officer every quarter-mile on every street to catch and enforce
>EVERYTHING, none of us would ever make it to work in the morning.
I think you mean eliminate traffic infractions. You brought up
traffic enforcement as an example of selective enforcement.
That it is. It is also very corrupt in the sense that most traffic
rules are unnecessarily restrictive (e.g. a recent survey showed that
an overwhelming majority of speed limits are too low for the road
conditions). As a result the states and the county mounties have
a wonderful source of revenue and, as long as enforcement remains
selective, most people don't feel an urgency to do something about it.
Selma, TX, a tiny community on the outskirts of San Antonio,
enforced the 55 mph limit on I-35 vigorously, raking in unbelievable
amounts of money (and earning a spot on CBS '60 minutes'),
until enough state legislators got fined and pushed
through a change in the apportionment of fines.
>There's a tradeoff here: Society won't keep you under constant
>scrutiny, and in exchange society expects you to be responsible enough
>to follow the rules. They call that SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, and it's
>something I think a lot of people in this country have lost sight of.
Couldn't agree with you more. I want to add that with enough
irresponsible people around you need a mechanism to shield those
who are responsible from the pernicious effects of the inevitable
(and necessary) clampdown on the former.
It is a law of human nature, that responsibilities go hand in hand with rights.
The actual amount varies with circumstances.
A curious example of this is taking place right now. Many of the former
Communist police states are reduced to utter chaos once strict enforcement
of people's lives is ended. People who have lived without rights, cannot
cope with ordinary responsibilities a free citizen is expected to have.
Back at the ranch, I think many admins (not just computer ones) tend
to overreact to irresponsible acts by placing general restrictions
that would presumably prevent such acts in the future without giving
much thought to ultimate consequences of such a trend. The quick
fix is easier than dealing with the jerks, but the quality
of life (and computing) is reduced for everyone.
For example, when I was a grad student in Berkeley, the mail room was
vandalized and the reaction to that moronic act was not to find
the culprits and expel them from our midst,
but to restrict access to the room to just office hours.
This is not an isolated incident, everywhere I have been,
the quality of existence is gradually eroded by the cumulative
effects of occasional irresponsibility and reaction to it.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
- Mr. Gumby * \oo7 Dmitry Gokhman -> gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu
says: `/v/-*
MY BRAIN HURTS J L YOUR AD HERE!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 22:53:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct12.024838.12086@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:48:38 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 11 22:53:34 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:04:18
Message-ID:
In article roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Fred Sullivan) writes:
>1. Our department has no policy against display of the kind of material in
>question.
Or, "Nobody wants to take responsibility for making decisions around here."
No. We made a conscious decision that in general censorship is bad, that we
know of no reasonable objective standard which we could set, and that there
are other ways to deal the problem.
>2. I am not going to tell him that he has to remove the pictures.
And, "I can't make decisions either."
Again, no. In fact, it is much easier to impersonally write a rule saying
that display of nudes is disallowed than to tell a student to his face that you
personally disagree with his behavior.
>3. My personal opinion is that he is acting like a adolescent jerk.
---------------
You'd rather get personal and start calling him names.
And show him who's boss.
Evidently I'm the kettle and you're the pot. Read your replies to 1. and 2.
above, and tell me you're not getting personal. In this case I believe that a
student appreciates an honestly expressed opinion, rather than being told to
obey a rule imposed from on high.
>4. He should spend some time thinking about the effect the material being
>displayed might have on:
> parents of prospective students who are visiting the campus,
> female staff and faculty members who might feel that they are being
>sexually harassed.
But calling someone an adolescent jerk is not an overt form of harassment?
This is a good way to sever communication and foster resentment.
BTW, are you teacher or administrator?
It is telling it like it is. I am on good terms with all of the students
with whom I have had this conversation; communication has not been severed.
Again, if you want to foster resentment, tell someone: "Do this again and
your account will be canceled". I have had to do that on a few occasions
for other reasons and I can tell you that resentment IS fostered. To answer
your last question, I am a teacher.
>A little over a year ago, I had this conversation with 4 students, and I
>have not seen nudes displayed in our lab since that time.
Are you and they still on speaking terms?
Yes. My relationship with all of them is quite good.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is. Is it that I was too blunt in
expressing my opinion of the students' actions, or that I was wrong in my
assessment? If it's the first, then I can only say that the students
involved are a better judge than you, and my relationship with them has not
suffered. If the second, then I think you are wrong. My point was to get
the students' attention, and to make them think about what they were doing.
I believe that I was successful, with the result that not only are nudes no
longer being displayed in our lab, but four students are a little perhaps a
little more mature, and more sensitive to the difficult issue of sexual
harassment. I claim it is always more profitable to get someone to realize
that there is something wrong with their behavior and alter it themselves,
than to alter it by force.
--
Fred Sullivan 5500 Wabash Avenue
Computer Science Department Terre Haute, IN 47803
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
