From caf-talk Caf Oct 26 03:30:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: ton@let.rug.nl (Ton Roovers)
Subject: test
Message-ID: <1992Oct26.082852.11021@let.rug.nl>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 08:28:52 GMT
test
From caf-talk Caf Oct 26 11:32:53 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Oct26.112345.192@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 16:23:45 GMT
During a recent discussion, it was argued by several net.folks that
sysadmins had no business moderating sexual harassment situations. It
was also argued that sysadmins should not take steps to prevent sexual
harassment (such as bans on "explicit" GIFs or attempting informal solu-
tions).
The following excerpts are from an article in the October 19th issue
of _Newsweek_, titled "Must Boys Always be Boys?". While the cases
discussed in the article are all based in elementary and high schools,
I believe that the actions taken in these situations do not bode well
for colleges and universities.
[Begin excerpts]
"And by characterizing as "harassment" the activities of second
graders, the women's movement has achieved a major political
breakthrough: a definition of oppression so broad that no man
alive can be sure he's innocent."
"What has changed is that girls and their parents are less disposed
to accept harassment as a normal part of growing up. They have
discovered a powerful weapon in the ban on sex discrimination in
Title IX of the Education Act of 1972. This provision has usually
been invoked over issues such as equality in sports programs, but
last February, the Supremem Court ruled that under the statute stu-
dents can sue for harassment -- and collect damages. That case in-
volved a high-school student who claimed her teacher forced sex on
her. But by analogy to the workplace -- where the court has held
companies liable if their employees create a "hostile environment"
for co-workers -- the principle is likely to be extended to cases
where boys make life miserable for their classmates, as only they
know how"
"In Petaluma, Calif., eighth grader Tawnya Brawdy had to run a gant-
let of boys gathered outside her school who would begin mooing
as she approached. [...] The US Department of Education found, in a
211-page report, that the schools had failed to protect her."
[NOTE: This case is a bit diffferent; according to _Newsweek_, Brawdy's
teachers told her that "she'd just have to put up with it". Hopefully,
prompt reaction to her complaint would have made a difference.]
"In what other school boards might consider a warning, Brawdy sued her
district over "emotional distress" and collected $20,000 in an out-
of-court settlement. Most judgments in these cases have been small,
but the potential number of plaintiffs is huge."
[End excerpts]
There we have it; second-grade teasing is now sexual harassment, and schools
are being found liable for failure to prevent it. What does this mean to
your typical university computing facility, where a wealth of potentially-
harassing material is easily available?
[It should also be noted that state universities are included in Title IX
of the Education Act of 1972. Therefore, these cases could probably serve
as legal precedent for similar lawsuits at the university level. ]
Given these developments, it would appear that we are (at least in the court-
room) responsible for the active PREVENTION of sexual harassment. The Depart-
ment of Education's report said that the school "failed to protect her".
Notice that it didn't (apparently) say "failed to establish a proper sexual
harassment policy" or "failed to act on her complaints"; it said that the
school failed to PROTECT her. These decisions and reports seem to indicate
that we, as service/facility providers, now have an obligation to implement
ACTIVE "protective measures".....
Comments? Please? Someone tell me why I'm wrong.........
--Wes
--
MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 26 11:53:13 1992
From: rone@pain.la.ca.us (Ron Edison)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,al
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Mat
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 92 21:27:00 PST
mark@drd.com (Resident.Alien) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.200218.13330@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe
> >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.
>
> perhaps: s/the U.S. Government/Bill of Rights/;
>
> In article <1992Oct20.203650.28482@utoday.com> wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagne
> >I'd like to see some source citation for this rather broad and
> >sweeping statement. The purpose of the Constitution, as I understand
> >it, was originally to preserve the rights of local governments against
> >encroachment by a central state. The idea of individual rights is a
> >modern gloss - though one I heartily endorse.
>
> How about Amendments 1 through 10 ?
> --
> mark.lawrence@drd.com (918)743-3013
> DRD Corp., 5506 South Lewis Ave., Tulsa, OK 74105 (918)745-9037 fax
Actually, the purpose of the constitution is given in it's preamble:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of
America."
Definitely liberty for the people of the United States as well as
autonomy of state governments is part of the picture...
Here's my understanding of the relationship between the People of the
United States, the States of Union, and the Federal Government:
The flow of "power" goes from the people, who set up and/or subscribe
to the constitution as an agreement, which in turn grants autonomy to the
States of the Union, which are, in fact separate countries, a fact not
commonly known, and (the constitution) grants fairly limited power to the
federal government. As a matter of fact, when the Union was started, the
federal government really had very little function and power over the
States...mostly, the federaly government dealt with foreign relations,
militarty matters (separate from state militia) and other miscellaneous
items...it was basically financed by excise taxes.
However, I digress...the purpose of the constitution can not really be
understood without looking at the purpose of the Union which was
basically to unite the 13 colonies, as separate sovereign, separate
countries, so as to protect against common enemies, to establish a
uniform currency to facilitate trade, to ensure the blessings of liberty,
etc, etc, just like it says in the preamble...
It's actually fairly interesting to compare our current "system" to
what it was when the Union was new...
A fairly big subject.
--
rone@pain.la.ca.us
From caf-talk Caf Oct 26 14:09:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [WLU _Cord_] "Newsgroups are banned"
Message-ID: <9210261909.AA25226@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 07:09:22 GMT
An article from _The Cord_, Wilfrid Laurier University Student
Publications, September 17, 1992, p.3. Posted with permission.
Title: Newsgroups are banned
At least seven newsgroups remain banned at Laurier until the
Senate Committee on Computing can meet and discuss their
controversial content.
The newsgroups, which can be understood as computerized
bulletin boards, were banned in late June and early July after
Hart Bezner, Director of Computing Services, took some computer
output to Don Baker, Vice-President: Academic.
The output was obtained from the "alt.sex" newsgroups which
deal with topics ranging from bondage and bestiality to
information on sexual diseases and general questions about sex.
John Weir, who was president of WLU at the time, made the
decision to ban the newsgroups after a meeting with Baker and
Systems Administrator Carl Langford. Weir told the Cord that, "in
my opinion, and in the opinions of others, the material was
offensive."
Although Weir and Baker had hoped the Senate Committee on
Computing could have dealt with the issue before the start of
fall classes, this has not happened.
Nora Znotinas, who became chair of the Committee in August,
says the hearings will be delayed until October. She says she
decided not to table the issue until the student representatives,
one grad and one undergrad, were elected to the Committee. She
also said that the meetings would be open to the university
population although those attending are normally not allowed to
address the Committee.
As for her personal opinion of the newsgroups, Znotinas says
they are difficult to police and that, "I'm one of the people who
would fall into the category of not censoring the newsgroups."
The newsgroups banned at Laurier have reached a similar fate
elsewhere in Canada with the University of Manitoba and Simon
Fraser University among those opting to ban them.
The University of Waterloo, which banned and reinstated them
two years ago, has decided to maintain access to the alt.sex
hierarchy.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 26 14:17:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Oct26.180539.21121@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 18:05:39 GMT
In article <1992Oct26.112345.192@ms.uky.edu> morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>Given these developments, it would appear that we are (at least in the court-
>room) responsible for the active PREVENTION of sexual harassment. The Depart-
>ment of Education's report said that the school "failed to protect her".
>Notice that it didn't (apparently) say "failed to establish a proper sexual
>harassment policy" or "failed to act on her complaints"; it said that the
>school failed to PROTECT her. These decisions and reports seem to indicate
>that we, as service/facility providers, now have an obligation to implement
>ACTIVE "protective measures".....
>
>Comments? Please? Someone tell me why I'm wrong.........
>
I don't think is as bad as all that. Preventing sexual harassment is not
quite the same as preventing theft or other crimes.
The details of sexual harassment (as far as I can gather) do not suggest
a set of possible preventative measures. For theft, it is easy. Install
locks, security cameras, guards, and whetever else you think would help.
It may not stop all your problems, but it is clear that you can take some
action.
This is not so with harassment. While the school in question could have
had a rule that prohibited 'mooing', it is obvious that it would not help.
I think that only by draconian measures against expression can you 'prevent'
harassment in any real way. These measures may be accaptable in some cases
(such as the military and private businesses), but would never be construed
as 'good'. They are the opposite of what education is supposed to be about.
Harassment may be classified as 'chronic' or 'acute'. Acute harassment
takes the form of 'Sleep with me or loose your job'. This type of thing is
better handled by civil or criminal prosecution, IMHO.
It is the 'chronic' harassment that we have been talking about here. It is
things like the 'hostile work environment', where there is no single
incident that can easily be dealt with. It is also repeated sexual propositions.
The important word is 'repeated'.
For many harassment cases, it is the repetition that creates the harassment.
I believe that this is more likely to be the kind of harassment that a
sysadmin will have to deal with. If a person is directly threatened via one
of your systems, you may have a role in documenting the case, but it is clear
that there are other authorities that will deal with it.
But you may be called on to act in cases of chronic harassment. This may
come to you by complaints from a user.
The question is how to 'prevent' harassment. I would say that for cases
of chronic harassment, there is nothing to prevent until a complaint is
made. I think this is why there is so much emphasis on informal solutions.
When a complaint is first made, then you can begin to 'prevent' the activity.
If you cannot stop it, then there is need for formal (ie real) grievance
procedures.
Contrast this with theft, and I think my point is clearer. If someone is
stealing PC's from your building, you don't want to sit down with them and
convince them that it is bad and they should stop. But that is exactly what
you want to do in cases of sexual harassment.
I believe that it is only at this point (when the fact that there is a
problem has been made apparent to all involved parties) that there can be
any sense of prevention. Hopefully, most cases will end at this point.
What part in all this for sysadmins? It may be that the sysadmin may be
the point of first contact for the victim. The syadmin may or may not seek
an informal resolution. Whether it is the sysadmin or other authority who
makes an informal solution, the sysadmin may be responsable for monitoring
compliance (especially if the activity was something like display of porn).
Comments?
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 26 17:24:15 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Canadian Referendum and Language Rights
Message-ID: <199210262224.AA15552@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 22:04:14 GMT
In his post to caf-talk last Friday, Hans Johnsen said that the package of
constitutional amendments being voted on today "recognizes official language
minority rights in all of Canada."
It seems to me that this is a somewhat empty guarantee as long as the escape
clause in the original constitution remains in place, which enabled the Quebec
government to keep much of Bill 101 in force even after the Supreme Court had
declared it unconstitutional. It thus remains illegal, for instance, for a
bookstore in a heavily Anglophone neighborhood of Montreal, selling nothing but
books in English, to display a sign reading "Books." What is more, what I have
read about the guarantees of access to English-language education in the pack-
age leads me to the conclusion that these will continue to be quite limited if
the referendum passes; the right to schooling in English will be guaranteed
only to children whose parents were educated in English in Canada--allowing
the Quebec government to force the children of many Anglophone, as well as
most Allophone, migrants to the province into the French-language schools.
The "distinct society" guarantees in the package can only aggravate this
situation.
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 26 20:43:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl Coppenger)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Oct26.223020.1171@seas.gwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 22:30:20 GMT
In article <1992Oct26.180539.21121@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>...
> This is not so with harassment. While the school in question could have
>had a rule that prohibited 'mooing', it is obvious that it would not help.
>I think that only by draconian measures against expression can you 'prevent'
>harassment in any real way. These measures may be accaptable in some cases
>(such as the military and private businesses), but would never be construed
>as 'good'. They are the opposite of what education is supposed to be about.
I disagree. The reason that free speech gets "zapped" a little by
sexual (and other) harrassment rules is because people do have to come
to work and to school. Rules against harrassment don't say that the
person with objectionable attitudes can never express him/herself, they
just say that he/she won't be provided with a captive audience.
I think it's entirely reasonable for places which people go out of necessity
to have rules which regulate conduct. It isn't fair to require people to
go to work or to school or suffer economic or other consequences, and then
make their lives miserable for being there. It seems to me that a school
can and should teach the kids that harrassing other kids is not acceptable
and has consequences, at the same time teaching the harrassed kid to stand
up for him/herself. Education is more than facts, it also concerns
social behavior. If the same kids were "expressing themselves" by spray-
painting slogans on the school wall the teachers would not have been so
sanguine.
--
Sheryl Coppenger SEAS Computing Facility Staff sheryl@seas.gwu.edu
The George Washington University (202) 994-6853
From caf-talk Caf Oct 26 21:06:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: leb@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Lars Bader)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Oct27.014946.22662@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 01:49:46 GMT
Wes's posting demonstrates how broad the definition of sexual
harassment is. The only definition which clearly covers all possible
cases seems to be, any behavior which annoys someone which that person
alleges was sexual or sexually motivated. As sexual harassment law
spreads from employment to education and housing, the last vestiges of
freedom of speech will be eliminated. To shield themselves from
liability, schools will have to indoctrinate children on proper
behavior. Businesses will have to set up blacklists of accused
employees -- after all, if one employer is required to fire an accused
worker, than surely it would be negligent for another employer to hire
the worker. And apartment owners in states where the management is
liable for speech of tenants will have to deny housing to tenants who
have been so accused. People could end up starving or on the street,
in the name of gender equity.
In many cases, the behavior punished may be committed without
malicious intent by the party punished. Consider the woman living in
an apartment, whose 15-year-old son tells a rude joke to the tenant
next door. Or the pop-eyed man with a weird smile who is accused of
"ogling" and "leering." [Who gave the government the right to
regulate where someone's eyes look, or whether they smile?]
What makes harassment law particularly detestable is its deviousness
and the way it forces all of society to get the blood on its hands.
It is devious, in that it forces employers to do the dirty work of
political correctness. Those victimized cannot even sue their true
victimizer, who can say, if push comes to shove, that the employer
overreacted. The victims of unjust sanctions cannot appeal to the
public for support against government persecution, because the
government is not directly involved. Yet the employer must overreact
to avoid possibility of lawsuit. Harassment law forces a company's
management to assume guilt until innocence is proven, and where an
accusation cannot be proven, the management must fire the employee.
In contrast to lynchings, which occurred because of the choices of
private individuals, persecution through harassment sanctions is
mandated by the government. We must all join the lynch mob, or be
liable for up to $300,000 [soon to become unlimited with Clinton's
election.]
We have been dealing with harassment as an exception to free speech.
But it is an exception that will soon swallow the rule. Academic
freedom must include some behaviors that are called harassment, in
particular the freedom to discuss race and gender differences. We are
going to have to begin fighting the campaign which seeks to eliminate
anything labeled "harassment," if we want to retain freedom.
It seems to me that a challenge to Title VII and Title IX,
establishing the "hostile environment" test in employment and
education, is necessary, and soon, before the Supreme Court gets
stacked with people who view "equality," whatever that is, as taking
precedence over freedom of speech. The basis would be the plain
language of the First Amendment in conjunction with the reasoning in
RAV v. St Paul. The problem is that no organization seems ready to do
it. The ACLU, normally the most likely candidate, has fallen under
the influence of those who think equality overrides freedom of speech.
Does anyone have suggestions on who could help me? I would sue, if I
thought it would work.
We are also going to have to stop conceding good intentions to people
who support this sort of excess, since they have never conceded good
intentions to those who oppose them.
From caf-talk Caf Oct 27 11:27:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Oct27.151424.18615@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 15:14:24 GMT
In article <1992Oct26.223020.1171@seas.gwu.edu> sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl Coppenger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct26.180539.21121@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>...
>>I think that only by draconian measures against expression can you 'prevent'
>>harassment in any real way. These measures may be accaptable in some cases
>>(such as the military and private businesses), but would never be construed
>>as 'good'. They are the opposite of what education is supposed to be about.
>
>[...] Rules against harrassment don't say that the
>person with objectionable attitudes can never express him/herself, they
>just say that he/she won't be provided with a captive audience.
>
I don't really go along with this. I think that most rules against
harassment are not even this precise. The ones I have seen (posted here
or in CU's policy guides) have been what you might call 'complaint oriented'.
Even though they might list some specifically illegal actions, they don't
clearly delineate between accaptable and unacceptable. They seem to depend
on interpretation and mediation by supervisors or special officers.
>I think it's entirely reasonable for places which people go out of necessity
>to have rules which regulate conduct. It isn't fair to require people to
>go to work or to school or suffer economic or other consequences, and then
>make their lives miserable for being there.
I doubt many people would disagree with this. There are already
comprehensive rules about conduct. The question is, what special rules
can be constructed around sexual harassment? What rules would you suggest
for a computer system? I don't see much hope here. You can either make a list
of forbidden words ('moo') which is silly, or you can revert to draconian
restrictions ('no personal e-mail'). How else could you prevent harassment?
> It seems to me that a school
>can and should teach the kids that harrassing other kids is not acceptable
>and has consequences, at the same time teaching the harrassed kid to stand
>up for him/herself. Education is more than facts, it also concerns
>social behavior. If the same kids were "expressing themselves" by spray-
>painting slogans on the school wall the teachers would not have been so
>sanguine.
>
Contrasting this with theft brings up a difference. We can educate people
that both sexual harassment and theft is wrong. But if you were instructed
to prevent theft of your PC's, you would buy locks. What would you do to
prevent harassment?
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 27 14:48:22 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: A paradox
Message-ID: <199210271948.AA02572@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 19:17:22 GMT
On October 19, Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
> [...] I would not want to be a system
>user or a citizen of a world in which EVERY small decision was
>engraved in stone in an official policy. Freedom, to me, involves
>keeping rules and regulations in check. Not eliminating them, but
>keeping them small and simple and clear. In my ideal world, you
>resolve the disputes by talking to people, not by going down a
>checklist.
It is ironic that the very desire to avoid long lists of specific prescrip-
tions and proscriptions (more often the latter) may leave users vulnerable to
arbitrary action by sysadmins, if the few formal rules are vague, overbroad, or
both. The reluctance to state precisely what falls within the scope of a
prohibition may lead to the implicit failure to clarify what does not, increas-
ing the risk that the exercise of discretion by those who enforce the rules may
lead to miscarriages of justice such as those discussed in these pages from
time to time.
There may well be no way out of this double bind. On the one hand, a prolifer-
ation of formal restrictions is almost universally acknowleged as undesirable.
On the other hand, a smaller number of broadly drawn rules run a greater risk
of arbitrary or capricious application. The actual results may hinge on the
good sense--and the good will--of sysadmins and users.
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 27 15:38:27 1992
From: elee@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9210271232.aa19321@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Date: 27 Oct 92 20:32:39 GMT
To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Eric J. Lee
This is part of the ICS 131 bboard posting requirement.
This letter is in response to Tomas Vega's comment on my views on
allowing profanity on the bboards.
Tomas states that profanity stirs up emotional responses on the
bboards, and discourages topics from being discussed in mature ways. Yes, I
believe he is absolutely right. Profanity does discourage intelligent
conversations over the bboards. However, what if this is exactly what
someone wants? What if someone wants to go out and provoke inane emotional
responses? I think this should be allowed.
Also, Tomas states that profanity shows that the writer has no
respect for the reader. Absolutely right again! But what if this is exactly
what the writer wants? Maybe the writer has lost all respect for the reader,
and consequently uses profanity.
Yes, there are idiots out there who use profanity wildly. But I think
readers should know that idiots out there exist, and readers can easily
discover this while on the bboard, when they come across a posting with
profanity. Then, learning by example, readers will know not to use profanity.
Eric J. Lee
ICS 131, T.A. John Tillquist
From caf-talk Caf Oct 27 17:22:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: craig@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Craig Nordin)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 21:47:32 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct27.214732.29049@osh3.OSHA.GOV>
In <1992Oct26.223020.1171@seas.gwu.edu> sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl Coppenger) writes:
[ ... stuff deleted ... ]
>I think it's entirely reasonable for places which people go out of necessity
>to have rules which regulate conduct. It isn't fair to require people to
>go to work or to school or suffer economic or other consequences, and then
>make their lives miserable for being there. It seems to me that a school
>can and should teach the kids that harrassing other kids is not acceptable
>and has consequences, at the same time teaching the harrassed kid to stand
>up for him/herself. Education is more than facts, it also concerns
>social behavior. If the same kids were "expressing themselves" by spray-
>painting slogans on the school wall the teachers would not have been so
>sanguine.
[ ... stuff deleted ... ]
I think the spirit is correct in the above statement, but the details
and specifics get the proponent caught up in other arguments.
The word "neccessity" is debatable. People shouldn't be considered
"forced" to go to work. Maybe kids could be considered "forced" to
go to school, but it is their parents that can put them into another
school.
Harrassment is repeated, unwelcome contact. If it happens once to
you, it is not harrassment. If you welcome it once, then reject
it the second time, it is not harrassment.
Which iteration/repetition is something that people argue over, but
in the U.S. the standard baseball rule of "three strikes, you're out"
is probably something that everyone can be expected to understand.
Sometimes, in a group of people, rules can be made so that after
Johnny, and Billy have done something bad, someone else "strikes out"
the very first time he/she does it -- but that kind of rule-making
can become confusing and therefore a source of trouble itself.
The U.S. historic legal basis of citing any offense (with major
exceptions) has to do with the harmed person speaking out and
announcing formally that they have been harmed. Murdered people,
children, and others who can't be expected to stand up for themselves
are "spoken for" by third parties. Laws are also passed that
assume that general safety and order of the community is threatened
by a specified activity. But the "lean" of the law is towards
expecting the harmed person to complain.
I don't see any reason to reduce that "lean" with harrassment
issues. It is a just way to live with others.
Those who are harmed should be strongly encouraged to seek redress.
Those who harm will learn soon then.
>--
>Sheryl Coppenger SEAS Computing Facility Staff sheryl@seas.gwu.edu
> The George Washington University (202) 994-6853
From caf-talk Caf Oct 27 19:15:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 23:31:57 GMT
In article , dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
|> I don't really go along with this. I think that most rules against
|> harassment are not even this precise. The ones I have seen (posted here
|> or in CU's policy guides) have been what you might call 'complaint oriented'.
|> Even though they might list some specifically illegal actions, they don't
|> clearly delineate between accaptable and unacceptable. They seem to depend
|> on interpretation and mediation by supervisors or special officers.
The rules are complaint oriented for what I feel is a good reason: the
law does not define specific acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, nor
does it require employers or schools or any one else to define what is
acceptable or unacceptable behavior. The law requires, as a *first*
action, for the person subjected to the behavior (I include speech and
pervasive environments in this term) to clearly state to the person(s)
engaging in the behavior that they find that behavior *unwelcome*. If
the behavior ceases, then that's it.
As an alternative to direct confrontation, the person subjected to the
behavior has the option of expressing their dissatisfaction to their
supervisor or teacher or other direct or designated authority. It is
then up to that authority to convey the unwelcome behavior
message to the person(s) engaging in it.
What is acceptable or unacceptable behavior is essentially entirely in
the hands of the person subjected to the behavior. Supervisors and
special officers do not make determinations of the acceptability of
behavior. They are only required to act if a particular person finds a
particular behavior unwelcome, or finds an environment to be
unwelcome. Their actions are directed at stopping the repeated
occurrence of the particular behavior by the particular individual, or
correcting the environmental problem.
Behavioral correction of one individual is not precedent setting. In
other words, a complaint by one employee that they find another
employee's patting them on the buttocks unwelcome does not mean that the
company must promulgate a rule, "no employee may pat another employee
on the buttocks," because it may not be unwelcome in all cases. They
will have to tell the individual patter "do not pat employee Y on the
buttocks". For good measure, they should counsel the patting employee
about other forms of behavior that *may* be unwelcome, and that they
really should have explicit indications that the behavior is not
unwelcome before they engage in it. Since a person who observes the
behavior instead of being subject to it can find it unwelcome (the work
environment portion of the law), the employee needs to consider this
before they engage in some behavior publicly in the workplace.
Conversely, if a female employee enjoys having her breasts or buttocks
fondled by a particular employee in their closed or locked private
offices where no one else can see them, that is not sexual harassment.
If a company knows about it, they could attempt to stop it by stating
that it is inappropriate behavior for that work environment, but they
could not argue that it was harassment unless someone involved found
it unwelcome.
Very few behaviors are a priori considered unwelcome. The important
thing to remember is that if no one subjected to the behavior finds it
unwelcome, or expresses that it is unwelcome, then the behavior is not
harassment. Displays of nudie gifs on computer screens are not
automatically harassment. A employee patting or fondling another one
on the buttocks is not automatically harassment. Two (or more)
employees having sex on the conference room table is not automatically
harassment.
|>
|> comprehensive rules about conduct. The question is, what special rules
|> can be constructed around sexual harassment? What rules would you suggest
|> for a computer system? I don't see much hope here. You can either make a list
|> of forbidden words ('moo') which is silly, or you can revert to draconian
|> restrictions ('no personal e-mail'). How else could you prevent harassment?
An employer or school is not required to "prevent" harassment, since it
cannot determine a priori what is harassment. An employer or school is
obligated to take action, once informed that a person has been
repeatedly subjected to unwelcome behavior. The failure of the school
in the Newsweek article was that they were informed of the unwelcome
behavior, and their response was to do nothing, telling the student to
"live with it". If they had taken action to counsel the boys involved,
or take stronger action (suspension/expulsion) if warranted, then I
seriously doubt that they would have been held liable, *even if the
boys continued the behavior* (e.g. the suspended/expelled boys could
have stood outside the school grounds somewhere and done the mooing as
the girl approached the school). The court ruling that they failed to
"protect" the student only applies *after* they had been informed that
the unwelcome behavior was occurring.
Special rules about specific behavior do not need to be constructed for
sexual harassment, since almost any behavior of a sexual nature can be
harassment if it is unwelcome and meets some other conditions (the quid
pro quo or hostile environment tests), and no behavior is harassment
if does not meet those conditions. Again, I use the term behavior to
include speech and pervasive environments. For computer systems,
special rules, silly rules, or draconian rules are not required. If
you are really worried about this, go talk to your university's Equal
Employment Opportunity officer. They are the person responsible for
implementing the university's sexual harassment policy. Additionally,
an employer or school already has disciplinary tools to deal with
harassing behavior. The computers in these cases are the means or
tools by which harassment takes place, they are not the harasser
("Computers don't harass people, people harass people"). A person can
be harassed by someone who sends them unwelcome, sexually oriented
hand-written or typed letters. Yet we don't even consider banning
paper correspondence. So it is with computers and e-mail, or
electronic images.
|>
|> Contrasting this with theft brings up a difference. We can educate people
|> that both sexual harassment and theft is wrong. But if you were instructed
|> to prevent theft of your PC's, you would buy locks. What would you do to
|> prevent harassment?
To follow your analogy, locks will not absolutely prevent theft. They
may prevent casual, opportunistic theft, and they may slow down
determined, calculated theft, but odds are they won`t prevent it. To
be instructed to prevent theft, in an absolute sense, is impossible.
You can reasonably be instructed to reduce the probability of theft,
and make theft as difficult as possible. Thus it is with harassment.
The law implies that you do should your best to reduce the probability of
harassment, and make it as difficult as possible beforehand. The only
reasonable "preventive" measure that an employer or school can take
with sexual harassment is to educate the employees or students about
sexual harassment, give examples of most likely unwelcome behavior, and
explain the possible consequences. The examples of behavior must
emphasize the unwelcome part, not simply the behavior part. This will
most likely reduce or prevent some of the more trivial forms of
harassment (rude/lewd comments, etc.), but it will probably not prevent
the determined harasser ("have sex with me and I'll promote you"), but
it may slow him or her down a bit (make them think about it). Note
that the law does not require that you take these measures. The
danger in not taking them is that the company or school may lose a
lawsuit or EEOC action. The judge ruled against the school because
they were made aware of some very unwelcome, egregiously humiliating
behavior, and they did nothing.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Oct 27 19:43:07 1992
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Oct27.215859.15224@cirrus.com>
Date: 27 Oct 92 21:58:59 GMT
In <1992Oct26.223020.1171@seas.gwu.edu> sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl
Coppenger) writes:
>I think it's entirely reasonable for places which people go out of necessity
>to have rules which regulate conduct. It isn't fair to require people to
>go to work or to school or suffer economic or other consequences, and then
>make their lives miserable for being there. It seems to me that a school
>can and should teach the kids that harrassing other kids is not acceptable
>and has consequences, at the same time teaching the harrassed kid to stand
>up for him/herself. Education is more than facts, it also concerns
>social behavior. If the same kids were "expressing themselves" by spray-
>painting slogans on the school wall the teachers would not have been so
>sanguine.
I agree with all this; but why must we have a law against "sexual
harassment" when we could just have an equivalent law against
"harassment"?
--
Rahul Dhesi
also: dhesi@rahul.net
From caf-talk Caf Oct 27 20:43:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl Coppenger)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Oct27.201604.1824@seas.gwu.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 20:16:04 GMT
In article <1992Oct27.151424.18615@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct26.223020.1171@seas.gwu.edu> sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl Coppenger) writes:
>>
>>[...] Rules against harrassment don't say that the
>>person with objectionable attitudes can never express him/herself, they
>>just say that he/she won't be provided with a captive audience.
>>
> I don't really go along with this. I think that most rules against
>harassment are not even this precise.
I'm not saying that CU's (or anybody else's guidelines) are precise. I'm
just saying that this is a rationale for limiting speech under certain
conditions.
> The ones I have seen (posted here
>or in CU's policy guides) have been what you might call 'complaint oriented'.
>Even though they might list some specifically illegal actions, they don't
>clearly delineate between accaptable and unacceptable. They seem to depend
>on interpretation and mediation by supervisors or special officers.
I think that's probably true but unfortunate, and partly due to a lag
in education. It's also true that harrassers are so resourceful that
it's hard to make a comprehensive list. And once you do, someone who
is really determined will find loopholes. It's a fact of life and one
that people implementing and enforcing policies have to live with, but
it's not an excuse for doing nothing.
>
>>I think it's entirely reasonable for places which people go out of necessity
>>to have rules which regulate conduct. It isn't fair to require people to
>>go to work or to school or suffer economic or other consequences, and then
>>make their lives miserable for being there.
>
> I doubt many people would disagree with this. There are already
>comprehensive rules about conduct. The question is, what special rules
>can be constructed around sexual harassment?
I think that the people posting here and in other places on the net,
usually men, are trying to make sexual harrassment a BIG THING which is
different from all other behavior. Maybe it's paranoia, maybe it's guilt,
I don't know. My feeling is that sexual harrassment is not greatly different
from other forms of bigotry/power trips except for the fact that there are
more women than minorities in most white collar workplaces and misogyny
permeates our culture so.
Why don't you and the other guys posting here try asking yourself
"what special rules can be constructed around racial harrassment?" and
see if you have such a hard time. Perhaps you'll take that less personally.
:-) (And there's more $$ incentive. There are limits on financial penalties
for sexual discrimination. There are none for racial discrimination).
I feel that if a workplace or school has a good rules regarding respect for
fellow workers/students -- and enforces them consistently -- then it doesn't
need much in the way of special rules for sexual harrassment. Disrespect
is disrespect, it doesn't matter that much whether the offender is perpetrating
sexual harrassment, racial harrassment or what have you.
In the workplace, I think that most of it falls under the general rule
of "is this person working or goofing off"? If the person is doing
something which is not work (harrassment) I think you could safely
say that it falls under the realm of "goofing off". Not only that, but
it's preventing other people from working and causing a nosedive in
morale. A person goofs off, you tell them to shape up. If they don't,
they're history. Simple as that.
> What rules would you suggest
>for a computer system? I don't see much hope here. You can either make a list
>of forbidden words ('moo') which is silly, or you can revert to draconian
>restrictions ('no personal e-mail'). How else could you prevent harassment?
I think that meaningful education programs and a real commitment to a
harrassment-free workplace is a start. Employees who are not in a position
high enough to make policy should make sure that their own house is in
order and that they do not collaborate with perpetrators by agreeing
with them or by being silent. A "corporate culture" has to be created
which makes harrassment stand out as unusual and unacceptable behavior.
With email -- penalties for anyone who sends non-work related email to
someone else after they've asked them not to. Content is beside the point.
Same with personal contact/words. If X wants you to leave them alone, leave
them alone. Period.
>> It seems to me that a school
>>can and should teach the kids that harrassing other kids is not acceptable
>>and has consequences, at the same time teaching the harrassed kid to stand
>>up for him/herself. Education is more than facts, it also concerns
>>social behavior. If the same kids were "expressing themselves" by spray-
>>painting slogans on the school wall the teachers would not have been so
>>sanguine.
>>
> Contrasting this with theft brings up a difference. We can educate people
>that both sexual harassment and theft is wrong. But if you were instructed
>to prevent theft of your PC's, you would buy locks. What would you do to
>prevent harassment?
>
Contrasting with theft is not useful. It's not theft going on here, it's
abuse. What do you do to keep your users from pouring coca-cola down
the keyboards and using the monitors as an ashtray?
--
Sheryl Coppenger SEAS Computing Facility Staff sheryl@seas.gwu.edu
The George Washington University (202) 994-6853
From caf-talk Caf Oct 28 08:06:15 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Oct28.085545.23950@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Oct 92 08:55:45 GMT
sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl Coppenger) writes:
:
: I think that the people posting here and in other places on the net,
: usually men, are trying to make sexual harrassment a BIG THING which is
: different from all other behavior. Maybe it's paranoia, maybe it's guilt,
: I don't know. My feeling is that sexual harrassment is not greatly different
: from other forms of bigotry/power trips except for the fact that there are
: more women than minorities in most white collar workplaces and misogyny
: permeates our culture so.
In my experience in is frequently women who do this, or at least make
the initial point.
:
: Why don't you and the other guys posting here try asking yourself
: "what special rules can be constructed around racial harrassment?" and
: see if you have such a hard time. Perhaps you'll take that less personally.
: :-) (And there's more $$ incentive. There are limits on financial penalties
: for sexual discrimination. There are none for racial discrimination).
:
: I feel that if a workplace or school has a good rules regarding respect for
: fellow workers/students -- and enforces them consistently -- then it doesn't
: need much in the way of special rules for sexual harrassment. Disrespect
: is disrespect, it doesn't matter that much whether the offender is perpetrating
: sexual harrassment, racial harrassment or what have you.
This requires looking carefully as to how you have defined sexual harrassment.
e.g. has the definition specifically excluded a group of people from
being the herrasser or the herassee?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Oct 28 08:06:17 1992
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Oct28.091154.24160@aston.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Oct 92 09:11:54 GMT
dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
: In <1992Oct26.223020.1171@seas.gwu.edu> sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl
: Coppenger) writes:
:
: >I think it's entirely reasonable for places which people go out of necessity
: >to have rules which regulate conduct. It isn't fair to require people to
: >go to work or to school or suffer economic or other consequences, and then
: >make their lives miserable for being there. It seems to me that a school
: >can and should teach the kids that harrassing other kids is not acceptable
: >and has consequences, at the same time teaching the harrassed kid to stand
: >up for him/herself. Education is more than facts, it also concerns
: >social behavior. If the same kids were "expressing themselves" by spray-
: >painting slogans on the school wall the teachers would not have been so
: >sanguine.
:
: I agree with all this; but why must we have a law against "sexual
: harassment" when we could just have an equivalent law against
: "harassment"?
This is an example of what I would call 'Opressed minority behaviour'
Basically any group seeing itself as a opressed group grabs as many
things which happen to oppress them and 'claims' ownership.
Even to the point of modifying the definition to give some exclusiveness.
You have 'sexual herassment' because the meaning can be twisted to
be something which only happens to women.
It is a political idea.
The aim appears to be to say "we are so opressed becuase of X,Y & Z"
that we need legeslation against it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home) |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
From caf-talk Caf Oct 28 08:49:16 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <9210281346.AA24510@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 03:46:30 GMT
I think Joseph A. Watters of Rice has the right idea. Of course, I'm not a
lawyer, (just a senior systems analyst) nor do I play one on T.V. But his
point was the school in the Newsday article cited by Wes Morgan didn't
"protect" the plaintiff because it took no action after it was informed that
there was a problem. I think that's the key here. Sexual Harassment is a
problem in the workplace. It's currently illegal using the _quid pro quo_ and
the hostile environment standards. But the institution at which the alleged
harassment takes place shouldn't be liable unless it was informed of the
behavior anf took no action. So Wes, I think that's the standard you might be
looking for: have policies and procedures in place to respond equitably and
rapidly if a harassment charge is brought, but there's no reason to scan
e-mail, or do any of the other invasive kinds of things you've alluded to.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
Also, this is my opinion and in no way reflects the policy of the United
States, the U.S. Dept. of Defense, the Defense Information Systems Agency, nor
any subpart thereof.
Bob
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Administrative Information Branch -- "We Code, You Explode!!"
Defense Resource Management System (DRMS), DITSO-CO-BCC
Defense Information Technology Services Org. AV 850-8256 (614)-692-8256
From caf-talk Caf Oct 28 19:58:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <1992Oct28.213557.25791@dcatlas.dot.gov>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 21:35:57 GMT
morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>During a recent discussion, it was argued by several net.folks that
>sysadmins had no business moderating sexual harassment situations. It
>was also argued that sysadmins should not take steps to prevent sexual
>harassment (such as bans on "explicit" GIFs or attempting informal solu-
>tions).
>The following excerpts are from an article in the October 19th issue
>of _Newsweek_, titled "Must Boys Always be Boys?". While the cases
>discussed in the article are all based in elementary and high schools,
>I believe that the actions taken in these situations do not bode well
>for colleges and universities.
>[Begin excerpts]
> "In Petaluma, Calif., eighth grader Tawnya Brawdy had to run a gant-
> let of boys gathered outside her school who would begin mooing
> as she approached. [...] The US Department of Education found, in a
> 211-page report, that the schools had failed to protect her."
[most deleted]
>[End excerpts]
Someone who is offended can turn away from a GIF or other stationary
visual display. It is hard to avoid the audible harrassment of crowds of
people, which I think is the difference here.
It also sounds like sexual harrassment was not the intent of the crowd in
this case. I suspect that the reason for it was what the crowd felt was a
nauseating quantity of excess weight on the target of its abuse. That
doesn't make it right, of course, but it takes it out of the realm of
_sexual_ harrassment. Kids (and adults) of both sexes are put down if they
are disgustingly obese.
-JTT
From caf-talk Caf Oct 28 19:58:47 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.feminism] Overbreadth in defining school sexual harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 22:35:14 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Oct 28 19:58:47 1992
Subject: Overbreadth in defining school sexual harassment?
Message-ID: <92301.145039U15289@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 27 Oct 92 23:14:07 GMT
An article in the October 19 _Newsweek_, "Must Boys Always Be Boys?,"
describes a number of administrative and judicial causes of action
brought recently in cases of alleged student-on-student sexual
harassment in elementary and high schools. It starts out, "It's hard
to be a little girl, going to school every morning with boys who
believe in their wormy little hearts that _girls stink_." It goes on
to cite cases such as a 7-year-old girl whose fellow bus riders called
her "bitch," an eighth grader who "had to run a gantlet of boys...who
would begin mooing as she approached," and boys who "circulat[ed] a
list of the 25 most desirable--they used a very different word--girls
in [their] high school." The article continues that except for a
single empirical study of a single high school, all the available
evidence on the overall prevalence of the problem is anecdotal; but
that tort suits and administrative civil rights actions are becoming
more common.
Student behavior such as that described--sometimes commonplace for
years--may indeed be deserving of negative sanctions. There is merit
to the assertion of one analyst quoted in the article that "If no one
teaches boys that harassment is wrong, why should they start harassing
women as adults?" For all that, it is debatable whether it is
appropriate to routinely make such behavior the subject of big-money
litigation, or of major expenditures of bureaucratic energy on a
single incident (the U.S. Education Department issued a 211-page
report on its investigation of the "mooing" incident, concluding that
the school had "failed to protect" the complainant).
Even if we stipulate that these specific acts by students were
instances of harassment, there are disturbing signs of a trend toward
defining harassment overinclusively, whether in the schools, the
workplace, or anywhere else. Surely, it is reaching to state
categorically that "the boy who throws spitballs at girls in his class
will grow up to be the man who tries to drop peanuts down their
dresses at bars." Two particularly unsettling passages from the
_Newsweek_ article read, "by characterizing as 'harassment' the
activities of second graders, the women's movement has achieved a
major political breakthrough: a definition of opression so broad that
no man alive can be sure he's innocent;" and "while there might not be
a man today who can honestly say he never spent most of a math period
staring at the prettiest girl in his class instead of a
blackboard...someday there might be."
Amid all the effort to define what "environmental" sexual harassment
is, there may be insufficient attention given to defining what it is
not. Surely, not every image, communication, or even action with a
potential sexual subtext will render the environment objectively
hostile to all women of ordinary sensibilities. Moreover, are we to
take as a given each and every assertion by an individual woman that
something has rendered her environment hostile? To do so
uncritically, needless to say, would have the proverbial chilling
effect on a wide range of speech and conduct; but beyond that, there
is the risk that overbroad definitions of harassment will boomerang:
the attitude may be widely adopted that if everything remotely sexual
is harassment, then effectively nothing is; that if every man is a
harasser, than no man is. The effective control of genuine sexual
harassment requires limits on what subjective definitions of
harassment will be entertained.
(The reader is referred to the newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
for other commentaries on the _Newsweek_ article, contributed by
several of that group's regular readers.)
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 15:00:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Best academic policy: privacy
Message-ID: <1992Oct29.195950.5350@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 19:59:50 GMT
I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
best is all ways, but here is my nomination for
Best Model Of Privacy Protection
I encourage you to make nominations, too, and to critique this and
other nominations. Information on three on-line archives of academic
policy is included at the end of this note.
My nominee is the U. of Illinois. There are two policies. The first
relates to privacy of files and email. The second to privacy of
directory information.
========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/uiuc.edu ===========
>Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
>Path: eff!news.byu.edu!mdsol1!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu!kadie
>From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
>Subject: New U. of Illinois (and NCSA) Computer Privacy policy
>Message-ID: <1992Jun2.011050.15719@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
>Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
>Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 01:10:50 GMT
>Lines: 86
[This is a repost of the article by Allan Levy entitled "Interim
E-Mail Advisory". The original article didn't not get propagated off
of ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (because distribution was set to "local"). I've
reformated it a bit. - Carl]
===== In article <1992May19.154352.3556@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, a-levy@uiuc.edu
(Allan H. Levy) writes ===============
The following notice was sent to the Deans, Directors and Department
Heads at the Urbana Campus.
It is reproduced in its entirety.
******************
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs
Swanlund Administration Building 217 333-6536
601 East John Street 217 333-2920
Champaign
Illinois 61820
TO: Deans, Directors, and Department Heads
DATE: April 27, 1992
FROM: Judith S. Liebman
Vice Chancellor for Resarch and
Dean of the Graduate College
Donald F. Wendel
Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs
RE: Electronic Mail Advisory
Over the past year, the campus administration has received a number of
inquiries about access to files maintained on electronic media.
Essentially, the questions focused on the privacy of such
communications and the conditions under which someone may look at
another person's files. We asked the Advisory Committee on Networking
and Computing to study this issue and to develop a policy statement
that would guide campus actions. The attached statement is the result
of the Committee's efforts. We are issuing the statement as an
interim policy in order to allow faculty, staff, and students to
"live" with the statement for a few months before it is made final.
We would be pleased to receive comments on the interim policy
statement.
INTERIM E-MAIL ADVISORY
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign participates in a range
of computing networks and many members of the community also regularly
use computers in their work. Statements in public files in this medium
are protected by the same laws and policies, and are subject to the
same limitations, as communications in other media. The same holds
true for electronic personal files and communications.
However, users should exercise caution when committing confidential
information to electronic media, because the confidentiality of such
material cannot be guaranteed. For example, routine maintenance or
system administration of a computer may result in the contents of
files and communications being seen.
Also, under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, electronic files
are treated in the same way as paper files. The documents in the files
of employees of the State of Illinois are considered to be public
documents, and may be subject to inspection through FOIA. In such
cases, the campus Freedom of Information Officer must inspect files to
determine which portions may be exempt from disclosure.
Network and system administrators are expected to treat the contents
of electronic files as private and confidential. Any inspection of
electronic files, and any action based upon such inspection, will be
governed by all applicable U. S. and Illinois laws and by University
policies.
A network or system administrator who is unsure about how to deal with
questions about the content of computer files or access to such files
should contact George F. Badger, Associate Vice Chancellor for
Computing and Communications, at 333-4103 (e-mail: g-badger@uiuc.edu).
04/27/92
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/cso.uiuc.edu ===========
Newsgroups: uxa.general,uiuc.general
From: bob@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bob Foertsch)
Subject: Official CCSO response
Message-ID: <1992Feb7.214834.17947@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1992 21:48:34 GMT
Here is the official CCSO response as written by the director George Badger.
During the last few weeks many questions have been raised related to
the groundrules under which CCSO computers are operated, particularly
where their use by students is concerned. The groundrules are based
on a combination of state or federal law, campus and departmental
policy, funds available and the realities of the various operating
systems environments. They vary somewhat from machine to machine
depending on the purposes for which that machine was purchased.
In the early 1980's the Center (then CSO) established the policy that
any student could have an account for use at their discretion. This
was in addition to any access provided in conjunction with courses.
At the time this was on a machine shared with research, coursework
and internal administration. Over time we have been able to establish
a separate facility -UXA- that provides much of this service, and to
provide UIUCnet and Internet access as part of this. We have been
able to relax many of the restrictions on use as the capacity of this
facility has been increased, including (in the near future) improving
the rather limited disk quota. The explicit purpose of this system is
to allow students to use a modern computing environment with the
broadest possible degree of personal discretion. We have treated this
facility as a high priority for funding, comparable to facilities
needed to complete assigned work in courses. Whether you consider
this a right or a privilege, it has been our clear intent to make
this as available as possible, as functional as we can, and to treat
it as an open invitation to students to experiment in the electronic
communications environment as they wish. Restrictions based on policy
are kept at a minimum, and students access is almost never suspended.
It is only one of many services we offer, and gets only a share of
our budget applied to these goals.
Issues of privacy, and of acceptable behavior, have always been a
part of this service. In the case of students there are additional
privacy laws that apply. Most of these laws were created without
thought for their impact in a technologically rich environment, and
most computer software was created without much thought for these
laws. We plan to honor all legal requirements for privacy and to
try and create an environment which allows as much freedom as is
consistent with the law and campus policies. We also will have those
policies necessary to us for responsible operation of the system.
These, of course, get very specific upon implementation. Part of this
set of policies will be maintaining our ability to associate things
done on the system with the person doing them.
Some specific issues are of current interest, but there will
certainly be more after we address them. The system currently has
utilities or operating procedures which disclose student information
which we plan to let you control in a manner consistent with other
sources of directory information. If a student files the necessary
forms with Admissions and Records to have their personal information
suppressed, the material we receive to build the ph database will not
have any record that they exist. (Note that suppression options and
our source of information are different for students than they are
for faculty/staff. A person who is both student and staff will
probably be handled as staff if this is allowed by the laws.) If they
wish to have a ph entry in order to use services which depend on this
database there will be a provision by which such a entry can be
created. It will contain their real name within the database, but
this information will not be disclosed, nor will we disclose the
existence of the entry in response to an inquiry using the name. We
will try and have a timely method of incorporating suppression
requests as they occur, rather than the current once a semester
practice.
"finger" is a part of the culture and history of UNIX. One use of it
is to get information about the owner of a particular id. There has
been much debate about whether the information provided in response
to this should be the persons real name or a nickname they have
provided. We will revert back to the practice of responding with the
nickname.This practice may change after people have had ample time to
suppress information. (Note that the nickname is the real name unless
the user has changed it intentionally.) If a person has requested
suppression of directory information, we will still require that we
can make the connection between an id and their real name, but will
not disclose their name.
"really" is a locally produced utility that provides a real name in
response to a request based on user-id. It is only available on UXA. It
is our intent to remove it in the near future when comparable
facilities are available using ph, so the rules of ph will apply.
There will not be any interim changes.
In choosing to exercise your right to protect information about you
there may be occasions where this is in conflict with your ability to
obtain a service. We will make reasonable efforts to provide
alternatives, with more effort expended when the service is essential
to your academic requirements, and less when it is not. A positive
example is an alternative way of being included in the ph database
despite having suppressed information. Another example is that ph
allows most fields to be blanked out by simple editing, offering an
alternative to the inconveniences of total suppression.
None of our efforts to provide privacy relieve anyone of
accountability for their actions, nor us of our obligation to be
responsible in the operation of these systems. Harassment, threats
and other illegal behavior will not be provided anonymity or
protection. We expect this medium of communication to be provided all
the freedom of expression, and associated responsibility, available
in more traditional media. We encourage, but cannot dictate, civil
behavior.
One final comment on the current debate. There has never been any
discussion about removing this service, or of restricting individuals
from using it. Like any other campus facility, abuse can be a matter
for legal action or official campus disciplinary procedures.
--
| Bob Foertsch | Unix Systems Administrator |
| | University of Illinois |
| bob-foertsch@uiuc.edu | 1304 West Springfield |
| (217) 333-8033 | Urbana, Illinois 61801 |
======================================================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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 J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
* Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
=================
policies/unm.edu.pointer
=================
* Misc -- Pointer to and Index of U. of New Mexico Policy Archive
The files available via anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory
/ethics.
=================
=================
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/README
pub/academic/widener/README
pub/academic/policies/unm.edu.pointer
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 README
send acad-freedom/widener README
send acad-freedom/policies unm.edu.pointer
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 15:03:52 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Best academic policy: prohibitions
Message-ID: <1992Oct29.200346.5545@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 20:03:46 GMT
I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
best is all ways, but here is my nomination for
Best Model Of Prohibitions
I encourage you to make nominations, too, and to critique this and
other nominations. Information on three on-line archives of academic
policy is included at the end of this note.
My nominee is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Although it is not
academic, I feel that its policy would be good for an academic site.
========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/eff.org ===========
>Newsgroups: eff.general
>Path: eff!eff-gate!usenet
>From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
>Subject: EFF House Rules (version 2.0)
>Message-ID: <199203312244.AA12060@eff.org>
>Originator: hrose@eff.org
>Sender: hrose
>Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
>Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
>Distribution: eff
>Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 12:44:24 GMT
>Approved: usenet@eff.org
>Lines: 54
1. No unauthorized attempts to gain root access or access to any account
not belonging to you on this or any other EFF system.
2. No use of this or any other EFF system as a staging ground to crack
other systems.
3. No use of this or any other EFF system through unauthorized
dial-up access.
4. No use of this or any other EFF system for illegal or criminal
purposes.
5. All users are responsible for their own telecom access charges, if any.
6. Any user who finds a possible security hole on any EFF system is
obliged to report it to the system administrators. If you're not
sure, report it, don't try to use it.
7. Users are responsible for all use of their accounts, including
choosing safe passwords and ensuring file protections are set
correctly.
8. Sharing passwords is not permitted.
9. Please keep in mind that many people use the EFF systems for day to
day work. Obstructing this work by consuming gratuitiously large
amounts of system resources (disk space, CPU time) or by
deliberately crashing the machine(s) will not be tolerated. In
general we will ask you to clean up your disk space and/or stop your
own processes except in emergencies; please cooperate by running
large jobs at night and by using the "nice" command to lower the
priority of CPU-intensive processes.
10. All users should be on notice that the system administrators do
periodic security checks of EFF systems, including password checks.
Any user with a "bad password" will be notified via email. If the
user does not change passwords within a timely manner, the account
will be locked until the person in question contacts, *via
telephone*, one of the system administrators to reinstate the
account in question.
11. Electronic mail on this system is as private as we can make it.
Attempts to read another person's electronic mail or other protected
files will be treated with the utmost seriousness. The system
administrators will not read mail or non-world-readable files unless
absolutely necessary in the course of their duties, and will treat
the contents of those files as private information at all times.
Bounced mail is directed to the system administrators in the form of
*headers only* for purposes of assuring reliable e-mail service.
--
Helen Trillian Rose email eff@eff.org for EFF info
Electronic Frontier Foundation irc operators: operlist@eff.org
Systems and Networks Administration Flames to:
women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
======================================================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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 J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
* Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
=================
policies/unm.edu.pointer
=================
* Misc -- Pointer to and Index of U. of New Mexico Policy Archive
The files available via anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory
/ethics.
=================
=================
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/README
pub/academic/widener/README
pub/academic/policies/unm.edu.pointer
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 README
send acad-freedom/widener README
send acad-freedom/policies unm.edu.pointer
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 15:08:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,news.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Best academic policy: Netnews
Message-ID: <1992Oct29.200825.5648@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 20:08:25 GMT
I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
best is all ways, but here is my nomination for
Best Model Of Netnews Policy
I encourage you to make nominations, too, and to critique this and
other nominations. Information on three on-line archives of academic
policy is included at the end of this note.
My nominee is the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/netnews.uwm.edu ===========
These are the network policy resolutions developed by the Computer
Policy Committee at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The
resolutions were approved by the Committee and forwarded to the
Chancellor.
Provided by Alan Baron, ab@csd4.csd.uwm.edu.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolutions Approved by the Computer Policy Committee
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
February 21, 1992
Recommendation from the Computer Policy Committee
on Access to Network News Systems
Background
Users of the UWM central computer facility (faculty, staff, students)
have access to the network news system, a set of newsgroups concerned with a
wide variety of topics. Members of these groups engage in exchanges of
information on matters of common interest, such as computing, scientific
issues, social and cultural topics, the environment, politics, hobbies,
recreational pursuits, and so forth. This system is the product of a loosely
organized and largely unregulated network which now includes sites throughout
the world. If a site is linked to the network, users can transmit and receive
messages to and from other sites. There is no central repository for these
articles--they are passed automatically from site to site so that a news
article generated at a particular locale will eventually replicate itself to
network-connected news systems at distant locations.
Although the news network has become a valuable resource for university
communities all over the world, objections are raised from time to time
about the content of the messages and articles. These objections range
from complaints that some of the material is frivolous and unrelated to
serious academic pursuits to complaints that certain sexually-oriented
material is obscene or pornographic. Moreover, there have been instances in
which administrators at other Universities have responded to such complaints
by terminating or restricting access to the news network. Unfortunately, such
actions usually have been taken unilaterally, that is, without consultation
with appropriate faculty and student groups.
Censorship of the news network is not presently an issue here at UWM nor
do we wish to imply that the administration would act in an arbitrary manner
should the issue arise. Nevertheless, the Computer Policy Committee believes
that it would be useful to have a policy in place which would govern access to
and participation in the news network. The four resolutions below are
intended to express such a policy.
RESOLUTION #1
Resolved: That full recognition and support be given to the valuable
resource provided by the network news system.
Rationale: Electronic transmission of information is playing an
increasingly vital role in higher education. This new technology provides a
unique vehicle for the participation of the university community in the
world-wide exchange of ideas.
RESOLUTION #2
Resolved: That any action by the UWM administration that might restrict
access to the news network should be contemplated only after consultation
with the Computer Policy Committee and other appropriate faculty bodies.
Rationale: Such consultation is required by the principle of faculty
governance at UWM.
RESOLUTION #3
Resolved: That the same standards and principles of intellectual and
academic freedom developed for university libraries be applied to material
received from the news network.
Rationale: Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge
and the pursuit of truth, and it has come to be widely accepted that
censorship of library material on partisan or doctrinal grounds is contrary to
these goals. The many similarities of the print and electronic media require
similar standards concerning access to messages and articles received from
from the news network.
RESOLUTION #4
Resolved: That the same standards of intellectual and academic freedom
developed for faculty and student publication in traditional media be applied
to publication in computer media.
Rationale. Messages and articles posted to a newsgroup have many of
the features of a publication. They constitute a means of formulating and
conveying knowledge, including statements of belief and opinion, to the
the university community and to the world at large. Communications to the
the network that originate on this campus should be free of any form of
censorship or prior restraint.
--
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/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 J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
* Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
=================
policies/unm.edu.pointer
=================
* Misc -- Pointer to and Index of U. of New Mexico Policy Archive
The files available via anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory
/ethics.
=================
=================
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/README
pub/academic/widener/README
pub/academic/policies/unm.edu.pointer
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 README
send acad-freedom/widener README
send acad-freedom/policies unm.edu.pointer
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 15:18:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Best academic policy: due process
Message-ID: <1992Oct29.201759.5761@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 20:17:59 GMT
I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
best is all ways, but here is my nomination for
Best Model Of Due Process
I encourage you to make nominations, too, and to critique this and
other nominations. Information on three on-line archives of academic
policy is included at the end of this note.
My nominee is the Iowa State University. The gist of the policy is
"Violations of the University Code of Computer Ethics are treated like
any other ethical violation as outlined in the Student Handbook and
applicable faculty and staff handbooks"
(Aside: I think the policy's privacy protection is unclear and that
free expression protection is poor.)
====== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/ethics.iastate.edu.critique =========
>Newsgroups: info.labmgr
>From: GA.LJH@isumvs.BITNET (Linda Hutchison)
>Subject: Ethics statement
>Message-ID: <199204012113.AA20676@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 20:55:25 GMT
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
ISU has had a computer ethics statement in place for over a year. Originally
the statement was a statement of ethics from the Computation Center, but we
worked through the Dean of Students Office, the university lawyer(s) and the
Administrative Data Processing Center (the Computation Ctr is the academic
center on campus) to make this a campus-wide policy.
The Dean of Students Office feels the statement has strengthened their ability
to prosecute computer-related violations.
For what it's worth, the following is ISU's policy (we have a new version in
the works that addresses items such as displaying obscene material on
workstations in public labs, but it's not official thus not ready for
distribution):
*************************%cut here%*******************************************
Iowa State University endorses the following statement of Software
and Intellectual Rights that was developed through EDUCOM, a non-profit
consortium of colleges and universities committed to the use and
management of information technology in higher education.
"Respect for intellectual labor and creativity is vital to
academic discourse and enterprise. This principle applies to
works of all authors and publishers in all media. It encom-
passes respect for the right to acknowledgment, right to
privacy, and right to determine the form, manner, and terms of
publication and distribution.
"Because electronic information is volatile and easily
reproduced, respect for the work and personal expression of
others is especially critical in computer environments.
Violations of authorial integrity, including plagiarism,
invasion of privacy, unauthorized access, and trade secret and
copyright violations, may be grounds for sanctions against
members of the academic community."
The above statement provides a guide for the ethical use of computer
facilities whether one is using a microcomputer, minicomputer, mainframe
computer or supercomputer, or computer network, and whether the computer
files, programs, or data are stored on floppy disk, hard disk, magnetic
tape, or other storage media. Computer facilities and files owned by
others should be used or accessed only with the owner's permission.
Viewing or using another person's computer files, programs or data
without authorized permission is unethical behavior and an invasion of
that person's privacy. Such behavior, if used for personal gain, is
plagiarism. Ethical standards apply even when material appears to be
legally unprotected. Improper use of copyrighted material may be
illegal.
The following guidelines govern ethical computer use at Iowa State
University:
# Unauthorized access to restricted data bases is unethical.
# Use of computer facilities by an individual must be authorized by
the owner or administrative unit. Prior permission to use another
user's computer account or user-id must be acquired from the owner
of the account, who is responsible for its use. Changing another
person's password is considered a form of harassment and is
unethical behavior.
# Users are responsible for their use of computer hardware, accounts
and user-ids. These should be used only for the stated purpose;
e.g., instructional class accounts must be used only to support the
given courses. University computer facilities are not to be used
for private monetary gain unless specifically authorized for such
use.
# Users must not browse, access, copy or change private files without
authorization, nor change public files without authorization.
Users must not attempt to modify the computer systems or software
in any unauthorized manner. The use of invasive software, such as
"worms" and "viruses" destructive to computer systems, is unethical
and illegal. Copyrighted software must only be used in accordance
with its license or purchase agreement. Users do not have the
right to receive and/or use unauthorized copies of software, or
make unauthorized copies of software for themselves or others.
# University computing facilities are a valuable resource for
University use and they should be conserved. Users should properly
utilize these resources to minimize any unnecessary impact of their
work on others; i.e., users should avoid excessive game playing,
etc.
# Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden. Also disallowed
are random mailings and any message of commercial or political
nature. BITNET users must also abide by the BITNET Usage
Guidelines.
# Hardware, software, manuals, supplies, etc., must not be removed
from computing sites without proper authorization.
# Abuse or misuse of any computer hardware or software will be
regarded as illegal and/or unethical behavior.
Violations of the University Code of Computer Ethics are treated like
any other ethical violation as outlined in the Student Handbook and
applicable faculty and staff handbooks. Violators may also be billed
for illegal use of the computer systems and may be prosecuted for
statutory violations, including Chapter 716A, Computer Crime, of the
Iowa Code.
#########################
Copyright (c) 1989 by Iowa State University
Permission to reproduce all or part of this document for noncommercial
purposes is granted, provided the author and Iowa State University are
given credit. To copy otherwise requires specific permission.
Linda Hutchison ||
Manager, Consulting and Publications || (515) 294-1578
291 Durham -- Computation Center || BITNET: GA.LJH@ISUMVS
Iowa State University || Internet: GA.LJH@ISUMVS.IASTATE.EDU
Ames, IA 50011-2041 || FAX: (515) 294-1717
=======================================================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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 J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
* Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
=================
policies/unm.edu.pointer
=================
* Misc -- Pointer to and Index of U. of New Mexico Policy Archive
The files available via anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory
/ethics.
=================
=================
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/README
pub/academic/widener/README
pub/academic/policies/unm.edu.pointer
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 README
send acad-freedom/widener README
send acad-freedom/policies unm.edu.pointer
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 15:27:13 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Best academic policy: participation
Message-ID: <1992Oct29.202705.5949@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 20:27:05 GMT
(I don't have a nomination for this one.)
I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
best is all ways. Can anyone make a nomiatation for:
Best Model Of Participation
The ideal, in my opinion, is described in the Joint Statement on
Rights and Freedoms of Students:
=== excerpts ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup ===
[P]olicies and procedures should be developed at each institution
within the framework of general standards and with the broadest
possible participation of the members of the academic community.
[...]
As constituents of the academic community, students should be
free, individually and collectively, to express their views on issues
of institutional policy and on matters of general interest to the
student body. The student body should have clearly defined means to
participate in the formulation and application of institutional policy
affecting academic and student affairs. The role of the student
government and both its general and specific responsibilities should
be made explicit, and the actions of the student government within the
areas of its jurisdiction should be reviewed only through orderly and
prescribed procedures.
======================================================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
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 J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
widener/README
=================
* Mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*
It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a
description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory
"policies".
=================
policies/unm.edu.pointer
=================
* Misc -- Pointer to and Index of U. of New Mexico Policy Archive
The files available via anonymous ftp from ariel.unm.edu in directory
/ethics.
=================
=================
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/README
pub/academic/widener/README
pub/academic/policies/unm.edu.pointer
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 README
send acad-freedom/widener README
send acad-freedom/policies unm.edu.pointer
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 16:11:29 1992
From: rone@pain.la.ca.us (Ron Edison)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,al
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Mat
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 19:58:35 PST
tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
> In article <1992Oct21.092051.11415@panix.com> simona@panix.com (Simona Nass)
>
> >In tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writ
>
> >>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.
>
> >Okay. Just tell me what "due process" means. -S.
>
> Look it up in a dictionary. Dictionaries are always right and give
> perfect and complete definitions of all words.
>
> (I guess I must give and start using smileys.
> Btw, do Americans always interpret "the majority" to include the speaker?
> I doubt I've ever used it that way ...)
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen (tt@math.jyu.fi, tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
As a matter of fact, a regular dictionary of the English Language will
not give anywhere near a factual understanding of legal words (normally)
what many people do not realize is that words in law have their own
separate and distinct meanings from the words' english definition. This
does not apply only to "legalese" necessarily. To complicate this
further, frequently for the purposes of one section of the law, a word is
defined one way, and for another purpose of the law, it is defined
another way. If you want to understand what a section of law actually
means, a good legal dictionary is a must, as well as definitions of words
for that section, frequently given in the beginning of that title
(broader section) or code. (If it's code law - ie, Penal Code,
California Vehicle Code, Code of Civil Procedures, etc, etc.)
When one actually begins to understand what the law means rather than
what it appears to mean, it becomes a very interesting pursuit, to say
the least.
--
rone@pain.la.ca.us
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 16:11:31 1992
From: rone@pain.la.ca.us (Ron Edison)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 20:15:06 PST
>
> "In what other school boards might consider a warning, Brawdy sued her
> district over "emotional distress" and collected $20,000 in an out-
> of-court settlement. Most judgments in these cases have been small,
> but the potential number of plaintiffs is huge."
>
> [End excerpts]
>
> There we have it; second-grade teasing is now sexual harassment, and schools
> are being found liable for failure to prevent it. What does this mean to
> your typical university computing facility, where a wealth of potentially-
> harassing material is easily available?
>
> [It should also be noted that state universities are included in Title IX
> of the Education Act of 1972. Therefore, these cases could probably serve
> as legal precedent for similar lawsuits at the university level. ]
>
> Given these developments, it would appear that we are (at least in the court-
> room) responsible for the active PREVENTION of sexual harassment. The Depart
> ment of Education's report said that the school "failed to protect her".
> Notice that it didn't (apparently) say "failed to establish a proper sexual
> harassment policy" or "failed to act on her complaints"; it said that the
> school failed to PROTECT her. These decisions and reports seem to indicate
> that we, as service/facility providers, now have an obligation to implement
> ACTIVE "protective measures".....
>
> Comments? Please? Someone tell me why I'm wrong.........
>
> --Wes
>
> --
> MORGAN@UKCC | Wes Morgan | ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
> morgan@ms.uky.edu | Engineering Computing | morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
> morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
> Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
This is a pattern of the interprentation, development, and
implementation of the law that I have noticed in many, many different
fields. I see this type of ridiculousness in the form of law as a
horrible trend (or maybe it's just a symptom) in our society.
Another excellent example of this is Worker's Compensation law - this
area, for the most part started out good intentioned, but has
deteriorated into a disgusted mass of, largely, fraud.
Sounds great, doesn't it - a worker in the factory works faithfully for
years, then, through a minor mistake on his part, or through no 'fault'
of his, he is injured, shouldn't he have the opportunity to get well so
that he is not out of a job?
Unfortunately, there are so many worker's comp claims that are nothing
at all like the "beautiful" picture I just drew...
One particular case comes to mind where a man arrives at work early,
and being early decides, of all things, to change his oil in his car. He
proceeds to injure himself as he works on his own car.
The APPEALS board of the Worker's Compensation bureau rules that
because the it is in the company's interest (the one he works for) that
he has a well maintained car, the claim should be paid, and he should
receive the benefits even though it was his OWN car on his OWN time.
This might appear off the subject of sexual discrimination laws, but
the same pattern is present - a system of law is set up for one specific
function, and it ends up stretched so far that one wonders that it
doesn't snap.
Legal insanty, in my opinion.
--
rone@pain.la.ca.us
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 16:30:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: confused@cwis.unomaha.edu (stephen richard smith)
Subject: Re: This is really scary
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 20:42:16 GMT
Short follow up: Even 1% or even one instance is to much. Every time
one item is censored it makes it that much easyer to broaden the definition
of "what can be censored" I am not overreacting by saying "that is exactly
how Nazi Germany started down their road to hell" And Yes I do agree with the
current limitations in this country. BUT I think that what is going on now
on college campuses far and away exceeds those limits. Don't kid yourself
if it happens at some other organization or institution, and is not challenged
It will eventualy Happen at Yours.
" When they came for the gypsies, I did nothing, because I wasn't a gypsy
When they came for the gays, I did nothing. because I wasn't gay
When they came for the mentaly retarded, again I did nothing,I wasn't
mental retarded.
When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, I wasn't Jewish
When they came for me... There was no one left to do anything"
A very poor remeberance of a quote of a statement by a catholic preist
in Nazi Germany.
--
__________________________________________________________________________
| the federal government is basically one enormous, ongoing meeting from |
| HELL-----Dave Barry |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 21:45:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Best academic policy: due process
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 02:15:32 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
}models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
}best is all ways, but here is my nomination for
}
} Best Model Of Due Process
...
}My nominee is the Iowa State University.
(once upon a time, we had a really nice access policy too... *sigh* ;-(
}----------------------------Original message----------------------------
}For what it's worth, the following is ISU's policy (we have a new version in
}the works that addresses items such as displaying obscene material on
}workstations in public labs, but it's not official thus not ready for
}distribution):
The new version has been out for some time now. The only change
I am aware of is from:
} # Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
} or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden. Also disallowed
} are random mailings and any message of commercial or political
} nature. BITNET users must also abide by the BITNET Usage
} Guidelines.
to:
# ISU policies regarding the appropriate use of university facilities
and the ethics of personal behavior apply to the use of all forms of
electronic communication. In addition, users of any electronic
communication facilities, such as electronic mail, networks, bulletin
boards and newsgroups, are obligated to comply with the restrictions
and acceptable practices established for those specific facilities.
Certain types of communications are expressly forbidden. This includes
the random mailing of messages; the sending of obscene, harassing, or
threatening material; or the use of the facilities for commercial or
political purposes.
--
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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 21:45:31 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Best academic policy: participation
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 02:31:01 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}I was asked via email which academic computer policies were the best
}models of good policy. I don't think there is a single policy that is
}best is all ways. Can anyone make a nomination for:
}
} Best Model Of Participation
Well, I can't quote the policy, but ISU's Computer Advisory Committee
is made up of 12 faculty members and 12 students (at least one from
every college). This committee advises the Provost on Computer Policy
for the University. Three standing sub-committees are:
* Access and Instruction
* Computation Center Advisory
* Computer Fee Allocation
(ISU collects $2.5M/yr in computer fees)
My experience as a student member of this committee last year was extremely
positive.
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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 29 23:49:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,news.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Prohibiting "political" expression (was Re: Best)
Message-ID: <1992Oct30.044904.11799@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 04:49:04 GMT
RE: Iowa State University policy
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
[...]
> The new version has been out for some time now.
[...]
> Certain types of communications are expressly forbidden. This
> includes [...] the facilities for [...] political purposes.
[...]
I don't understand this prohibition. A literal reading would mean that
the political science department is banned from using email. Is the
the rule based on a state law? If so, what does the law say? (The law
likely only bans some *partisan* political uses.) Are political clubs
also banned from using campus facilities?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 00:10:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Best academic policy: participation
Message-ID: <1992Oct30.051007.12061@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 05:10:07 GMT
RE: Best Model Of Participation
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>Well, I can't quote the policy, but ISU's Computer Advisory Committee
>is made up of 12 faculty members and 12 students (at least one from
>every college). This committee advises the Provost on Computer Policy
>for the University.
[...]
The view from the outside is that the ISU Computer Advisory Committee
is ignored. For example, a little of a year ago I believe that a
Netnews committee drafted a Netnews policy based on library policies.
Then the Computer Center, on its own, restricted all on-line
discussion of sex. These restrictions were rejected by both
committees, but almost a year later they still stand.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/cafv01n36: Message-Id: <1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 01.36
Notes 10-12 are about the application of library policy to newsgroups.
10. (Computer administrator at Iowa State:) Having a selection policy
based on Library policy is the proverbial ounce of prevention.
=================
news/cafv01n45: Message-Id: <1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 01.45
Notes 2-4 are about Iowa State University's restrictions on who can
see newsgroups such as alt.sex.
4. The policy was imposed by the Computation Center over the
objections of the Computer Center Newsgroup committee and University
Computation Center Advisory Sub-Committee.
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Notes 1-4 discuss newsgroup removals rationalized by creative
interpretations of law. Sites around the world have found this an
effective way to ban almost any topic, for example, war, drugs, gay
rights, crime, rape, abortion, and sex (including recovery from sexual
abuse and United Press International stories mentioning sex).
3. This is a parody of the Iowa State University policy that bans
discussions of sex (and previously drugs). It shows what the policy
might say if it were honest. It starts "We, a handful of individuals
in the Iowa State University Computation Center, have imposed a policy
on the distribution of Usenet newsgroups. ... The purpose of this
statement is to provide an after-the-fact justification of a decision
that we made without looking at the academic freedom issues."
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Note 10 discusses the history of altnet, the set of "alt" groups.
10. Contrary to the 'history' given in the Iowa State University
policy, the alt groups were not created by a 'collective group of
Usenet "news administrators"' as a place for dangerous topics. In
fact, the alt groups were created to fight the suppression of the
collective group.
=================
news/cafv02n08: Message-Id: <1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.08
Notes 4-5 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit
access to netnews.
4. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive
the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives. The head of
the department where the machines are located can request that the
machines have access to the omitted groups. Students and staff are
attempting to change the policy.
=================
news/cafv02n30: Message-Id: <1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.30
Note 4-5 discuss Iowa State University's and the University of Nebraska
at Lincoln's rationalizations for censorship.
4. In reply to a previous assertion that "Iowa State and U. of
Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention as reason to
censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
university, state, or federal regulations for their actions." ISU
admins have cited Chapter 728, [Iowa's Obscenity Law] though it
exempts libraries and educational institutions.
=================
=================
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/news/cafv01n36
pub/academic/news/cafv01n45
pub/academic/news/cafv02n11
pub/academic/news/cafv02n11
pub/academic/news/cafv02n08
pub/academic/news/cafv02n30
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n36
send acad-freedom/news cafv01n45
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n08
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n30
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 10:42:34 1992
Newsgroups: soc.rights.human,alt.censorship,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.celtic,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Wanted: "European Convention of Human Rights"
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 15:32:33 GMT
According to an Associated Press story in my local newspaper, the
European Convention of Human Rights guarantees the freedom "to receive
and impart information and ideas without interference by public
authority and regardless of frontiers." The recent European Court of
Human Rights decision based on the Convention touches the Net. It
apparently means that newsgroup alt.abortion should not be banned in
Ireland.
Is the full text of the Convention available on-line? If so, please
send me a copy, I'll put it in ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civil-liberty.
If not, and you'd like to type or scan it in, please send me email
(I'll coordinate so that there is no duplication of work.)
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/cafv02n11: Message-Id: <1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
=================
An article from the Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.11
Notes 1-4 discuss newsgroup removals rationalized by creative
interpretations of law. Sites around the world have found this an
effective way to ban almost any topic, for example, war, drugs, gay
rights, crime, rape, abortion, and sex (including recovery from sexual
abuse and United Press International stories mentioning sex).
2. (A person in Ireland:) "The computer/censorship issue related to
the fact that only crosspostings to the group _talk.abortion_ appear
here." If a posting to such a group had information on how to procure
an abortion, are we any more liable than a library with an English
telephone directory which has the phone number of an abortion clinic?
=================
civil-liberty/README
=================
* Civil Liberty Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of civil liberty statements. It includes
Briefing Papers from the American Civil Liberties Union. (The ACLU
material is made available by permission of the American Civil
Liberties Union)
If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
gopher -p academic/civil-liberty 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/civil-liberty". For email access, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom/civil-liberty
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 J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org).
=================
=================
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/news/cafv02n11
pub/academic/civil-liberty/README
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11
send acad-freedom/civil-liberty README
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 12:53:20 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,news.admin.policy
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Prohibiting "political" expression (was Re: Best)
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 17:29:19 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}RE: Iowa State University policy
}john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}[...]
}> The new version has been out for some time now.
}[...]
}> Certain types of communications are expressly forbidden. This
}> includes [...] the facilities for [...] political purposes.
}[...]
}I don't understand this prohibition. A literal reading would mean that
}the political science department is banned from using email. Is the
}the rule based on a state law? If so, what does the law say? (The law
}likely only bans some *partisan* political uses.) Are political clubs
}also banned from using campus facilities?
Yes, it is based on state and federal laws. I do not know the exact
state statute(s) so I can't comment on their wording. I believe the
federal statute is the "Hatch Act" which I believe only covers those
working under federal grant money (which given that ISU runs the USDOE
Ames Laboratory is quite a large number).
Clubs don't use computers, people use computers. ;-) Obviously, being
a member of a political club doesn't deprive a student from using a
university computer, but they may prohibited from using them in certain
ways (as a non-member would also be prohibited similarly).
Ideally, I suppose that sentence should say "for political purposes
which violate applicable state and federal statues".
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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 13:07:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 17:47:04 GMT
jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
}The rules are complaint oriented for what I feel is a good reason: the
}law does not define specific acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, nor
}does it require employers or schools or any one else to define what is
}acceptable or unacceptable behavior.
}As an alternative to direct confrontation, the person subjected to the
}behavior has the option of expressing their dissatisfaction to their
}supervisor or teacher or other direct or designated authority. It is
}then up to that authority to convey the unwelcome behavior
}message to the person(s) engaging in it.
}What is acceptable or unacceptable behavior is essentially entirely in
}the hands of the person subjected to the behavior. Supervisors and
}special officers do not make determinations of the acceptability of
}behavior.
This is outrageous! If this was the policy -- and I certainly hope it
is not the policy anyplace -- it would be perfectly reasonable for some
bozo to complain to my supervisor that something silly, say my wearing
a pink shirt every Friday, was harassment, and my supervisor would be
required to force me to no longer wear pink shirts?!?
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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 13:12:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Best academic policy: participation
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 17:58:04 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}RE: Best Model Of Participation
}
}john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}>Well, I can't quote the policy, but ISU's Computer Advisory Committee
}>is made up of 12 faculty members and 12 students (at least one from
}>every college). This committee advises the Provost on Computer Policy
}>for the University.
}The view from the outside is that the ISU Computer Advisory Committee
}is ignored. For example, a little of a year ago I believe that a
}Netnews committee drafted a Netnews policy based on library policies.
}Then the Computer Center, on its own, restricted all on-line
}discussion of sex. These restrictions were rejected by both
}committees, but almost a year later they still stand.
The CAC didn't reject it, but neither did they accept it -- they waffled
on it -- so, IMHO, *they* dropped the ball on that one. Also, a number of
University officials are still assisting the student group "SEF" in
arriving at a more acceptable policy.
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
From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 14:29:40 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,news.admin.policy
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Prohibiting "political" expression (was Re: Best)
Message-ID: <1992Oct30.192931.20021@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 19:29:31 GMT
john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>}> Certain types of communications are expressly forbidden. This
>}> includes [...] the facilities for [...] political purposes.
>[I]t is based on state and federal laws. I do not know the exact
>state statute(s) so I can't comment on their wording. I believe the
>federal statute is the "Hatch Act" which I believe only covers those
>working under federal grant money (which given that ISU runs the
>USDOE Ames Laboratory is quite a large number).
The Hatch Act applies only to federal civil service employees, not to
grantees and certainly not to students. I believe the States' "little
Hatch Acts" have similar scope. Moreover, the Hatch Act doesn't forbid
all political activity by covered employees [_United States Civil
Service Commission v. National Assocation of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S.
548 (1973)]. According to the ACLU Handbook _The Right to Protest_:
"Disallowed activities include serving on party or partisan campaign
committees or organziations, active campaigning in partisan election
campaigns, political fundraising, publically endorsing partisan
candidates, and running for partion office. Permitted activites
include wearing campaign buttons, displaying bumper stickers, working
with nonpartisan groups, contributing to political parties, attending
politcal fundions, and even extensive campaigning in nonpartisan
candidate or referendum election campaigns." [5 C.F.R. -- 733.111 and
733.121 and _Biller v. United States Merit System Protection Board_,
863 F.2d 1979 (2d Cir. 1988)]
At my school, in 1961, the Trustees added this to the rules on
visiting speakers:
"2. Political Speakers. University building and grounds shall not be
used for political purposes except for candidates for nomination or
election to state-wide or national offices may appear in person to
make political address."
However, the current rules have no such restrictions. They say:
"2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their
own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities
should not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear
to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest
speakers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the
views expressed either by the sponsoring group or the institution."
I don't know the law in Iowa, but I'm confident that the ISU computer
speech restriction is overly broad.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 15:14:04 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Facist Systems
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 18:55:37 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct30.185537.18012@bilver.uucp>
In article <1992Oct21.224417.4712@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>In article <1992Oct19.175336.24090@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>================================================================
>>Let me try to summarize my position:
>>
>>The line between prohibited sexual harassment and protected expression
>>is very, very fine. Because of this, universities have set up careful
> ^ some or most - certainly NOT all
>>procedures for enforcement of sexual harassment rules. No one should
>>try to enforce the rules unless they are authorized by the procedures.
>>To consider one sceniero, if a user complains to the sys admin of
>>sexual harassment via the computer, the sys admin should refer to user
>>to the sexual harassment procedure rather than trying to fix the
>>problem him or herself.
>>================================================================
>Once again, your solution is not universal or even applicable outside of
>the limited environment your involved in.
I do work for a local community college. They just published a
pamphlet on Sexual Harrasment.
In the first paragraph - describing different things that could be
consider sexual harrasment is one sentenct that reads in part "treating
a person with condensation".
I guess that means you can't rain on their parade. Seems it passed
the spell checker but no one really proof-read it.
That deserves a big smile
))))
))))
:::: ))))
:::: ))))
---- ))))
---- ))))
:::: ))))
:::: ))))
))))
))))
--
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org bill.vermillion@oau.org
- bill@bilver.uucp
- ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 15:24:58 1992
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Prohibiting "political" expression (was Re: Best)
Message-ID: <1cs5g4INN76p@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 1992 20:21:24 GMT
Carl Kadie writes:
}I don't understand this prohibition. A literal reading would mean that
}the political science department is banned from using email. Is the
}the rule based on a state law? If so, what does the law say? (The law
}likely only bans some *partisan* political uses.) Are political clubs
}also banned from using campus facilities?
John Hascall replies:
>Yes, it is based on state and federal laws. I do not know the exact
>state statute(s) so I can't comment on their wording. I believe the
>federal statute is the "Hatch Act" which I believe only covers those
>working under federal grant money (which given that ISU runs the USDOE
>Ames Laboratory is quite a large number).
John, you are misinformed about what the Hatch Act is and what it does.
The Hatch Act applies only to Federal employees. It does not apply to
you merely because you take money from a Federal grant. It does not
apply to government contractors, even if every dollar they make comes
from Uncle Sam.
Furthermore, the Hatch Act does not forbid Federal employees from engaging
in politics or from expressing political opinions. It forbids them from
certain official roles in partisan political campaigns, or for collecting
donations for political campaigns, and other than a couple of little
details that is pretty much it (things like: you can't wear political
buttons while on the job). Also, it applies only to civil servants,
not to political appointees. Federal employees still have First Amendment
rights.
If your university is making policy based on this kind of ignorance,
it's time for your decision-makers to get educated.
>Ideally, I suppose that sentence should say "for political purposes
>which violate applicable state and federal statues".
Please find an actual statute. Perhaps the state of Iowa has one;
there are no federal laws that impose restrictions on political
expression on campus computers.
--
Joe Buck jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 16:05:29 1992
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: A paradox
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Oct 92 19:01:04 GMT
In article <199210271948.AA02572@eff.org> U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU writes:
>> [...] I would not want to be a system
>>user or a citizen of a world in which EVERY small decision was
>>engraved in stone in an official policy. Freedom, to me, involves
>There may well be no way out of this double bind. On the one hand, a prolifer-
>ation of formal restrictions is almost universally acknowleged as undesirable.
>On the other hand, a smaller number of broadly drawn rules run a greater risk
>of arbitrary or capricious application. The actual results may hinge on the
>good sense--and the good will--of sysadmins and users.
The solution is good management. Not the stuff in books, but
intelligent, responsive, clear-thinking managers who listen to users
and to sysadmins and who are able to balance everyone's rights and
priorities. It's not that important in the long run whether management
consists of a multitude of oversight committees or one fair
individual...what matters is whether the system is run in a just,
professional, and effective way (there are good managers and bad
committees; there are great committees and rotten managers)
If a school or business is badly managed, everyone is going to
suffer in a number of ways. It is rare to find one horrible manager in
an otherwise wonderful organization...the best organizations don't
tolerate despots or incompetants.
When the system is rotten ,that's when legal action starts being a
good alternative....
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Oct 30 22:43:44 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,news.admin.policy
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Prohibiting "political" expression (was Re: Best)
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 03:37:45 GMT
jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
}Carl Kadie writes:
}}I don't understand this prohibition. A literal reading would mean that
}}the political science department is banned from using email. Is the
}}the rule based on a state law? If so, what does the law say? (The law
}}likely only bans some *partisan* political uses.) Are political clubs
}}also banned from using campus facilities?
That's quite a leap of logic by the way. If golfing is not allowed
on the campus lawn, does that mean the golf department can't walk
across the lawn?
}John Hascall replies:
}>Yes, it is based on state and federal laws. I do not know the exact
}>state statute(s) so I can't comment on their wording. I believe the
}>federal statute is the "Hatch Act" which I believe only covers those
}>working under federal grant money (which given that ISU runs the USDOE
}>Ames Laboratory is quite a large number).
}John, you are misinformed about what the Hatch Act is and what it does.
That is almost certainly the case...
...all I know is that I recently got e-mail from the ComSci dept
head along these lines (taking about ComSci dept facilities) --
is it possible he is misinformed? Certainly?
}If your university is making policy based on this kind of ignorance,
}it's time for your decision-makers to get educated.
I have no idea what kind of ignorance the polciy makers have,
as I am not one of them.
}Please find an actual statute. Perhaps the state of Iowa has one;
Yeah, right. Like I don't have anything better to do than to
wade through the foot of legal mumbo jumbo that is the Iowa Code. ;-)
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
From caf-talk Caf Nov 1 03:18:42 1992
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 08:40:04 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher
Message-ID: <92306.084004HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Prohibiting "political" expression (was Re: Best)
In article <1992Oct30.044904.11799@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) says:
>
>RE: Iowa State University policy
>
>john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>[...]
>> The new version has been out for some time now.
>[...]
>> Certain types of communications are expressly forbidden. This
>> includes [...] the facilities for [...] political purposes.
>[...]
>
>I don't understand this prohibition. A literal reading would mean that
>the political science department is banned from using email. Is the
>the rule based on a state law? If so, what does the law say? (The law
>likely only bans some *partisan* political uses.) Are political clubs
>also banned from using campus facilities?
I would assume that they are not forbidding political discussion but rather
political activism. This is similar to the EARN (European Academic
Research Network) polkicy which has the following statement:
EARN Code of Conduct
June 1990
2) Use of the network for political and religious activism is
forbidden.
That means that one is not to use the network to arrange demonstrations,
send around network petitions for signing, etc. Political discussion
is allowed.
>
>- Carl
>--
>Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
> =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Hank Nussbacher
hank@vm.biu.ac.il
Israel
