From caf-talk Caf Oct 12 15:29:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.libadmin] academic computing
Message-ID: <1992Oct12.192926.23743@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:29:26 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 12 15:29:36 1992
From: P_PARTELLO@UNHH.UNH.EDU
Subject: academic computing
Message-ID: <199210121907.AA23324@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:59:41 GMT
Last week I asked people about the structure of computing on small-medium
campuses. Here is a summary of replies:
1. Florida State eliminated the position of VP for Computing and Information
Resources. They believe that individual colleges and departments can best\
determine their needs. A committee now coordinated networking activities.
The computer center is also now acting more as a support to depts in getting
their own systems going.
2. At Cornell Medical Library the librarians teach courses in MAC use,
networking, MS Word, MS Excel, information mgt., MEDLINE searching, and
access to lib. resources over the network. The Office of Academic Computing
provides network installations and support for the college LAN, and provides
support for micros outside the library. The Education Center provides
computer-based educational programs and coordinates e-mail for students.
They do have an Asst. Dean for Information Resources who seems to be
equivalent to a library director.
3. Shawnee State U. in Ohio is considering moving Academic Computing dept
uder the jurisdiction of the Library/Media Services Dept or another
academic unit. Their University Information Systems asserts that they
cannot assume responsibility for Internet use, instructional labs, and
support of unlimited educational packages. The library also cannot take
responsibility without proper funding.
4. At California State U/Dominguez Hills they merged library, media/tv,
and the computer center under a Dean of Educational Resources. It worked
because of the people involved, but now they are running into a bit of
difficulty because the new computer center director wanted to report
directly to a VP.
5. The library at Bradley U. (IL) is part of a unit called Information
Technologies and Resources. This includes library, computing services,
a-v services, tv services, and the public radio station. The managers
of these areas report to the Assoc. Provost for Information Technologies
and Resources, who in turn reports to the Provost and VP for Academic Affairs.
6. At U. of Wisconsin-Parkside the library director is also the director
of computing, both academic and administrative.
7. At St. Mary's U. they have discussed the possibility of merging the
library and the computer center, media production, and telecom. The
library director says that their current structure works: computer
center director and library director are members of the universtiy computer
policy committee and work together on all network implementations(whether
library-related or not).
8. At U. of Michigan-Dearborn the library director was recently made
director of Information Technology Services as well. The two units are
still separate units.
9. At the business school, U. of Michigan, library and computing are
combined in a unit called Information Resources. The mgr. of
technical services and automation, the mgr. of public services, and the
mgr. of computing all report to the director of Info. Resources.
10. At Babson College the library and computing center merged. They
are working as a team and trying to learn each other's cultures.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 12 15:40:00 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: <1992Oct12.193423.13102@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:34:23 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 12 15:40:00 1992
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID:
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:23:28 GMT
sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Fred Sullivan) writes:
>roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>>sullivan@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Fred Sullivan) writes regarding Nude Pics:
>>>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.
>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.
Not being your teacher, supervisor, or authority figure, candid
responses to 1. and 2. above are not exactly intimidating. My text in
quotes was used to illustrate what thoughts might be going through a
student's head when listening to 1. and 2., which are both
irrelevant. There is no policy regarding nude visuals and so pointing
this out is irrelevant and weakens your case. When criticizing
subordinates or a student one must be careful to avoid the impression
of being menacing, for their well being, and also in avoiding legal
complications. If "adolescent jerk" is your "honestly expressed
opinion", then in your case honesty may not be the best policy.
>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?
It was the first.
> 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.
Because they were goaded into submission by their instructor we must
therefore conclude that the means are justified? A judge tries and
convicts a man who is innocent, and the man is sent to prison. When
questioned about the verdict after the trial the judge replies, "I was
correct in my judgement because as you can plainly see he is now
serving time in prison."
-- Curt Roelle
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 12 16:01:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: SAGE
Message-ID: <1992Oct12.200113.24453@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:01:13 GMT
[SAGE is a new professional society for Sys Admins. Here is information from
their mailing list server - Carl]
>Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 12:44:19 PDT
>To: kadie@eff.org
>From: Majordomo@usenix.org
>Subject: Majordomo results
>Reply-To: Majordomo@usenix.org
>>>> help
This is Brent Chapman's "Majordomo" mailing list manager, Revision 1.32.
It understands the following commands:
subscribe []
Subscribe yourself (or if specified) to the named .
unsubscribe []
Unsubscribe yourself (or if specified) from the named .
which []
Find out which lists you (or if specified) are on.
who
Find out who is on the named .
info
Retrieve the general introductory information for the named .
lists
Show the lists served by this Majordomo server.
help
Retrieve this message.
end
Stop processing commands (useful if your mailer adds a signature).
Commands should be sent in the body of an email message to
"Majordomo@USENIX.ORG".
Commands in the "Subject:" line NOT processed.
If you have any questions or problems, please contact
"Majordomo-Owner@USENIX.ORG".
>>>> lists
Majordomo@USENIX.ORG serves the following lists:
sage
sage-certify
sage-conf
sage-edu
sage-ethics
sage-jobs
sage-locals
sage-online
sage-outreach
sage-policies
sage-pr
sage-pt
sage-pubs
sage-robbies
sage-security
sage-stds
sage-vendors
Use the 'info ' command to get more information
about a specific list.
>Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 12:52:34 PDT
>To: kadie@eff.org
>From: Majordomo@usenix.org
>Subject: Majordomo results
>Reply-To: Majordomo@usenix.org
>>>> info sage
#### No info available for sage.
>>>> info sage-certify
Welcome to the SAGE certification working group.
The purpose of the certification working group is to develop a model for
the certification of system administrators. The model will address the
issues surrounding certification and discuss the various approaches that
might be taken. The working group will present the model along with their
recommendations to the board of directors.
Paul M. Moriarty (pmm@cisco.com)
>>>> info sage-conf
Welcome to the Sage-Conferences discussion list. This mailing list is
for the SAGE members (or potential members) who are interested in
conferences and workshops to be run by or in association with SAGE.
>>>> info sage-edu
The Education working group's initial goal is to outline SAGE's
plan for institutional and continuing education of the community
through the development of model curricula, the identification
and promotion of useful tutorial programs, and the construction
of guides for self-study.
If you're a new subscriber to the list, please send a message to
the list introducing yourself, and welcome.
>>>> info sage-ethics
This group is charged with determining SAGE's role in developing a set of
guidelines or codes of ethics for the system administrator. We see these
guidelines or codes as having at least two purposes, namely, guiding one's
self in the performance of system administration tasks, and informing
one's employer and co-workers of the proper bounds of system
administration.
Chair: Ed Gould
>>>> info sage-jobs
Welcome to the SAGE Job Descriptions Working group!
The job description group will evaluate SAGE's role in assisting system
administrators with defining job descriptions. If it is determined that
this is an area that SAGE should pursue, the focus of the group will be to
create multiple system administration job description suites that can be
used as templates for those who are writing position descriptions for
hiring purposes at their own site.
>>>> info sage-locals
Welcome to sage-locals.
Users can be friend of the system administrator, but will never be able
to be a peer. Therefore many system administrators are working without
contact to their peers. SAGE local groups is intended to give system
administrators to meet on a regular basis.
The purpose sage-local small working group is to define relation ship
between local groups and SAGE. As SAGE is a USENIX STG, this will include
relationship to USENIX.
The group will also have the task of explore how creation of new local
groups can be made easier, and how SAGE can support existing local groups,
like Bay-LISA and BackBayLisa.
Bjorn
--
Bjorn Satdeva -- email: bjorn@sysadmin.com
/sys/admin, inc. The Unix System Management Experts (408) 241 3111
Send requests to the SysAdmin mailing list to sysadm-list-request@sysadmin.com
>>>> info sage-online
The electronic information distribution working group will identify
existing information sources that would be of use to SAGE members, new
types of information that should be gathered/produced, and make
proposals for the effective distribution of this information.
Existing sources should include reprints of papers/articles and
mailing-list/USENET news archives. New information sources might
include specially written technical/positional papers and custom
databases such as vendor neutral list of bugs. Distribution methods
will include WAIS or other information servers, anonymous ftp/uucp,
and CDrom.
-- Mark Verber (verber@parc.xerox.com)
>>>> info sage-outreach
This mailing list is for discussions pertaining to the sage-outreach
working group. This group will make a proposal to the SAGE board on how SAGE
can address the needs of system administrators who deal with heterogeneous
environments, which include systems running many different OS's. Additional
items may include how SAGE can best contact these people, who may not be
plugged into the traditional UNIX(tm) oriented communication channels.
>>>> info sage-policies
As the coordinator of the SAGE working group on policies, I'd like to
welcome you.
The focus of the policies working group is the creation of one or
several suggested documents for systems/network admins to use as
guidelines or boilerplate in setting up their site's policies and
procedures.
We will also work closely with the education and ethics working groups
to develop plans for educating systems administrators and their
managers about just what policy is, and is good for.
If you have questions, feel free to contact me directly at
nomad@watson.ibm.com or send them to the working group at
sage-policies@usenix.org.
nomad
>>>> info sage-pr
As a professional society, SAGE has the opportunity to speak out to many
factions of industry and/or government on issues that affect us and our
profession. This committee will examine the issues, set guidelines to
SAGE's involvement in this area, and (if appropriate) determine a plan or
focus for the guild to evaluate and pursue (or not pursue). This group
will also serve to direct any future public relations issues that may
arise.
>>>> info sage-pt
The Part Time working group is concerned that the proposed SAGE charter
did not mention the large number of people who do system administration
less than 100% of the time. (e.g. There are chemists who fulfill
system administration roles some portion of each working day. Yet,
view themselves as chemists, not system administrators. Hence, part
time system administration.) We will consider how SAGE could address
the needs of such individuals and propose changes to the proposed SAGE
charter which addresses this "dual-role" reality.
I am open to suggestions for extending this working group to work
on ways for SAGE to meet the needs of these individuals.
--Peg
Peg Schafer
Senior Systems Programmer
Distributed Systems
BBN, INC.
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-873-2626
peg@bbn.com
>>>> info sage-pubs
The publications group is chartered to put together a series of proposals
related to the various publications that SAGE wants established. In the
immediate future the pubs group will be asked to assist in the publication
of the first issues of newsletter segments within "login:". Long term
goals include proposals concerning an independent newsletter, a technical
journal, software tool collections, and any other ideas the committee can
collect.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Bryan McDonld
bigmac@erg.sri.com
>>>> info sage-robbies
This mailing list is for discussions pertaining to the sage-robbies
working group. This group will make a proposal to the SAGE board on how, when,
and where SAGE can best recognize outstanding achievements in the system
administration field.
>>>> info sage-security
Security is a growing concern for system administrators. This group will
examine ways of helping system administrators assess their need for
security and security policies. We will seek ways to educate system
administrators on security issues. We will consider soliciting or
developing sample policies and tools in this arena.
>>>> info sage-stds
This is the USENIX SAGE Standards Working Group mail reflector
(sage-stds).
The purpose of sage-stds is to provide a forum for discussion
about system management standards in the following areas:
Communication: Provide a central point of contact
for information regarding system management
standardization efforts.
Education: Educate system administrators about
the standards process in general. What can
active administrators do to progress standards.
Participation: Provide a conduit for the solicitation
of input from active system administrators.
Most standards participants represent OEMs. More
input from active system administrators is needed.
Summaries will be posted to the mailing list of the IEEE POSIX
activities, OSF ManSig activities, UI SMWG activities, as well as
X/Open and NM Forum activities as they are publicized. If you
would like to sign-up as the "official" reporter for a standards
working group, please post to sage-stds@usenix.org, and we'll
sign you up.
>>>> info sage-vendors
Welcome to SAGE vendors working group! The purpose of this list is to
discuss ways in which we, the members of the system administration community,
can encourage vendors to recognize the importance of system administration
and the need to develop tools to facilitate this. Often times a single
vendors' "solution" to system administration has no application in the real
world, where many of us employ the hardware and software of several different
companies. It is hoped that SAGE can provide sufficient leverage to get
vendors to provide real world solutions that we would actually want and
could actually use.
Initially the purpose of the list will be to discuss the feasibility of
this course of action, and make a recommendation to the SAGE board. The
board will then decide whether or not to pursue any sort of interaction
with hardware and software vendors. However, the list is not limited to
the purposes stated above, or to my personal view of what the vendor
group should focus upon. You, as a member of the group, have a great deal
of say in the matter. If the members of the list feel the group should
take a different direction, that's what the group will do, provided it
remains within the scope of our charter.
So, let's get this thing underway. Remember, post early, post often, but
be sure you have something to say.
Terry Bartlett
Chair, SAGE Vendors working group
>>>>
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 13 10:52:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct13.144935.14519@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:49:35 GMT
In article <1992Oct2.111319.26055@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1afb5pINN9so@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>The Supreme Court has ruled that there
>>are limits to the freedom of speech the first amendment confers.
>
>The topic wasn't what any of the Supreme Courts since the founding of
>USA have said, the topic was what the Constitution says.
>
Look, guys, *words* *have* *meaning*, and the Constitution is made of
words. Some of this stuff has clear meanings. I think there is a useful
distinction between what the Constitution plainly says and what the Supreme
Court claims it says. Free speech isn't a matter of the Constitution being
unclear; it's a matter of the Supreme Court deciding that what it says is
too radical and that the First Amendment can't possibly mean what it says.
Also, note that this posting is from a Finnish site. The Constitution has
meaning outside the USA, as a major historical document and inspiration.
The Supreme Court interpretations have little importance outside the USA.
>Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?
>
Yes and no, quite literally. The Constitution does not say by itself who
is to interpret it, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the Supreme Court
has the ultimate say in interpreting it, and that this is constitutional law.
Therefore, "no" by the words of the Constitution, and "yes" according to
the self-referential rulings of the Supreme Court. As a matter of practice,
the Supreme Court decision is likely to stand as long as the U.S. government
remains recognizable.
DHT
That is not dead which can be elected. Cthulhu in '92! The polls are right.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 13 12:05:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct13.160500.8637@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:05:00 GMT
In article <1992Oct13.144935.14519@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>Look, guys, *words* *have* *meaning*, and the Constitution is made of
>words. Some of this stuff has clear meanings. I think there is a useful
>distinction between what the Constitution plainly says and what the Supreme
>Court claims it says.
Really? What's the distinction between what the Fourth Amendment says is
a "reasonable search" and what the Supreme Court says it is? What's the
difference between what the Eighth Amendment says about "cruel and unusual
punishment" and what the Supreme Court says about it?
Indeed, since the First Amendment, written in the 18th century, refers to
"press" and "speech," don't the "clear meanings" of those words, as used
in an 18th-century document, mean that this very discussion we are having
is *not* protected by the First Amendment?
I ask these questions in order to challenge your assumption that laws and
Constitutions can function independently of interpretation. They cannot.
--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 13 12:40:35 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct13.163742.28537@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:37:42 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 13 12:40:35 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <3846@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:23:21 GMT
I am the step parent of 2 adolescents. Sometimes, the boys behave like
adolescent jerks. Sometimes, you have to tell the adolescent jerks that they
are behaving like adolescent jerks.
I suspect, based on my own remembereances of adolscence, that I did some
pretty dumb things. Sometimes, I figured out for myself that what I did was
dumb, and sometimes, somebody helped me figure it out.
For example, the TECO command JEFF SILVERMAN will cause a DECsystem-10
to crash. The first time I did it, it was completely unexpected. The fifth
time I did it, it was a dumb thing to do. People began to tell me that
this was a dumb thing to do. I haven't done it since (hopefully, somebody
fixed that bug).
Jeff Silverman, Boeing Commercial Airplane.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 13 12:40:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct13.163823.2709@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:38:23 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 13 12:40:36 1992
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct13.141359.4701@nastar.uucp>
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:13:59 GMT
In article <1992Oct12.133020@iphase.com> plarkin@iphase.com (Patrick Larkin) writes:
>What is the general consensus in the Commercial environment regarding the use
>of storage resources for the purpose of saving images of what could be
>considered "offensive" material?
>
>My concern is two-fold: Disk Space usage and a Sys Admin's removal on sight
>of such images; and another employee bopping around looking at images in say
>/usr/local/gifs and stumbling across something he/she finds offensive.
My opinion, as a part-time sysadmin:
Public *display* of computer images is usually covered under the same rules as
posters, calendars, etc. If someone else walks in and sees it, and is offended,
they have grounds for a complaint; continual offenses are grounds for removal
of the display program and/or image file(s).
If the files are simply present, and nobody has complained about viewing of the
images, then the only rationale for removal is the (usually) high volume of
such files when disk space is low. In those cases, a disk-space quota will
server to limit the usage. I do not feel that the mere presence of an image
file can be considered *offensive*, if non-company-related text files are
allowed on the machines, since they can contain passages that some employee
might find equally offensive (quotes from Rushdie's "Satanic Verses", for
example).
--
Pete Hardie: phardie@nastar (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team | cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection"
Position: Goalie |
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 13 18:00:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: thornley@mega.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct13.214422.22536@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:44:22 GMT
In article <1992Oct13.160500.8637@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.144935.14519@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>
>>Look, guys, *words* *have* *meaning*, and the Constitution is made of
>>words. Some of this stuff has clear meanings. I think there is a useful
>>distinction between what the Constitution plainly says and what the Supreme
>>Court claims it says.
>
>Really? What's the distinction between what the Fourth Amendment says is
>a "reasonable search" and what the Supreme Court says it is? What's the
>difference between what the Eighth Amendment says about "cruel and unusual
>punishment" and what the Supreme Court says about it?
>
In this case, there is no difference. Perhaps I should have emphasized
the word "plainly" above. The Constitution is not clear in all areas, but
there are topics it is wonderfully clear on. Some of these areas have
been effectively rewritten by the courts. For example, the Constitution
says that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech,
but in fact the Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution really
can't mean that, and that Congress can pass such laws (and indeed has).
Obviously, "reasonable" and "cruel and unusual" need interpretation.
>Indeed, since the First Amendment, written in the 18th century, refers to
>"press" and "speech," don't the "clear meanings" of those words, as used
>in an 18th-century document, mean that this very discussion we are having
>is *not* protected by the First Amendment?
>
It is not protected by the words of the first amendment, but can be
declared to be freedom of press by the Supreme Court.
Look, I'm not saying that there is no such thing as constitutional law
as declared by the Supreme Court. I'm saying that it is just as
reasonable (if not more so) to refer to the meaning of the Constitution
as the meaning derived from the words on the legal document as opposed to
the Supreme Court decisions which are more or less strictly based on`
this document.
>I ask these questions in order to challenge your assumption that laws and
>Constitutions can function independently of interpretation. They cannot.
>
Can the Constitution function as the basis of a government without some
interpretation? Clearly not; as pointed out above, somebody has to say
which is a reasonable search and seizure and what is cruel and unusual
punishment, and somebody has to rein in the government when it tries to
twist the Constitution to mean something it doesn't.
However, it is true that the Constitution is composed of English words
assembled into grammatical sentences, and that these sentences have
meaning to any English speaker. Some of this stuff is ambiguous; some,
like the Fourteenth Amendment, is downright obfuscutory, for historical
and political reasons. But some of it does have meaning according to
the English language without somebody else's interpretation.
Further, as I pointed out earlier, an English speaker who is not a U.S.
citizen or resident is likely to be concerned with the Constitution as
a legal and historical document, and is not likely to be familiar with
Supreme Court interpretation and is not likely to care.
DHT
From caf-talk Caf Oct 13 20:08:12 1992
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Attacking The Messenger
Message-ID: <1992Oct13.184513.1743@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:45:13 -0600
ATTACKING THE MESSENGER
It has been my experience for a long time that most
people are TOO IMMATURE to handle the Truth about ANY-thing.
They prefer OFFICIAL LIES and HALF TRUTHS, in place of the
unofficial Truth; it makes them feel more "secure", like a
child's blanket.
Whenever they are confronted with information and
supporting evidence that contradicts their established belief
system, they FREAK OUT and even ATTACK or try to SILENCE The
Messenger. They did it to Jesus Christ, Galileo, and many
other great People.
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME!"
They should INSTEAD read FOR THEMSELVES the Messenger's
cited SOURCES.
In spite of the APPEARANCE (ILLUSION) of advancement and
sophistication, modern society is STILL IN THE DARK AGES!
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy
UW-EC
From caf-talk Caf Oct 14 02:51:14 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:34:20 GMT
In article <1992Oct7.153350.19159@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>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 rather suspect the vast majority believes words in general and
(to Americans) those of the Constitution in particular have
one true, absolute meaning and very the notion of interpretation
never enters their minds.
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tt@math.jyu.fi, tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Oct 14 04:49:26 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: "Marc VanHeyningen"
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct14.034619.6797@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:15:55 -0500
Thus said kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie):
>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.
(The following is based on the assumption that the content of the
pictures, rather than their size or utilization of resources, is at
issue.)
The library example can be taken a little further and leave things
clearer. If someone looks over someone else's shoulder in a computer
lab and sees nude photos, how is that different from looking over
someone's shoulder in a University library and seeing pictures in the
copy of, say, Playboy which (s)he is reading?
I believe that any attempt by a librarian to ban the latter would be
absurd; it's clearly censorship to say that, although the library
carries X, you are not allowed to read it.
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu MIME & RIPEM accepted
xhost = "X Hanging Open, Security Terrible"
From caf-talk Caf Oct 14 12:26:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct14.153735.28835@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:37:35 GMT
In article <1992Oct14.034619.6797@news.cs.indiana.edu> mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu writes:
>
>The library example can be taken a little further and leave things
>clearer. If someone looks over someone else's shoulder in a computer
>lab and sees nude photos, how is that different from looking over
>someone's shoulder in a University library and seeing pictures in the
>copy of, say, Playboy which (s)he is reading?
>
I think this is a pretty weak argument. I think a 2ftX2ft workstation
screen is a bit ore eyecatching than the content of a person's book in
a library.
The basic point is OK, though. It would not be acceptable (I think) for
me to open a Playboy in a library, and leave it upright on the table beside
me.
The point about offensivness and harrasment is the idea of creating a
hostile environment. If I leave the playboy open so that every woman who
walks by must invariably see it, then that would be a basis for a claim of
harrasment. But merely looking at it, even if someone _may_ se it by chance
is not.
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 14 14:10:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: root@cltr.uq.oz.au (Hulk Hogan)
Subject: Re: Newsgroups not received in Australia.
Message-ID: <1992Oct14.063635.13759@cltr.uq.OZ.AU>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:36:35 GMT
emr@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Elizabeth M. Reid) writes:
>u734120@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (John Lamp) writes:
>>alt.sex.* is alive and well in Tasmania. Perhaps it's because we're still
>>not regarded as part of Australia. :-} Maybe you should ask the University
>>of Melbourne if you have a problem.
>You are probably not getting your newsfeed from munnari.oz.au (the
>official AARNet Usenet source). Word from munnari's administrator
>Robert Elz (kre) is that alt.sex* and alt.drugs are proscribed, at the
>request of the US end of the AARNet satellite link. This was recently
>stated in aus.news - the article has not expired at my site, so it may
>still be at other sites which get that group, if anyone wants to read
>it.
News comes from UUnet into munnari.oz.au, and then to the various states
and then into various departments and so on. You can see the path that
the article traversed by looking at the Path: line in the news article.
Most news readers don't show you this, but if you save an article and
look at it, you should find the Path line there, usually as the first line,
or within the first few lines if the article was crossposted.
Articles which are cross posted to other groups which are NOT blocked
(such as this one) will also be imported, and will show up in alt.sex*.
However articles only posted to alt.sex* and/or alt.drugs won't show
up.
>Also - as some people have pointed out to me in email - I should have
>said that these groups are banned only by AARNet, not by all sites in
>Australia. I gather that a number of companies who pay for their own
>satellite time do import these groups.
Indeed... If you wish to pay the satellite costs... and then the long
distance costs of transporting them around Australia, you can indeed
access such material... Despite the satellite link being cited as the
reason, if memory serves, the transmission of such material across =any=
AARNet link was banned (including of course the interstate links which
were at the time 48kpbs and are now all at 2MB/sec, I believe).
Of course, the risk of being caught doing this is extremely small...
Even if someone with the necessary network access had the time or inclination
to do so. Small enough that I wouldnt be surprised if a number of people
currently do it, and indirectly cause more traffic on the link than just
importing once it would. I can't help but feel that if they would just
remove the ban, and prepare to stand up to hysterical media identities
who would scream about "pax payer dollars funding a porno net", it would
all be so much simpler..
Another alternative is to create an alt.sex.* hierarchy in this newsgroup and
get everyone to cross post all articles to alt.comp.acad-freedom.alt.sex.*
:-)
/\ndy
--
Andrew M. Jones, Systems Programmer, Email: {root,andy}@lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au
Centre for Lang. Teaching & Research, UUCP: uunet!lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au!andy
University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Phone: +61 7 365 6915 (Use 07 in Oz)
Brisbane, Qld. AUSTRALIA 4072 Fax: +61 7 365 7077 IRC: HulkHogan
"No matter what hits the fan, it's never distributed evenly....."
From caf-talk Caf Oct 14 16:13:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU (Mitch Pravatiner)
Subject: Re: Display of Nudes
Message-ID: <199210142013.AA03362@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:24:42 GMT
Daniel Zabetakis writes:
>[...] It would not be acceptable (I think) for
>me to open a Playboy in a library, and leave it upright on the table beside
>me.
> The point about offensivness and harrasment is the idea of creating a
>hostile environment. If I leave the playboy open so that every woman who
>walks by must invariably see it, then that would be a basis for a claim of
>harrasment. But merely looking at it, even if someone _may_ se it by chance
>is not.
The pivotal phrase in all this is "idea of creating a hostile environment." It
seems implausible to me that one could read _Playboy_ in a library, or lay it
on the table by oneself, with no possibility of it being seen. On the other
hand, I don't buy the argument that its very visibility renders the environment
hostile for any woman who may happen by.
I've always been troubled by the assertion that the visible presence of erotic
images in some part of a workspace--independent of either content, context, or
intent--should be considered _per se_ sexual harassment. If this argument is
construed literally, _e.g._, one could be brought up on charges for hanging a
print of a classic Edward Weston nude photograph in one's office--quite a
different scenario, IMHO WIVH, than the facts of the Jacksonville Shipyard case
and its ilk, where there was a clear intent to make the plaintiff's working
environment emotionally untenable through the display of sexually oriented
pictures which were clearly offensive to ordinary sensibilities, among other
acts by the defendants. (I should point out that the effect of an erotic image
on ordinary sensibilities, independent of the displayer's intent, is a valid
point for consideration, but should generally be secondary to the determination
of actual intent to harass; and also that under some circumstances, display of
an erotic image may be inappropriate (e.g., in certain public areas of an off-
ice), even if to define it as actionable sexual harassment is unwarranted.
The bottom line in this extended jeremiad is that a sound definition of harass-
ment--be it in offices, libraries, CRT's, or anywhere else--needs to be more
nuanced with respect to content, context and intent than most of the rather
broad definitions advanced in recent years, in these pages and elsewhere.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 14 16:55:07 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: "Marc VanHeyningen"
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct14.155042.11619@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:50:28 -0500
Thus said dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis):
>In article <1992Oct14.034619.6797@news.cs.indiana.edu> mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu writes:
>>
>>The library example can be taken a little further and leave things
>>clearer. If someone looks over someone else's shoulder in a computer
>>lab and sees nude photos, how is that different from looking over
>>someone's shoulder in a University library and seeing pictures in the
>>copy of, say, Playboy which (s)he is reading?
>>
> I think this is a pretty weak argument. I think a 2ftX2ft workstation
>screen is a bit ore eyecatching than the content of a person's book in
>a library.
I've never used a workstation screen that large. All the workstation
screens I use are smaller than an open magazine (which has a diagonal
measurement of about 20 1/4") Does Columbia really have that kind of
money?
However, your point is taken; workstation screens are more captivating,
at least to some. I'm not sure whether it's because they're glowing,
because they're vertical, because they're still novel and nifty to many,
or what. Although I'm often annoyed if someone thinks (s)he has a god
given right to examine the contents of my screen.
> The basic point is OK, though. It would not be acceptable (I think) for
>me to open a Playboy in a library, and leave it upright on the table beside
>me.
Probably not. However, few would say that the librarian should be
responsible for policing who has this potentially offensive material, or
that the library should not carry Playboy because someone could utilize
it in this way. The basic point is that it isn't the sysadmins job to
do this either.
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu MIME & RIPEM accepted
Kirk: I won't hurt you.
Alien: You hit me!
Kirk: Well, I won't hit you again.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 14 19:15:25 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID: <1992Oct14.200218.13330@dcatlas.dot.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:02:18 GMT
The Constitution, like any other use of language, is subject to interpretation.
There are limits, however, on the "range" over which this interpretation
may be _reasonably_ made. For example, changes in technology have made
certain ideas obsolete, or significantly enhanced others. Back when news
traveled at the speed of a steamship or railroad locomotive, it was not
unreasonable to involve groups of people (e.g. Congress) in certain types
of decisions that are in today's faster world better left to _one_ man
(i.e. the President). Military and diplomatic decisions come to mind.
The Constitution, remember, is a series of *What*s and *How*s. There are
few *Why*s. These may be found, however, in the Declaration of Independence,
and are supported by Reason (e.g. the Law of Identity, which states that
A=A, or, what a thing _is_ determines how it ought to behave). The chartered
purpose of the U.S. Government is to secure individual rights. That is the
light in which the Constitution *must* be viewed if it is to live up to the
purpose set for it by our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, today our
government violates individual rights as a matter of Standard Operating
Procedure, so how the Supreme Court or any other Government body chooses
to interpret the Constitution may be wholly inconsistent with the ideals
from which it was born. Act _Honestly_, and no Reasonable Man (upon whom
the interpretatio of our laws is *supposed* to be based) shall have cause
to quibble, even if your actions are technically "illegal".
-JTT
From caf-talk Caf Oct 14 20:34:10 1992
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct15.001728.14105@cirrus.com>
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:17:28 GMT
In <1992Oct14.153735.28835@news.columbia.edu>
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>The point about offensivness and harrasment is the idea of creating a
>hostile environment. If I leave the playboy open so that every woman who
>walks by must invariably see it, then that would be a basis for a claim of
>harrasment.
A library is not a workplace in the usual sense of the word, except for
people who are employed there. The law gives special treatment to
sexual harassment in the workplace, and the enforcement is done through
the employer.
The law does not give special treatment to sexual harassment in a
library for people who are merely visitors. For this reason only
harassment in general (e.g., assault/battery/whatever) will be
applicable, and that is unlikely to apply to the display of
pictures.
I consider a library to be similar to a movie hall, major political
party convention, or Usenet -- anybody proceeding beyond the entrance
should expect to encounter all sorts of offensive material.
--
Rahul Dhesi
also: dhesi@rahul.net
From caf-talk Caf Oct 14 22:14:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Rice U. - "System Administrator Statment of Ethics"
Message-ID: <1992Oct15.021354.9586@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:13:54 GMT
This is repost of the Rice University System Administrator Statement
of Ethics - This statement was adopted in March by the system
administrators in Rice's Information Systems division (these sys
admins provide services to Owlnet). It is a statement of how they
will approach user privacy and confidentiality. It is posted with Mr.
Watter's permission.
From jaw@rice.edu Sat Jun 27 12:45:29 1992
From: Joseph A. Watters
Subject: Part 5 of 6: Rice U. computing policies
To: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 17:06:04 CDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Rice Information Systems statement of ethics.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet director@owlnet.rice.edu
Rice University
Statement of Ethics with Respect To User Data
Network and Systems Support
Office of Networking and Computing Systems
Information Systems
William Marsh Rice University
3 March 1992
The members of Network and Systems Support (NSS) recognize their
ethical responsibilities toward the information stored on or passing
through the computers and networks they maintain. This document is
intended to assist people in understanding those responsiblities by
giving previously oral traditions written form.
I. Value of confidentiality
The term "privacy" has a more restricted meaning than the term
"confidentiality". Privacy is often used to indicate the ability of a
single person to control access to information he or she creates,
stores or transmits. Confidentiality implies that more than one person
may have access to that information, but that they recognize the
sensitive nature of that access and use their power of access
judiciously.
System or Network Administrators (sys-admins) understand that absolute
privacy of user data cannot be guaranteed for a number of technical,
legal and economic reasons. Among them are limitations in software and
hardware technology, limited personnel and financial resources, and
human error. Sys-admins cannot, given these limitations, make any
legal promises about the privacy of user data.
Sys-admins cannot perform their function without having access to
sensitive information. Sys-admins cannot guarantee either privacy or
confidentiality, but they value both concepts. They attempt to maintain
systems and networks in a manner which reflects these concerns.
II. Informed Users
Sys-admins have a responsibility to inform the user community about the
degree of privacy and confidentiality enjoyed by their data.
Sys-admins should endeavor to educate users about the ways they can
increase the confidentiality of their data.
For example, users of all NSS-maintained systems should be informed
when they receive their accounts that privacy is not guaranteed, if for
no other reason than the fact that all known computer security
mechanisms can be compromised. Therefore, if there is any information
that users absolutely do not want another person to see, then it should
not be stored on those systems. However, there are a number of
mechanisms and behaviors which aid in increasing the confidentiality of
their data, such as file encryption, protecting the security of their
account, etcetera.
III. Maximizing Confidentiality
Sys-admins have the technical ability to see almost all of the data on
the systems or networks they manage, including that which users have
attempted to protect from access by other users. Sys-admins attempt to
recognize data which has been treated this way and they handle it more
cautiously than other, unprotected information. Electronic mail is
considered extremely confidential material.
They should minimize their access to protected data to the extent
possible while allowing them to complete their duties as stewards of
systems and networks. The duties which typically require access to
protected data are: identifying and pursuing breaches of security
mechanisms, maintaining the integrity or operational state of a system
or network, fulfilling a specific management mandate (e.g. collecting
evidence for an Honor Council investigation), responding to a user
question, and collecting aggregate data (e.g. the number of users who
have used a certain package or logged in during some time period).
IV. Disclosure to others
Sys-admins may disclose the contents of protected files to others
without the user's prior permission when the sys-admin(s) believe that
policies or laws were violated. Limited disclosure of private data may
also occur while pursuing a question initiated by the user. Disclosure
of private data without the user's prior permission should be
minimized.
V. Protection of data
Much of the preceding discussion is concerned with the accessibilty of
data by sys-admins. The modification of users' data is a different
question. Modification of users' data without prior consent by the user
should be avoided if at all possible. However, the maintenance of
normal system operation may at times require modification of user
data.
A sys-admin changing a user's file should attempt to:
(a) minimize the changes made in order to protect the integrity
of the user's data. Integrity includes both existence and
attributes such as location and access permissions.
(b) unless a security incident is being investigated and
notification would jeopardize the investigation, notify the
user of the changes made, including an explanation of the reasons which
made the changes necessary.
(c) maintain enough records to be able to justify the action to
management.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 14 22:42:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:20:54 GMT
In article <1992Oct14.153735.28835@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.034619.6797@news.cs.indiana.edu> mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu writes:
>
>>The library example can be taken a little further and leave things
>>clearer. If someone looks over someone else's shoulder in a computer
>>lab and sees nude photos, how is that different from looking over
>>someone's shoulder in a University library and seeing pictures in the
>>copy of, say, Playboy which (s)he is reading?
>
> I think this is a pretty weak argument. I think a 2ftX2ft workstation
>screen is a bit ore eyecatching than the content of a person's book in
>a library.
There is an Audio-Visual lab in Frost Library at Amherst. If I need
to watch a film for a class, a videotape is placed in the A/V lab and
I can go down and watch it (with headphones) on one of the TV sets
there. If I were to watch something sexually explicit, whether or not
for class, would that constitute an offensive working environment? I
don't think it would. The difference between this and the case of the
GIF on the workstation screen is minimal (in fact, I think the film
would be more distracting).
>If I leave the playboy open so that every woman who
>walks by must invariably see it, then that would be a basis for a claim of
>harrasment.
I don't think that would be so unless you took pains to place the
magazine in such a way that it specifically confronted everyone
passing through that area, which I don't think "lying face open on a
table" qualifies as.
--
____ 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 15 09:54:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Rice U. - "System Administrator Statement of Ethics"
Message-ID: <1992Oct15.135354.17230@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:53:54 GMT
This is a critique of the Rice University System Administrator
Statement of Ethics. (Information on access to the Statement is
included with the references at the end of this article.) Strong parts
of the statement keep users informed and limit the cases when a user's
files can be modified. The statement could be improved by
distinguishing between different reasons for sys admin access to files
(e.g. maintenance, emergency, investigations of a possible rule
violations) and by detailing the authorization, notification, and
documentation requirements for each. As it stands, the policy seem
incompatible with Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
The best parts of the statement say that sys admins should inform
users about the "degree of privacy and confidentiality enjoyed by
their data" and that "[s]ys-admin should endeavor to educate users
about the ways they can increase the confidentiality of their data."
The section on modification of user data is also pretty good. It says:
>A sys-admin changing a user's file should attempt to:
> (a) minimize the changes made in order to protect the integrity
> of the user's data. Integrity includes both existence and
> attributes such as location and access permissions.
> (b) unless a security incident is being investigated and
> notification would jeopardize the investigation, notify the
> user of the changes made, including an explanation of the
> reasons which made the changes necessary.
> (c) maintain enough records to be able to justify the action to
> management.
The heart of the statement, however, is weak. It says:
>Sys-admins may disclose the contents of protected files to others
>without the user's prior permission when the sys-admin(s) believe
>that policies or laws were violated.
I believe this standard is too weak and that it violates several legal
and ethical standards. Legally, it seems to ignore the requirements of
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which applies to almost
all public and private universities in the U.S. The Act puts strict
constraints on what a university employee can disclose about a student
and to whom that information can be disclosed. In addition, the policy
might contradict the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).
(Until a court decides if the ECPA applies to universities, no one can
no for sure; however, a reasonable case can be made that it does.)
Ethically, policy allows searches and disclosure without
authorization, notification, or documentation. Contrast this with the
4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized."
The Constitution does not have legal force on a private university
such as Rice, but can serve as an ethical model. Read this way, it
says that searches for evidence of rule breaking should be based on
reasonable suspicion and should, as a check, be authorized by an
independent authority.
Another model for computer privacy policy at a university is the
university's general privacy policy. I don't know Rice's general
policy, but here is policy at my school, the University of Illinois at
Urbana:
"IV. Privacy
A. Members of the University community have the same rights of
privacy as other citizens and surrender none of those rights by
becoming members of the academic community. These rights of
privacy extend to residence hall living. Nothing in University
regulations or contracts shall give University officials authority
to consent to a search by police or other government officials of
offices assigned or living quarters leased to individuals except
in response to a properly executed search warrant or search
incident to an arrest.
B. When the University seeks access to an office assigned or
living quarters leased to an individual to determine compliance
with provisions of applicable multiple-dwelling unit laws,
ordinances, and regulations, or for improvement or repairs, the
occupant shall be notified of such action not less that
twenty-four hours in advance. There may be entry without notice
in emergencies where imminent danger to life, safety, health, or
property is reasonably feared and for custodial service.
C. The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office
assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in
response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident
to an arrest."
I believe that "[p]ersonal files on university's computers (for
example, files in a user's home directory) should have the same
privacy protection as personal files in university-assigned space in
an office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate
student's desk). [And that p]rivate communications via computer should
have the same protections as private communications via telephone."
At the very least, this should mean authorization before nonemergency
searches and strict limits on disclosure.
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.)
=================
policies/rice.edu
=================
* Edu -- Rice U.
Computer policies for Rice University, especially Owlnet. (Rice is a
private University in Houston, Texas.) Interesting features include a
Sys Admin Statement of Ethics and student committee that advises on
policy and handles some of the discipline.
=================
policies/README
=================
* Computer policies from many schools (with critiques)
Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.
If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
gopher -p academic/policies 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/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom/policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
books/van_tol,_joan_e.records
=================
College and university student records : a legal compendium /
edited by Joan E. Van Tol. Washington, D.C. : National Association of
College and University Attorneys, c1989.
iii, 257 p. ; 28 x 22 cm.
1. Universities and colleges--Law and legislation--United States.
2. Personnel records in education--Law and legislation--United
States. I. Van Tol, Joan E. II. National Association of College and
University Attorneys (U.S.)
ocm20-290250
Review: Everything that is known about student records and the law,
especially the Family Educational Rights and Privcy Act (FERPA,
Buckley Amendment). The only stuff that it is missing is stuff that
hasn't been decided yet.
Score: 10 of 10
Excerpts cover provisions on directory information.
=================
law/ecpa.1986.godwin
=================
* Privacy -- E-mail -- ECPA - University Site
Mike Godwin, legal staff for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
says that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) could be
reasonably construed to protect university email.
=================
law/ecpa.1986
=================
* Privacy -- E-mail -- ECPA -- Excerpts
* ECPA -- 1986
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
law/constitution.us
=================
* Constitution -- U.S. -- Full Text
The Constitution of the United States
=================
academic/student.code.uiuc
=================
* U. of Illinois at U-C -- Student Code -- Excerpts
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
statements/caf-statement
=================
* Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).
=================
statements/caf-statement.critique
=================
* Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft -- Critique
yes
This is a critique of an attempt to codify the application of academic
freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line
discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free
expression, due process, privacy, and user participation.
Additional comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when
posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available
on-line.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also 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/rice.edu
pub/academic/policies/README
pub/academic/books/van_tol,_joan_e.records
pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986.godwin
pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986
pub/academic/law/constitution.us
pub/academic/academic/student.code.uiuc
pub/academic/statements/caf-statement
pub/academic/statements/caf-statement.critique
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/policies rice.edu
send acad-freedom/policies README
send acad-freedom/books van_tol,_joan_e.records
send acad-freedom/law ecpa.1986.godwin
send acad-freedom/law ecpa.1986
send acad-freedom/law constitution.us
send acad-freedom/academic student.code.uiuc
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement.critique
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 15 10:31:45 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Discriminatory thoughts (Re: HELP - was: IBM password)
Message-ID: <1992Oct15.142915.293@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:29:15 GMT
[A repost from comp.security.misc. The original poster asked for help
about an IBM PC on which a person, described by hin as 'a student',
installed a protection program that locked legitimate users out. I
think the implications on attitude towards students are better
discussed here. The relevant portion of the article starts one page
down. - Olaf]
In <1992Oct14.194137.26262@news.ysu.edu> doug@cc.ysu.edu writes:
>...
> If you boot from a floppy disk, the machine hangs. If you boot from the
> hard-drive, the screen clears and the word 'Password:' is displayed.
>
> We suspect it's some form of commercial or shareware password protection
> that imbeds itself in the partition table or some other place where it
> will be activated during power-on self test.
>
> Do you have any suggestions (besides removing the hard drives - which
> we're considering ?) How do we get rid of it ?
Try to remove the hard disk *logically*: go SETUP and mark the hard
disk as 'not installed' or the like. This will (should) prevent the
possibly tampered master boot record from being read. (Still, you can
try it with the disk taken out physically, this will guarantee that
the boot record gets not read ;-)
If booting from a clean floppy (write-protected vanilla distribution
DOS disk, preferrably) still doesnt't work, you have probably either
an undocumented BIOS password feature (take the battery out for at
least two hours and try again...) or the person responsible (please
read below) has inserted other (perhaps selfmade) BIOS ROMS. (If you
have physical access to a machine, you just can do ANYTHING.)
Or the hardware is broken (have you taken this into consideration?)
> BTW, it's quite possible that the student responsible is reading this
> forum.
Well, may he, and may he get informed from this that it is impossible
to get full security, and this holds for the intruder too.
Now: I'm trying hard not to flame, but this just makes me angry. I
think it WRONG WRONG WRONG to blame every intrusion/security
risk/breach to students in the first place. This attitude towards
students is responsible for a rather un-academic climate in many, if
not most academic installations. From your posting I see no evidence
that you have a PROOF that the person responsible is a student, unless
you have caught him already (and in this case you should know how to
deal with the broken machine too). Then you should not publicly put
the blame upon 'a student'. From the information you give, one can
conclude that the culprit is *a person with physical access to the
machine*, nothing more. (Depending on the details of your
installation, maybe not even that). In fact, it could have been
anybody. It could as well have been one of your staff people.
PLEASE stop this form of discriminatory thinking against students once
and for all. Students are NOT a security risk in the first place. This
attitude leads to an active discrimination where students are denied
all rights and privileges, if logically sound or not, for 'security
reasons'. Such actions (as locking them out) are taken when an
incident happens against ALL students, then the ONE person responsible
is caught, and the previous rights and privileges of the innocent
others are NOT restored. This is the action usually taken on such an
incident, and probably on NO ground of evidence that the culprit is
indeed a student.
There is NO REASON why you use the words 'a student' in place of 'a
person', thus judge a whole group of people before trial (against one
not necessarily of them). ABANDON this biased attitude and you will
probably improve the general climate much.
(If, in your case, you know that it was a student, then you should
explain the reason. From your posting I simply cannot see it. Sorry if
you feel offended by this posting, but since we have similar problems
here, I just thought I had to say that.)
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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 15 16:25:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct15.190008.3144@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:00:08 GMT
In article twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.153735.28835@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>>
>> I think this is a pretty weak argument. I think a 2ftX2ft workstation
>>screen is a bit ore eyecatching than the content of a person's book in
>>a library.
>
>There is an Audio-Visual lab in Frost Library at Amherst. If I need
>to watch a film for a class, a videotape is placed in the A/V lab and
>I can go down and watch it (with headphones) on one of the TV sets
>there. If I were to watch something sexually explicit, whether or not
>for class, would that constitute an offensive working environment? I
>don't think it would. The difference between this and the case of the
>GIF on the workstation screen is minimal (in fact, I think the film
>would be more distracting).
>
A very interesting example. I agree that it is very similar. I guess
that it _could_ be creating a hostile environment, but would require some
assesment of your motives.
I think harrasment must be something "excessive" or "unnecessary". If
I kept Playboy on my desk in my lab, that could be harrasment. But not if
I was a socialogist studying pornography. You have a resposability to not
so badly offend that you make it impossible for others to work or learn.
>>If I leave the playboy open so that every woman who
>>walks by must invariably see it, then that would be a basis for a claim of
>>harrasment.
>
>I don't think that would be so unless you took pains to place the
>magazine in such a way that it specifically confronted everyone
>passing through that area, which I don't think "lying face open on a
>table" qualifies as.
>
What you say here is pretty much what I meant by "must invariably see it".
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 15 18:12:56 1992
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
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: <7283@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:40:03 GMT
In article <1992Oct14.200218.13330@dcatlas.dot.gov>, joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
> The Constitution, like any other use of language, is subject to interpretation.
> There are limits, however, on the "range" over which this interpretation
> may be _reasonably_ made. For example, changes in technology have made
> certain ideas obsolete, or significantly enhanced others. Back when news
> traveled at the speed of a steamship or railroad locomotive, it was not
> unreasonable to involve groups of people (e.g. Congress) in certain types
> of decisions that are in today's faster world better left to _one_ man
> (i.e. the President). Military and diplomatic decisions come to mind.
The Constitution was made amendable so that such changes which are REALLY
the result of general agreement among the citizenry COULD be made in a
proper fashion. Instead, the government simply reconfigures itself
without the advice or consent of the governed and dares anybody to do
something about it.
Besides, your rationale is somewhat contrary. The most egregious example
of a congressional power that has been subsumed by the president is the
power to declare war (by committing troops but "not actually declaring"
war). Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that it is NEVER a great idea
to leave such a power in the hands of one person, it is precisely in a
society with POOR communications that this idea is most attractive, since
there is no guarantee you will obtain a timely convocation of a large
deliberative body.
--
cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From caf-talk Caf Oct 15 20:47:25 1992
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.college,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk
From: Jyrki Kuoppala
Subject: CFV: comp.society.acad-freedom.{news,talk}
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:52:33 GMT
Message-ID:
This is a CALL FOR VOTES for the creation of two new newsgroups for
discussions and news on academic freedom on computers and networks.
The RFD was first posted on 1 Sep 1992. The last day to vote is 10
Nov 1992.
The groups currently exist as alt groups. The alt versions of the
newsgroups have estimated July readership of 29000 and 9000. (The
readership can be expected to increase as the Fall term starts in many
places.) About 390 folks get various versions of the mailling list.
Charters:
Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles
of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,
due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and
networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the
principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be
defended?
comp.society.acad-freedom.news News concerning academic freedom, moderated
CAF-News - The best notes from CAF-Talk as selected and abstracted by
a moderator. (Moderator to be Carl Kadie, kadie@eff.org.)
comp.society.acad-freedom.talk Discussions on academic freedom
CAF-Talk - A free-speech forum focused on, but not limited to, these
issues.
In order to vote for or against the newsgroups, you must send a mail
message to the address acad-freedom-vote@niksula.hut.fi. Replies to
this announcement are directed to that address.
Example vote lines to be put in the body of the message are:
YES for comp.society.acad-freedom.talk
NO for comp.society.acad-freedom.talk
YES for comp.society.acad-freedom.news
NO for comp.society.acad-freedom.news
Posted votes will not be counted. You may vote on just one of the
groups or both.
Votes will be acknowledged in the newsgroups this CFV is posted to.
Please see the pertinent postings in news.answers and
news.announce.newgroups for the rules that will be followed in
creating a newsgroup.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Oct 15 22:50:10 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: <1992Oct16.024446.24116@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 02:44:46 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 15 22:50:10 1992
From: thornley@pico.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct15.231105.28424@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:11:05 GMT
In article <1992Oct9.185121.12205@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
>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."
>
This is similar to the case where all you have is vt100s, so that you
can't create offensive images (at least, not without creativity and
effort, I'm sure I know people who could). In this case, all images
not used for actual research and education are banned, which includes
images both innocuous and offensive.
Do you have any plans for when this doesn't work? Right now, I have
four large and four small windows on my Sun, most of which are devoted
to my academic work (all but the one I'm running news in, in fact).
As a backdrop, I have an image that some might find faintly subversive.
There's no obvious reason why I couldn't have one that some would find
sexually offensive. This problem could affect any workstation permitting
backdrops, no matter how strict the rules on usage are.
The response in this Computer Science department to the display of nudes
was to inform people that display of these images in public labs etc.
could be considered a form of sexual harassment, which is against both
state law and the student conduct code. I think this is reasonable:
ban the action, not the potentiality, and let the users be responsible
(morally and legally) for their own actions.
DHT
T
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 16 00:16:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID: <1992Oct16.033130.20389@news.uiowa.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:31:30 GMT
>>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 a completely ineffective rule for controlling the display of
nudes. As an example, I happen to have used a large corpus of images
collected from usenet as test data for some image data compression
algorithms I was working on. These algorithms have been published
in CACM and in the IEEE Data Compression Conference -- this isn't
just silly research. Among the images were quite a few that were
likely subjects of censorship, yet the above policy would not have
regulated my display of such material because I had a legitimate
use for it.
In a similar vein, it is worth noting that one of the most published
and republished images in the academic literature of image processing
and data compression is actually cropped from a Playboy centerfold.
Network correspondants from Sweden have identified the subject of the
image as Lena S|derberg, born Sj||blom (| = o with two dots over it);
a correspondant who seems to have memorized all Playboy centerfolds
has identified the image as part of the November 1972 centerfold.
Academic users of this image should cite it in proper scholarly form!
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 16 14:21:07 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: <1992Oct15.085605.28696@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:56:05 GMT
In article tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>
>>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 rather suspect the vast majority believes words in general and
>(to Americans) those of the Constitution in particular have
>one true, absolute meaning and very the notion of interpretation
>never enters their minds.
Come on--words and the constitution have "one true, absolute meaning??!!"
Almost *every* word has multiple uses and definitions--check a dictionary.
And that's not even to mention those words which are inherently vague and
subjective, like "reasonable," "cruel," "unusual." (All of which have
already been mentioned in this thread.)
--
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 16 21:24:49 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:08:06 GMT
In article <1992Oct15.085605.28696@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>>I rather suspect the vast majority believes words in general and
>>(to Americans) those of the Constitution in particular have
>>one true, absolute meaning and very the notion of interpretation
>>never enters their minds.
>Come on--words and the constitution have "one true, absolute meaning??!!"
>Almost *every* word has multiple uses and definitions--check a dictionary.
>And that's not even to mention those words which are inherently vague and
>subjective, like "reasonable," "cruel," "unusual." (All of which have
>already been mentioned in this thread.)
I agree with you.
I was just trying to be a bit sarcastic about the notion that
"the vast majority" would be at all concerned with this kind of
academic discussion.
(And surprisingly many people actually _do_ believe words have
absolute meanings. Talk to a randroid or a fundamentalist one day.)
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tt@math.jyu.fi, tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:06:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: dfqfrby@shoes.BELL-ATL.COM (Connor)
Subject: Re: Display of nudes
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 18:21:52 GMT
The side of the question that is not being examined in all this is society's
sickness in deeming nudity, eroticism, sex, deviance etc. as evil or
offensive. If this were not the case all of these things would lose
their novelty. People would avoid things themselves just as they avoid
walking in the dog shit on the side walk. There is a law against not
curbing your dog but only fanatics will call a cop.
And I for one would rather have pictures of children sucking on
elephant penises on a computer screen whic I dont have to look at.
Rather than step in dog shit. However the person who arranged
the photo should be put in some kind of psychiatric clinic along with
the children.( or maybe not... but I dont want to know them)
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:12:30 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: <1992Oct17.191050.1273@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 19:10:50 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:12:30 1992
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct16.153729.11687@mtek.com>
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:37:29 GMT
[ This came to me as email from Dave Hayes ,
and since he invites me to reply in the forum of my choice, I'll
post his original message ahead of my reply. ]
------------------ cut ------------------------- cut --------------------
In comp.admin.policy you write:
>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.
I guess literacy with the written word does not imply sensitivity
to the concerns of other humans, does it? Sometimes these "snot-nosed
teens" have very interesting and enlightening things to say. (Do I
detect a chip...?)
It is precisely this worldview that compells me to side with Carl
and those fighting for academic freedom. Tactics do not make
any impression upon me (as I said in the post that you'll probably
miss) other than the strategic mindset of the tactician.
As a sys admin of 10+ years, I have become increasingly aware that
there is a marked correlation betwen the amount of experience of a
sys admin and the tolerance and understanding with respect to policy
that is presented. Usually the elder sys admins are much more patient
and thus have a lot more control over their network as a result.
>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.
That's exactly why I mailed this to you. Feel free to respond in any forum
you deem appropriate.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors and miss
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:12:33 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: <1992Oct17.191214.27419@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 19:12:14 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:12:33 1992
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct16.155454.11788@mtek.com>
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:54:54 GMT
[Sorry it took so long to get to this, but other matters have had to
come before, and the queue is still growing. "No rest for the wicked",
I heard someone say....... :-) I had promised Carl a response, and
while this doesn't provide a comprehensive reply, it will have to do
for now. ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting me here and hereafter:
>>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.
....Dave Hayes responded by email:
>I guess literacy with the written word does not imply sensitivity
>to the concerns of other humans, does it? Sometimes these "snot-nosed
>teens" have very interesting and enlightening things to say. (Do I
It implies nothing either way -- assuming I might be found guilty of
"literacy". Which I seriously doubt. :-)
If you find the aformentioned teens interesting and enlightening, then
I have no basis for invalidating your experience. Nor do you mine. The
question is whether what they have to say is informed, thus relevant.
Relevance may be a meaningless criterion among persons who assume that
because both Nobel laureates and fresh high-school graduates wander the
same corridors of travel at a university, that the opinions of both on
any randomly-selected subject should therefore be regarded with equal
gravity simply because both are generic "academics". I know of no one
in the academic profession who actually *believes* this, or would ever
accede to the notion that the faculty lounge should thus be opened to
everyone who happens by so that debate could be broadened and made more
"interesting". Offering up such a suggestion in the real world of modern
academia should leave one with little expectation of witnessing the next
sunrise.
>detect a chip...?)
Possibly -- if one of your shoulders feels heavier than the other,
then that's a sure sign.
>It is precisely this worldview that compells me to side with Carl
One might define "thinking" as a process by which a person learns
to limit his compulsions by the application of reason, rather than
the other way 'round. This isn't universally agreed upon, of course.
But I do seriously doubt you are in any way armed to comment on my
"world view", unless you mean by this your own preconceived (but
carefully undefined) notions of what that may be. If you are unable
to summon an indictment more compelling than a vague and accusatory
innuendo, then expect marginal response, since more would require of
me some fairly advanced mind-reading, which I have no confidence in
having mastered. Unlike yourself.
>and those fighting for academic freedom. Tactics do not make
>any impression upon me (as I said in the post that you'll probably
>miss) other than the strategic mindset of the tactician.
I hope this doesn't mean that you believe any tactic is allowable
in furthering what you believe to be a good cause. If so, then what
they -- and you -- are fighting for may bear closer scrutiny.
>As a sys admin of 10+ years, I have become increasingly aware that
>there is a marked correlation between the amount of experience of a
>sys admin and the tolerance and understanding with respect to policy
>that is presented. Usually the elder sys admins are much more patient
>and thus have a lot more control over their network as a result.
My wife is just fine, and she sends her regards, also.
Does it not strike you as rather odd to find yourself lecturing others
about "tolerance and understanding" while defending a list which has
been roundly criticized precisely because of its *notable* absence of
either of these qualities?
The subject at hand is whether -- specifically -- it was appropriate
for Carl to publish his "BANNED" list or not, and why or why not. The
question is whether that *tactic* matters, regardless of the strategy.
It has nothing whatever to do with any other act of Carl's, nor does
it address whether every other act which he has undertaken in the cause
of academic freedom may not have been as pure as the driven snow.
But it most *rightly* brings into question the propriety of one specific
act performed on one specific occasion. And compounded thereafter.
As to "policy that is presented", the policies of our site have been
publically available for comment for over two years. My own peculiar
notions of how policy should be formulated -- and enforced -- have
been variously published during that time, and have thus *hardly*
been shielded from public view. If you or others have not previously
chosen to criticize these, it does not owe to a lack of generous
opportunity. And some (or much) criticism may well be due them. But
my actual views and practices have been made public in sufficient
detail to bar any requirement for idle speculation.
Those views are, indeed, largely antithetical to *any* universal,
canned policy expression which presumes to the claim that "one
size fits all". Just as I see no evidence that one political party
"fits all", or one religion "fits all", or one profession "fits
all", or one suit of clothes "fits all". To believe any of these,
one must be either a fool or a fascist. (The former is arguably
even more dangerous than the latter.)
Differing institutions are *required* to ensure that locally ded-
icated (and funded) assets be assigned to support the particular
mission for which they were intended. It is folly to expect that
every institution (or every member of a given class of institution)
will invariably define for itself the same identical mission, or
that each must cleave to only one particular schema for effecting
policies that will assure the mission is not significantly under-
mined by abuse. And some classes of assets at some of these insti-
tutions may exist solely *because* they are dedicated to some
unique mission which implicitly limits how they may be used.
Granting such assumptions, assessment by an administration about
the provisions of particular policies must *begin* with how that
institution views its own purposes and traditions, while regarding
the standards of the larger society in which it must continue to
function in order to effectively sustain that mission. That some
significant variances may occur among categorically similar insti-
tutions (or among the greater societies of which each is a part)
provides no conclusive evidence of disloyalty to a set of idealized
abstractions that a self-nominated clique has reduced to its own
preferred list of dos and don'ts.
(In other words, policy is driven by mission. Not vice versa.)
In the case of universities, such variation may only evidence that
the entire academic world has not yet copped to the implicit assump-
tion that they should view themselves as just an endless series of
cookie-cutter extension campuses of the University of Illinois (or
wherever) and its particular assumptions about defined mission.
It is reasonable also to question how, in an academic society that
swells up with such great pride about its dedication to "diversity"
that some of its citizens might excite themselves into a damp lather
when decisions depending *from* the diverse perspectives of different
administrations *might* (and inevitably shall) differ in *some* cases,
even though there may be a general meeting of all honest minds about
the supreme importance of preserving some vital (but again abstract)
principles.
It is even more curious when some persons may expect an unassailable
defense exists for *any* tactic which might be taken under the color
of authority of "academic freedom" -- an authority not granted, but
assumed. Much as one might assume the uniform of a police officer in
a false belief that this automatically conveys the authority of the
entire community to go forth and harry persons who don't agree with
his own personal version of how "the law" reads -- or, worse, what
he thinks "morally" it *should* provide, even though it arguably may
do no such thing. (Imagine the indignant outrage that would gush
forth from every academic nook and cranny across the U.S. were such
a one allowed to roam the streets unchecked!)
Whatever happened to the notion that "honest persons can disagree"?
Has the *academic* "mindset" so overreached itself as to now assert
that the *only* honest and admissible decisions are those made by
people who obey the academic.freedom.police? And that any who do not
thus conform should properly expect to find themselves pilloried on
a wanted poster published under that same threadbare cloak of doubt-
ful authority?
Would such intolerance of *actual* dissent not make absurd any "moral"
claim upon the abstract notion of preserving the *right* to dissent?
It causes one to wonder if the sham may not be more valued than the
genuine article.
Dissent, when expressed with intellectual freedom and autonomy, will
*never* produce absolute uniformity either of interpretation or resulting
decisions. What characterizes a functioning democracy is willingness
to compromise in the face of inevitable conflict. What characterizes
a tyranny is the absence of any such impulse.
So how does this square with your professed attendance to "tolerance
and understanding with respect to policy"? And how is it *evidenced*
by your truly Jesuit defense of such an inquisitorial device as
Carl's odious list?
--
________________________________________________________________
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 17 15:23:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Mankato State University's policy on Academic Computer Usage
Message-ID: <1992Oct17.191540.26754@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 19:15:40 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:23:21 1992
Subject: Mankato State University's policy on Academic Computer Usage
Message-ID:
From: n13@krypton.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (Leonard J. Schmidt)
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:10:25
The following is Mankato State University's official policy on
academic computer usage. This policy appears, as worded, posted on
the walls and doors of our Academic Computer Center. Please note that
Mankato State U. is located in Minnesota, thus the reference to
Minnesota State Statutes.
I would like to ask the net to critique this policy. Feel
free to post your remarks on this newsgroup, or even e-mail them to me
if you feel so inclined. Thanks in advance.
Leonard Schmidt
n13@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
----cut here---
POLICY ON ACADEMIC COMPUTER USAGE
APPROPRIATE USE OF COMPUTING FACILITIES
The faculty/staff of the University reserves the right to examine files
and accounting system information generated through student use of the
University computing facilities.
Academic computing resources on the Mankato State University Campus
are for use in the instructional, research, and outreach activities of
the University only.
USERID'S are defined as those identification characters which allow
students, staff, faculty and other designated individuals access to the
systems available through the facilities of Mankato State University
and those systems for which it has responsibility. Some examples of
USERID'S are, but are not limited to, the following:
userid on Sperry
username on all VAXes and networked VAXes for which
Mankato State University has authority to issues userids
userids' assigned for specific classes, courses, and/or projects
Student users are authorized to use the resources only under their own
userids, and only for those purposes authorized by their instructor or
projects under which they have authorized access. Instructors have the
right to review the class activity of any user in that class.
Minnesota State Statutes 609.88 and 609.89, state that, unauthorized
access to or unauthorized use of computing resources is a criminal
offense. Unauthorized possession of or tampering with computer data
can be a felony. Computer Services maintains a high degree of
vigilance over the use of computing resources and will aggressively
seek recourse (legal and/or otherwise) in cases of fraudulent or
unauthorized use of resources.
The users should protect themselves against unauthorized use of
resources under their userids for which they are accountable. Do not
allow others to use your userid, file space, or other resources. CHANGE
YOUR PASSWORD whenever you feel it may have become known to someone
else. Report promptly to Computer Services and your instructor if you
suspect that someone has been making unauthorized use of resources.
MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS
The following are some examples of actions which may be considered as
violations of this policy:
Browsing and reading the files of another user
Deleting the files of another user.
Changing or otherwise manipulating the files of another user.
Using another's userid to accomplish the above.
Using userids to play games or send messages to another.
Using either the Sperry or the VAXes system to solicit business.
Using either the Sperry or the VAXes to harass other students.
This is not a comprehensive list of all the possible violations nor is
it to be construed as such.
---cut here---
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:23:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Mankato State University's policy on Academic Computer Usage
Message-ID: <1992Oct17.191625.20238@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 19:16:25 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:23:22 1992
From: zoo@cygnus.com (david d 'zoo' zuhn)
Subject: Re: Mankato State University's policy on Academic Computer Usage
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:31:05 GMT
Message-ID:
[ The Mankato State policy, for full text, see referenced article. ]
The following are some examples of actions which may be considered as
violations of this policy:
Using userids to play games or send messages to another.
What? I can't send mail? Or use talk(1)? This is so vague as to be
unenforceable, I'd imagine.
david d 'zoo' zuhn | The problem with politics is that it puts you in
cygnus support | contact with the sort of people that you'd really
zoo@cygnus.com | rather try to avoid.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:23:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Mankato State University's policy on Academic Computer Usage
Message-ID: <1992Oct17.191641.276@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 19:16:41 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:23:23 1992
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Mankato State University's policy on Academic Computer Usage
Message-ID: <1992Oct17.160842.21981@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 16:08:42 GMT
In article n13@krypton.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (Leonard J. Schmidt) writes:
>
> The following is Mankato State University's official policy on
>academic computer usage. This policy appears, as worded, posted on
>
>
[...]
>Academic computing resources on the Mankato State University Campus
>are for use in the instructional, research, and outreach activities of
>the University only.
>
[...]
>
>Student users are authorized to use the resources only under their own
>userids, and only for those purposes authorized by their instructor or
>projects under which they have authorized access. Instructors have the
>right to review the class activity of any user in that class.
>
These statments lead me to believe that your philosophy behind the
policy is that students are only allowed to use the computers for
_specific_ class projects. In other words, an instructor will say "write
a program that does _____", and the class will use the machines to compose
and debug thier assignments, and for no other purpose.
Students may not send e-mail, read news, write programs other than
those assigned, experiment with the OS or languages, use word proccessors
except as required for the assignments.
If my interpretation is correct, then the policy is fine. If the policy
you want is not a rigid as what I have described, then you are in trouble.
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.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 17 15:49:36 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: <1992Oct17.194855.14275@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 19:48:55 GMT
Mr. Hovell suggests in his most recent article that by posting a list of
banned and challenged material, I
* am "harring" people,
* am not allowing that "honest persons can disagree",
* have become the academic freedom police,
* am pilloring people without authority,
* am supressing dessent and autonomy,
* am unwilling to compromise,
* am tyranical,
* am intolerant, and
* am inquistorional.
In earlier articles he compared my list to
* Krystalnacht
* blacklists
Maybe I'll also thick headed, because I don't understand how my
peaceful, verbal criticism makes me any of these things.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 01:28:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mrichardson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject:
Message-ID: <1992Oct17.222149.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 92 22:21:49 PDT
Talking about "cruel and unusual"......
Samuel Livermore opposed this clause in the 8th Amendment because he
found that sometimes it was necessary to cut off criminals ears and some
people might think this cruel. He was assured that nobody would be so
ridiculous as to find this cruel or unusual.
[According to Frank Donovan, _Mr. Madison's Constitution_, page 119]
Any comments on the implications of the "and" in the clause?
mrichardson@pomona.claremont.edu
"Wouldn't it be nice if we could write the way we think."
Justice Stanley Reed
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 10:42:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.gutenberg] (none)
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.144222.3497@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 14:42:22 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 10:42:29 1992
From: gbnewby@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Gregory B. Newby)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <199210181137.AA02841@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 11:36:34 GMT
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
From ISTPHD@SUVM.BITNET Fri Oct 16 22:43:21 1992
Received: from ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu by alexia.lis.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA08910
(5.61 for gbnewby); Fri, 16 Oct 92 22:43:21 -0500
Message-Id: <9210170343.AA08910@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
Received: from ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu by UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 9282; Fri, 16 Oct 92 23:44:03 EDT
Received: from UBVM.BITNET by ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) with
BSMTP id 9715; Fri, 16 Oct 92 23:44:02 EDT
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:16:03 EDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
Sender: "IST PhD Candidates"
Comments: Resent-From: Joe Ryan
Comments: Originally-From: Bernie Sloan
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was PACS-L@UHUPVM1
From: Joe Ryan
Subject: Presidents and Info Tech.
X-To: ISTFAC@SUVM.BITNET, ISTPHD@SUVM.BITNET
To: Multiple recipients of list ISTPHD
Status: RO
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Just wanted to pass along a bit of information to the academic library
administrators and college and university information technology managers
on the list. Thought you might be interested in the following.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Higher Education
Information Resources Alliance (a coaltion of ARL, CAUSE and EDUCOM)
is sending out a mailing to nearly 4,000 college and university presi-
dents, encouraging them to take a leadership role "in developing strate-
gies for using technology to improve administration and teaching".
The Chronicle notes that the mailing includes a "checklist of 11 things
presidents should do to make sure that their campuses are prepared for
the future". My summary/paraphrase of the 11 points follows:
1. Set up an effective campus network.
2. Coordinate information resources at a fairly high administrative
level. This is to help coordinate the activities of campus de-
partments and agencies that have traditionally been fairly
independent of one another (e.g., library and computer center?).
3. Help library administrators work towards developing ACCESS to
information resources, in addition to the more traditional
acquisitions-based library activities.
4. Involve faculty and staff who will be impacted by information
technologies.
5. Encourage people to use "information-rich databases and new modes
of interaction in the teaching/learning process". Sort of reminds
me of the Earlham College DIALOG experiment.
6. Provide seed money to help get innovative projects off the ground.
7. Encourage the use of computer conferencing to enhance discussion
on campus.
8. Consider information technology resources to be a "vital capital
asset", an infrastructure that needs maintained and upgraded
in the same way as any other physical asset.
9. Make sure that any investments in technology are accompanied by
cost-benefit analyses and mechanisms for assessing the projects.
10. In today's fiscal picture, you can't fund new programs or strategies
without taking a hard look at old programs and strategies. Limited
or fixed resources will require reallocation of funds and shifting
of priorities before new programs can be undertaken.
11. "Move aggressively toward paperless administration". The report
estimates that publishing and printing activities can use 15% to
20% of campus operating budgets.
It might be a good idea to read the overview in the Chronicle (October
14, p. A19-A20) in the event that your administration takes the report
to heart.
Bernie Sloan
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 10:52:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.145027.12289@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 14:50:27 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 10:52:37 1992
From: alee@ellis.uchicago.edu (Steele Alloy)
Subject: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct17.191914.25611@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 19:19:14 GMT
I hear posts on here describing whether this should be allowed or that.
Look, does viewing nudes on a computer pose any security problems for the
system? No! It doesn't! The system admins sole purpose should be to make the
system more efficient for the users, and cure any security problems.
If admins go beyond the line where they're not supposed to go, (like suggesting
not viewing nudes on a computer), then the system has become facist. It no
longer serves the people, rather only the admins.
I'd like to hear more discussions on security risks, and practicallity, rather
than inane discussions on what is freedom of speech. (Everyone DOES have a
right to view whatever they want to on a computer).
- me
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 10:52:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.145147.17325@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 14:51:47 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 10:52:38 1992
From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <71625@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 92 04:03:40 GMT
In <1992Oct17.191914.25611@midway.uchicago.edu> alee@ellis.uchicago.edu (Steele Alloy) writes:
>I hear posts on here describing whether this should be allowed or that.
>Look, does viewing nudes on a computer pose any security problems for the
>system? No! It doesn't! The system admins sole purpose should be to make the
>system more efficient for the users, and cure any security problems.
Gee my managers think my job is to do WHAT THEY TELL ME TO DO!
Hopefully this involves making users happy, but it absolutely must
involve making my boss happy. At one point, I was told in no uncertain
terms that I was spending too much time trying to track a cracker and
that I was to drop it. Security is generally considered something you
should be doing in your "spare" time, unlike the other 50 hours of the
week where you are doing important work like helping the secretary
set up mailing label macros on her Mac.
>If admins go beyond the line where they're not supposed to go, (like suggesting
>not viewing nudes on a computer), then the system has become facist. It no
>longer serves the people, rather only the admins.
Then users will go elsewhere if the system no longer serves their needs no?
There is no grand USENET cartel, and sys admins generally don't give
a shit what you do. Users sometimes think it must be god-like to have
root and be able to troll people's files at will. What having root
really means is that like a doctor, they want me on call to immediately
fix things anytime. However, unlike a doctor, I don't get a Porsche.
A doctor also gets grateful patients, all sys admins ever see is
cranky users that seem to be wired into permanent instant-gratification
"what have you done for me today?" mode.
But I digress.
>I'd like to hear more discussions on security risks, and practicallity, rather
>than inane discussions on what is freedom of speech. (Everyone DOES have a
>right to view whatever they want to on a computer).
Umm the general concern anyone has is CYA (Cover-Your-Ass) concerns.
If some secretary sees you viewing some bestiality GIF and then
decides to file suit against the system providers for making it
possible to view that GIF, then the first one to feel the axe swinging
will be the system admin who made all these very liberal decisions
on newsgroup policy. Most workplaces have very strict policies
about what sort of wall-posters are "appropriate" as well.
I for one don't relish the idea of sitting in court for weeks on end.
I for one do not consider discussion of freedom of speech to be
*INANE*! Sure I can get away with viewing or doing anything I want
in my own environs, with my own money. But when I'm using equipment
that's not my own, or at my place of work, suddenly rules start
popping up. In my own house, I can walk around naked. If I do this
at work, it would surely raise a few eyebrows at the very least.
The basic problem that tears at most admins is we want to make all these
decisions ourselves and have very liberal policies. I personally would
like to have $20,000 allocated to buy a dedicated news machine that
would carry all the newsgroups. Unfortunately at some point lawyers and
managers and accountants poke their noses in if you request things
like that and deep-six the whole idea. So most of them shoe-string
news onto existing machinery, with less disk space than needed to
carry even half the flow. And avoid telling the guys higher up the whole
truth, or lie to them. This isn't particularly good, as someday you get
called on it. The more conscientious admin's are the ones who try to balance
what is allowable with what their bosses and users want.
Hmmm. I'm not sure I'm expressing this very well. Safe to say though that
admins were once users and haven't forgotten that. But from down here
in the sewer-works, the view is different.
--
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 15:30:21 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.193048.19574@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 19:30:48 GMT
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
[...]
> Under you policy, how would you handle this:
>
> Two secretaries share a PC. One has set up a screen saver that clears
>the screen to a pornographic image after ten minutes. The other secretary
>comes to you and tells you that they are very offended. What do you do?
[...]
>A typical harrassment policy will tell me to seek an informal
>solution (ask the first person to stop), and then to direct the
>second person to the appropriate authority to file a more formal
>complaint.
[...]
Under the U. of Illinois policy, which I think is typical, you do not
have the responsibility or authority to seek an informal solution.
This responsibility and authority belongs to secretary's supervisor
and one of several designated university officers.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
academic/harassment-grievences.uiuc
=================
* U. of Illinois at U-C -- Sexual Harassment Greivence Procedure
The procedure for enforcing the sexual harassment policy at the U. of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The gist of the policy is that the
policy is complaint driven and enforced by supervisors or one of
several designated university officials.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also 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/harassment-grievences.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 harassment-grievences.uiuc
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 16:13:23 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: <1992Oct18.201306.19210@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 20:13:06 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 16:13:23 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.162953.9367@mtek.com>
Date: 18 Oct 92 16:29:53 GMT
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
>[...]
>>It is even more curious when some persons may expect an unassailable
>>defense exists for *any* tactic which might be taken under the color
>>of authority of "academic freedom" -- an authority not granted, but
>>assumed.
>[...]
>Depending on your philosophy of law, many freedoms and rights are
>assumed rather than granted.
Yes, an assumption which arises solely under notions of Natural Law,
so recently cast as darkly threatening by some majority members of the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
Stick to the point: should *any* specific tactic claiming to advance
such freedoms and rights thus be implicitly immunized from criticism?
--
________________________________________________________________
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 18 16:24:38 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: <1992Oct18.201926.587@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 20:19:26 GMT
bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:
[...]
>should *any* specific tactic claiming to advance
>such freedoms and rights thus be implicitly immunized from criticism?
[...]
In my opinion:
No tactic is above criticism. No person is above criticism. No
academic institution is above criticism.
I don't believe I've every said otherwise.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 17:21:33 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.195119.19868@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 19:51:19 GMT
In article <1992Oct18.193048.19574@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>[...]
>> Under you policy, how would you handle this:
>>
>> Two secretaries share a PC. One has set up a screen saver that clears
>>the screen to a pornographic image after ten minutes. The other secretary
>>comes to you and tells you that they are very offended. What do you do?
>[...]
>>A typical harrassment policy will tell me to seek an informal
>>solution (ask the first person to stop), and then to direct the
>>second person to the appropriate authority to file a more formal
>>complaint.
>[...]
>
>Under the U. of Illinois policy, which I think is typical, you do not
>have the responsibility or authority to seek an informal solution.
>This responsibility and authority belongs to secretary's supervisor
>and one of several designated university officers.
>
Fine. Except that computers are often in a grey area of responsability.
The secretaries may work for another person, but use machines that I am
responsable for. So to some degree, I am thier supervisor. For example, if
users come to the sysadmin rather than thier boss with suggestions or
complaints about computer issues (such as "I want to install this software",
or "X leaves himself logged in all the time"), then the sysadmin is a
supervisor.
Realistically, if a user comes to you with a complaint, and you do nothing
(even to redirect them) then you aren't doing your job regardless of what it
is.
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 18 17:32:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.212811.14659@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 21:28:11 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 17:32:36 1992
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 20:31:19 GMT
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
} Under you policy, how would you handle this:
}
} Two secretaries share a PC. One has set up a screen saver that clears
}the screen to a pornographic image after ten minutes. The other secretary
}comes to you and tells you that they are very offended. What do you do?
} According to what you have written, you do nothing since it is not a
}security problem, nor does it stop the secretaries from doing thier work.
}Obviously a real policy must be able to handle this situation. It may not
}be my responsabilty to _make_ the first person stop. A typical harrassment
}policy will tell me to seek an informal solution (ask the first person
}to stop), and then to direct the second person to the appropriate
}authority to file a more formal complaint. (Assuming that I am not the
}boss of the two people, the authority will certainly not be me.)
Unless I were the the boss of one or both of them, then officially
I would in fact do nothing (I might offer advice as a friend, but
that's irrelevant). It would be a matter between the two, their
boss(es), and which ever office handles that sort of situation.
If the secretary was taping the picture to the wall, would it be the
janitor's responsibility to interpret and implement the harassment policy?
Not likely.
John
--
John Hascall ``Live with it pink-boy!''
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 17:32:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.212835.8698@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 21:28:35 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 17:32:37 1992
From: antjcb@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (J.C.Burns)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 20:38:46 GMT
It's certainly distressing to watch a protracted discussion on the
availability of R-Rated GIFs on computer systems. Although I'm quite liberal
generally, I think there's nothing fascist about system operators attempting
to keep images of these sort off of their systems. Commercial questions
aside, the more we preserve the network and University systems as
facilitators for thinking and creating, the better off we are.
I respect the sysops who admonish the folks who do this sort of thing--men,
darn near universally--to develop some maturity and some common sense about
what the network is there for. It's not an interchange system for people to
keep and exchange scanned representations of (probably) copyrighted material
that has appeared elsewhere in printed, mass-distributed form. I too, am a
strong free speech advocate and would oppose CENSORSHIP of ideas expressed
on the network with my dying breath--but this isn't ideas here, it's
scanned-in crap from magazines which are sans content to begin with.
The Internet is, at its best, a place where IDEAS can be interchanged and
where, even in its most facetious and bizarre discourse, learning takes
place.
Besides, for those who opt for viewing this kind of material (and I'm not
un-susceptable to attractive depictions of the female form), I would
certainly suggest a higher-resolution, more storage-efficient way of
obtaining the material. (Try your local magazine stand.) And if you think of
the storage and data transfer costs, it's more cost-effective, too.
Grow up. Use this network for everyone's good. Develop a more REAL attitude
toward women and sexuality. And keep the GIFs to yourself.
--j.c. burns
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 17:48:46 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.214535.3839@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 21:45:35 GMT
antjcb@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (J.C.Burns) writes:
[...]
>the more we preserve the network and University systems as
>facilitators for thinking and creating, the better off we are.
So you are trying to preseve the medium for what you see as "good"
material by suppressing what you see as "bad" material. I believe this
to be a very counterproductive strategy.
>I too, am a strong free speech advocate and would oppose CENSORSHIP
>of ideas expressed on the network with my dying breath--but this
>isn't ideas here, it's scanned-in crap from magazines which are sans
>content to begin with.
If you really believed it was content and idea free, then why would
bother to suppress it? Because of the copyright or disk use? Do you
apply the same standards to Snoopy picture?
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
statements/caf-statement
=================
* Computer and Academic Freedom Statement -- Draft
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
(Critiqued).
=================
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================
* 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."
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
* Library Bill of Rights (ALA)
=================
civil-liberty/artistic-freedom.aclu
=================
* Artistic Freedom -- ACLU Briefing Paper #14
Answers these questions:
What protects the work of artists from government censorship?
When and how did the threat to artistic freedom emerge in this country?
How has the Supreme Court dealt with sexually explicit expression?
Why does the ACLU object to the obscenity exception to the First Amendment?
But don't obscene and pornographic works cause anti-social and even
violent behavior?
Even if the government can't suppress art, surely it shouldn't use
tax monies to fund art that offends!?
Why does the ACLU object to movie ratings, music labeling, or other
voluntary rating systems? Don't they give guidance to consumers,
especially parents?
But mustn't we protect our children from inappropriate messages and
images, especially graphic sex and violence?
Defending artists is fine, but why does the ACLU spend time and money
defending pornographers and sleaze merchants?
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/statements/caf-statement
pub/academic/academic/speech-codes.aaup
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/civil-liberty/artistic-freedom.aclu
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/statements caf-statement
send acad-freedom/academic speech-codes.aaup
send acad-freedom/library bill-of-rights.ala
send acad-freedom/civil-liberty artistic-freedom.aclu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 18:42:30 1992
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,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: <288@ininx.UUCP>
Date: 18 Oct 92 20:15:29 GMT
In article <1992Oct14.200218.13330@dcatlas.dot.gov>, joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
> Act _Honestly_, and no Reasonable Man (upon whom
> the interpretatio of our laws is *supposed* to be based) shall have cause
> to quibble, even if your actions are technically "illegal".
Amen!
Incidentally, your address suggests that you work for the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Do you accept a government paycheck? Can
accepting money from the government be _Honest_ considering that the
money was taken without the consent of its owner through taxation and
accepting it is therefore receiving stolen property?
Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
| Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully |
| accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby |
| generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal |
| choice by collective dictate, making these most serious crimes against |
| humanity. ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar |
It got so cold last winter, I saw a voter with his hand in his own pocket!
--
Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 18:42:34 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.224407.220@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 22:44:07 GMT
In article <1992Oct18.193048.19574@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Under the U. of Illinois policy, which I think is typical, you do not
>have the responsibility or authority to seek an informal solution.
>This responsibility and authority belongs to secretary's supervisor
>and one of several designated university officers.
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> Fine. Except that computers are often in a grey area of responsability.
>The secretaries may work for another person, but use machines that I am
>responsable for. So to some degree, I am thier supervisor.
[...]
You are not their supervisor. Their boss is their supervisor.
>For example, if users come to the sysadmin rather than thier boss
>with suggestions or complaints about computer issues (such as "I want
>to install this software", or "X leaves himself logged in all the
>time"), then the sysadmin is a supervisor.
So, if I asked the building manager to adjust the temperature in my
lab, he or she becomes my supervisor? That is not how it works. You
may be a supervisor of computers, you may be a supervisor other people
in your department, but you are not their supervisor.
>Realistically, if a user comes to you with a complaint, and you do
>nothing (even to redirect them) then you aren't doing your job
>regardless of what it is.
Realistically, if you act outside your authority, you aren't doing
your job regardless of what it is.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 18:49:41 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Mankato State University's policy on Academic Computer Usage
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.224438.18607@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 22:44:38 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 18:49:41 1992
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Mankato State University's policy on Academic Computer Usage
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 21:15:18 GMT
n13@krypton.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (Leonard J. Schmidt) writes:
} The following is Mankato State University's official policy on
}academic computer usage.
}Student users are authorized to use the resources only under their own
}userids, and only for those purposes authorized by their instructor or
}projects under which they have authorized access. Instructors have the
}right to review the class activity of any user in that class.
} The following are some examples of actions which may be considered as
}violations of this policy:
} ...
} Using userids to play games or send messages to another.
Do you really mean to prohibit e-mail, etc. and random experimentation?
Your policy seems to be that students may use the systems only to
perform the exact tasks assigned by their instructors. While this
policy may have its merits (esp. if your computer resources are
extremely limited), it would seem (to me) to be counterproductive in
attracting the kind of students you want to attract and producing the
kind of graduates people want to hire.
I am rather new to being on the interviewers side of the table, but
given two candidates, one who just did all the required work (even to
the point of a perfect GPA), and one who can tell me about all the
neat and interesting things they learned on their own (even to the
point of a sub-par GPA), it is the second who is likely to pass
muster with me.
Our policy is schoolwork has first priority, but learning on your
own is encouraged, and game playing is tolerated, but lowest priority.
Well, that's my $0.02,
John
--
John Hascall ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Systems Software Engineer
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center + Ames, IA 50011 + 515/294-9551
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 23:24:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.032208.1014@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 03:22:08 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 23:24:05 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.211928.22310@news.columbia.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 92 21:19:28 GMT
In article john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>} Under you policy, how would you handle this:
>}
>} Two secretaries share a PC. One has set up a screen saver that clears
>}the screen to a pornographic image after ten minutes. The other secretary
>}comes to you and tells you that they are very offended. What do you do?
>} According to what you have written, you do nothing since it is not a
>}security problem, nor does it stop the secretaries from doing thier work.
>}Obviously a real policy must be able to handle this situation. It may not
>}be my responsabilty to _make_ the first person stop. A typical harrassment
>}policy will tell me to seek an informal solution (ask the first person
>}to stop), and then to direct the second person to the appropriate
>}authority to file a more formal complaint. (Assuming that I am not the
>}boss of the two people, the authority will certainly not be me.)
>
> Unless I were the the boss of one or both of them, then officially
> I would in fact do nothing (I might offer advice as a friend, but
> that's irrelevant). It would be a matter between the two, their
> boss(es), and which ever office handles that sort of situation.
>
> If the secretary was taping the picture to the wall, would it be the
> janitor's responsibility to interpret and implement the harassment policy?
> Not likely.
>
Think of it this way. The first person (A) is taping the picture to the
wall of the terminal room. B complains to you, and you say "Complain to
the boss, it's not by responsability". B goes to the boss, and the boss
says "I can't do anything. The terminal room is the responsability of the
sysadmin[you]". This sort of situation is what needs to be avoided by
policies regarding harrassment.
Both you and the other boss are ignoring the problem (with pretty good
excuses). A continues to do what B finds offensive, and the complaint is
not dealt with.
I don't have Columbia's policy in front of me, but I think it gives
responsability to all people in "authority" to at least offer advise to those
with a complaint.
The policy point I was trying to make is that it may not be your
responsability as a sysadmin to enforce the harrasment rules, but you should
be willing to help at least with advise.
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.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 23:24:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.032237.21011@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 03:22:37 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 23:24:06 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.215005.22960@news.columbia.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 92 21:50:05 GMT
In article antjcb@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (J.C.Burns) writes:
>
>It's certainly distressing to watch a protracted discussion on the
>availability of R-Rated GIFs on computer systems. Although I'm quite liberal
>generally, I think there's nothing fascist about system operators attempting
>to keep images of these sort off of their systems. Commercial questions
>aside, the more we preserve the network and University systems as
>facilitators for thinking and creating, the better off we are.
>
Try translating this into a rea;l policy, and you run into trouble. Do
you want to ban all image traffic? All recreational image traffic? Or just
all offensive image traffic? How will your rules be constructed?
If GIF's are banned from being transmitted by NNTP, what about e-mail?
How will you stop mailing lists? Will you stop people from bringing in
pictures on floppies? Will you examine all files to determine if they break
the rules?
But to strengthen your case, we are not talking about R-rated images.
You may not know it, but images are around that are of extremely "strong"
content. Things you won't see in a typical hard core porn movie.
>I respect the sysops who admonish the folks who do this sort of thing--men,
>darn near universally--to develop some maturity and some common sense about
>what the network is there for.
This sort of comment always makes me chuckle. What is the net here for?
I mean really? In my view, the net is an experiment to see what it is here
for. The hardware of the net is totally open. You can do anything with it that
you want. Set up your own personal hierarchy? Sure, no problem.
The fact of the matter is that pornography is fantastically popular. The
sex groups are always at the top of the readership list. The picture groups
would be at the very top if more sites could handle the traffic. If you ask
people what they want in a computer net, the answer is alt.sex and
alt.sex.pictures. This is in fact what the net is telling us.
>
>The Internet is, at its best, a place where IDEAS can be interchanged and
>where, even in its most facetious and bizarre discourse, learning takes
>place.
Is there a clear distinction between expression and Idea? Idea are not
neccessarily text oriented. Again I say translating this into a practical
policy will lead to problems.
Why can't learing take place with pornography? Or do you consider it
such debased knowledge that it should not be transmitted? In a discussion of
sexuality, a female friend of mine didn't see how females could have sexual
activity with more than 2 men at a time. I had sandplay.gif in my account at
the time, and so could easily show her how 1 woman could have sex with 5
men simultaneously. Can you explain to me why that isn't covered by "learning?"
>
>Besides, for those who opt for viewing this kind of material (and I'm not
>un-susceptable to attractive depictions of the female form), I would
>certainly suggest a higher-resolution, more storage-efficient way of
>obtaining the material. (Try your local magazine stand.) And if you think of
>the storage and data transfer costs, it's more cost-effective, too.
I challenge this completely. The responce of first time views of computer
porn to high quality scans is uniformly "Wow, I didn't think the resolution
would be so high." Storage efficient? I have 734 gif's on my PC. How many
magazines is that?
Cost? I wonder how much it would cost for everyone who gets 10 gifs to
go out and buy a magazine? I actually don't think there could be a more
cost effective way of distributing pictures. Of course, there is the issue
of who pays for it, but we won't talk about that now :-)
>
>Grow up. Use this network for everyone's good. Develop a more REAL attitude
>toward women and sexuality. And keep the GIFs to yourself.
>
I find this itself offensive. What makes you feel your attitudes are more
"REAL" than mine? I at least am aware that a certain percentage of the gifs
transferred are of men, and although I don't grab those, there are many who
do. Why the emphasis on women? Anyway, looking at pornography is not in
itself a sexist activity.
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.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 18 23:33:08 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Message-ID: <1992Oct19.032953.25293@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 03:29:53 GMT
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
[...]
> Think of it this way. The first person (A) is taping the picture to the
>wall of the terminal room. B complains to you, and you say "Complain to
>the boss, it's not by responsability". B goes to the boss, and the boss
>says "I can't do anything. The terminal room is the responsability of the
>sysadmin[you]". This sort of situation is what needs to be avoided by
>policies regarding harrassment.
[...]
This situation is avoided by the U. of Illinois policy regarding
harassment. Under the U. of Illinois policy, the supervisor is not
allowed to pass the buck. I assume that other polices are similar.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
academic/harassment-grievances.uiuc
=================
* U. of Illinois at U-C -- Sexual Harassment Grievance Procedure
The procedure for enforcing the sexual harassment policy at the U. of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The gist of the policy is that the
policy is complaint driven and aided by the grievant's supervisor or
one of several designated university officials.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also 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/harassment-grievances.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 harassment-grievances.uiuc
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
