From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 01:29:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.fan.madonna,soc.libraries.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.sex,rec.arts.books
From: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan)
Subject: Re: [UPI] Library attacked for buying Madonna's Sex book
Message-ID: <22NOV199220564734@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:56:00 GMT
I should mention two things related to the book from Juneau, Alaska.
The first is that someone recently had anonymously donated a copy of
"Sex" to the Alaska State Library. Their official response was
something along the lines of "This is not the sort of thing we
collect - we'll decide at a later date how to dispense of it." (Yeah,
right - someone who works at the library probably took it home so he
could have something new with which to jack off at night) The other
item of note is that both of the primary booksellers in town (Juneau's
population is about 27,000) had initially refused to carry the book.
I seem to recall that they returned the initial shipments that were
sent to them. I don't know if they have reversed their stances since
then.
**********************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan *** This account is expiring soon;
please direct all e-mail to sean@freds.cojones.com - thanks! *********
Oh, and did I ever tell you how much I want to fnord you? :-) *******
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 01:54:07 1992
From: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.college
Subject: Re: The FBI takes a trip to Cornell...
Message-ID: <22NOV199221120322@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 92 05:12:00 GMT
In article <9211202036.AA12053@crocus.cit.cornell.edu>, escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer) writes...
>
>Criticisms I have:
>
>> Marjorie W. Hodges J.D. '91, judicial administrator, said her office is
>> pursuing its own investigation. The student may have violated a Campus
>> Code of Conduct status that forbids "trafficking, for profit or
>> otherwise, in goods and services, when incompatible with the interest
>> of the University and the Cornell community." She would not comment
>> any further on the case.
>
>This is Section J of Article II of Title 3 of the Cornell Code of Conduct.
>It is far, far, far too vague. Further, Article II of Title 1 seems to
>exclude the possibility of simultaneous University and criminal action.
Of course it is. It's generally the case of colleges and universities
to enact incredibly vague conduct regulations, most particularly
amongst public schools. This way, the administration can get rid of
any students they so desire for most any reason. Since most school
administrators regard students in the same sense as they regard the
shit they excrete when they use the bathroom, it doesn't matter to
them that these regulations they enact bear little resemblance to the
concept of "equal justice." Even if a court of law finds in favor of
the student, they still have reason to deny the student his prior
standing at the school.
**********************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan *** This account is expiring soon;
please direct all e-mail to sean@freds.cojones.com - thanks! *********
Oh, and did I ever tell you how much I want to fnord you? :-) *******
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 05:46:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.college.grad,comp.org.acm,misc.int-property
From: lfa1@cec2.wustl.edu (Lorrie Faith Ackerman)
Subject: host an RMS talk
Message-ID: <1992Nov22.205338.27197@wuecl.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:53:38 GMT
The ACM student chapter at Washington University in St. Louis is
sponsoring a lecture by Richard Stallman on January 22. In order to
make efficient use of his time, RMS has asked me to find out if there
are any other groups who would like him to speak while he is in the
midwest. WashU will be paying his transportation to St. Louis,
your group would have to pay his transportation from St. Louis to
wherever you are. If you are interested, please contact me by
email. (Also, if you are in St. Louis and would like to attend
the talk at WashU, contact me for details.) The following is
excerpted from infor RMS sent me about his talk:
Title:
Protecting the Freedom to Write Software
The new software monopolies, and what we can do about them
Abstract:
New monopolies threaten the freedom of programmers to continue doing
their work. Copyrighted interfaces prohibit supporting the commands
users know and expect. Patented algorithms and techniques make each
design decision carry the risk of a lawsuit.
Richard Stallman will talk about how these monopolies originated and
why they are bad for computer users and programmers. He will then
suggest what you can do to help eliminate them.
Bio:
Richard Stallman is one of the founders of the League for Programming
Freedom, a grassroots organization whose aim is to protect the freedom
to write programs. Specifically, the League aims to abolish two
recently established forms of monopoly which restrict programmers'
freedom to do their work: interface copyright and software patents.
The 800 or so League members include programmers, professors,
students, entrepreneurs, users, and software companies.
In the field of software, Richard Stallman is best known for
developing the extensible editor, Emacs, while working at the MIT
Artifical Intelligence lab between 1971 and 1984. Today he is working
to develop the free UNIX-compatible software system known as GNU.
Like many other software developers, he fears that the new monopolies
will make his work impossible to continue.
In 1990, Stallman received a MacArthur Foundation fellowship; he also
received the 1990 ACM Grace Hopper Award for his work on Emacs.
Additional info:
To cover the two topics of copyrighted languages and software patents
properly takes two hours (including time for discussion). If
necessary, I can make the talk shorter by cutting things out, but then
the talk won't be as good. With just an hour, I can talk about either
interface copyright or software patents, but not both.
The facilities I need are a transparency projector and a whiteboard or
blackboard. But I can do without them if you can't arrange for them.
Charging admission:
I give talks on this subject to help make the public aware of a threat
to their freedom. Limiting the admission to the talks partially
defeats their purpose.
I don't mind if you ask people to contribute to defray costs, but
please admit people even if they cannot pay.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lorrie Ackerman -- Washington U. engineering and policy grad student
6645 University Dr. Apt 2-W, St. Louis, MO 63130 (314)727-4910
lorracks@informatics.wustl.edu lfa1@cec1 lorracks@maria lorracks@cs1
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 10:42:42 1992
From: wohler@sapwdf.UUCP (Bill Wohler)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <4092@sapwdf.UUCP>
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:59:52 GMT
gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes:
>This country (USA) is pissing me off.
me too. in fact, i finally hit the trans-apathetic stage and will
be writing for addresses of state and federal politicos, as well as
some papers and magazines, so i can write them and tell them that the
"moral majority" is neither. i suggest you do the same.
if anyone knows if these addresses are available on-line, please
e-mail the source to me (i do not get this newsgroup).
america, the land of the free?
Bill Wohler
Heidelberg Red Barons Ultimate Frisbee Team
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 12:07:50 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.acm,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.college.grad,comp.org.acm,misc.int-property
From: chai@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Your friendly neighbourhood Spectre)
Subject: Re: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, et al.] host an RMS talk
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:50:57 GMT
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The ACM student chapter at Washington University in St. Louis is
>sponsoring a lecture by Richard Stallman on January 22. In order to
>make efficient use of his time, RMS has asked me to find out if there
>are any other groups who would like him to speak while he is in the
>midwest. WashU will be paying his transportation to St. Louis,
>your group would have to pay his transportation from St. Louis to
>wherever you are. If you are interested, please contact me by
>email. (Also, if you are in St. Louis and would like to attend
>the talk at WashU, contact me for details.) The following is
>excerpted from infor RMS sent me about his talk:
Hey! This sounds very interesting! Do we (acm@uiuc) have enough funds
to do it?
Ian
--
--- Xtrek is lovely, dark and deep.
God is gracious = Yahya = Yochanan = But I have promises to keep,
Johannes = John = Jean = Jan = Ian And megs to write before I sleep,
Internet: chai@cs.uiuc.edu And megs to write before I sleep.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 13:21:21 1992
From: news@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:43:21 GMT
In article <1enjq4INNslt@clinet.fi> alien@clinet.fi (Risto Juvonen) writes:
>
> huh, I'm very pleased that I'm living in Finland, ...
>Nice to live in _free_ country! Sorry for you, U.S. citizens...
I'm sorry for us, too. One of these days, I'm going to move to a country
that's *actually* civilized, instead of just pretending to be. I'm American
by an accident of birth, not by choice. A few years ago, I fixed the error
of having been born in Illinois. Perhaps, once I can overcome my inertia,
I will fix the error of having been born in the U.S.
So, where can I go to learn Finnish? :-)
John Opalko
john@n7kbt.rain.com
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 14:59:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: thornley@mega.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov23.195721.6706@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:57:21 GMT
In article gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes:
>UPI writes:
>> The FBI is investigating whether a Cornell University sophomore has
>> transmitted child pornography over computer bulletin boards, a report said
>> Friday.
>Washington DC! Listen up! Give the FBI more important things to do!
>
Child pornography is important not because it is pornography but because
it is....
>> material involving sexual exploitation of minors
>I'll bet they're payed a hell of a lot more than Ronald McD would pay 'em.
>
Well, that's a callous attitude. Working for McDonald's is not known to
cause serious psychological problems throughout life.
>> Netnews
>That's "Usenet" or "UseNet", not "Netnews".
>
Actually, it probably isn't Usenet, technically, it's probably a.b.p.e or
some such alt group. Now that you've shown you don't quite understand it,
do you expect UPI to have a clue? Actually, you should be hoping they
get it wrong; if university or company administrators conclude that there
is something called Netnews that distributes child porn, don't you want
to be able to tell them that Usenet is actually something different and
shouldn't get the axe?
>> In 1988, graduate student Robert Morris Jr. was convicted and fined $10,000
>> for launching a computer ``worm,'' which also destroys software but differs
>> from a virus in that it is self-perpetuating.
>THE PERSECUTION OF MORRIS WAS UNJUSTIFIED (and I _hate_ using all-caps for
>emphasis). It was his graduate project in computer risks and security. Given
>the worm's tenacity, the likelihood of its accidental release is high enough to
>believe that its release _was_ accidental. Regardless, it did nothing more
>than propagate itself. Many consider his worm a good thing.
>
Many considered his worm to be annoying and costly, since it brought
numerous systems to their knees for a day or more. Would you be quite
so understanding if a microbiology student's graduate project accidentally
escaped and caused everybody in a medium-sized city to have the equivalent
of a severe cold? Morris did write a vicious worm, and it did get out
somehow, and caused the loss of thousands or millions of dollars of
computer and human time. Exactly what should the reaction have been?
>This country (USA) is pissing me off.
>
At least we have people who will check publicly available sources now and
then for evidence of felonies, rather than ignoring the possibility. Do
they do things differently in Finland?
DHT
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 16:52:31 1992
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: The Internet worm, again! (was: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell")
Date: 23 Nov 1992 21:25:25 GMT
Message-ID: <1eri85INNq8s@morrow.stanford.edu>
In article
gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes:
>> In October, sophomores David Blumenthal and Mark Pilgrim were sentenced to
>> community service for creating a computer virus that wreaked havoc on
>> software as far away as Japan.
>Good. Thanks!
>
>> In 1988, graduate student Robert Morris Jr. was convicted and fined $10,000
>> for launching a computer ``worm,'' which also destroys software but differs
>> from a virus in that it is self-perpetuating.
[ The important difference is that the worm was self-propagating.
Most viruses are self-perpetuating, but depend on careless
users for propagation to new machines. ]
>THE PERSECUTION OF MORRIS WAS UNJUSTIFIED (and I _hate_ using all-caps for
>emphasis). It was his graduate project in computer risks and security. Given
>the worm's tenacity, the likelihood of its accidental release is high enough to
>believe that its release _was_ accidental. Regardless, it did nothing more
>than propagate itself. Many consider his worm a good thing.
Using the worm's tenacity as an argument for its release
having been accidental is akin to asking for blanket pleas
of "not guilty by reason of insanity" because heinous
criminal acts are so obviously committed only by people who
are not rational.
The furtive approach that was coded into the worm is more
consistent with an intended prank than with a research
project. The fact that Morris was working on such a
project and was knowledgeable about the potential effects
of such a program makes his actions more reprehensible, not
less.
Th those who would classify this prank as a cautionary
demonstration of vulnerability, I'd reply that I agree.
However, it was a demonstration that was carried out
in full knowledge that its tactics were illegal. Like
practitioners of civil disobedience in political
demonstrations, Morris has to be prepared to face the
consequences of his actions.
>This country (USA) is pissing me off.
Fine. Move to Rumania, where virus writers are underground
heroes. Don't complain about the rest of the political
system there, though.
--
Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com
(415) 323-9000 x117 karish@pangea.stanford.edu
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 17:35:42 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.acm,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.college.grad,comp.org.acm,misc.int-property
From: knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase)
Subject: Re: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, et al.] host an RMS talk
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:12:51 GMT
In chai@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Your friendly neighbourhood Spectre) writes:
>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>>[quoting a post]
>>>make efficient use of his time, RMS has asked me to find out if there
>>>are any other groups who would like him to speak while he is in the
>>>midwest.
>Hey! This sounds very interesting! Do we (acm@uiuc) have enough funds
>to do it?
This is definitely a talk worth hosting (even though it GASP doesn't fall
on a first Wednesday :).
Rental car fees could probably be saved by having someone (with a nice enough
car :) drive down and get him. Payment to this person would be a couple hours
conversation with Stallman.
I cannot volunteer for this, but I recommend it highly. At my undergrad
school, we sometimes rented cars to drive a speaker to his next destination,
and it's a good opportunity to talk to a "great person" on a conversational
level.
I'd consider asking the Department for money for an overnight stay somewhere,
realizing that this stay might be in St. Louis or someplace else if RMS's
schedule becomes packed.
Rob
--
Rob Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group
"Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow, ye will be taxed." America, I
hope 'change' was worth it...
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 17:42:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:54:10 GMT
In article <1enjq4INNslt@clinet.fi> alien@clinet.fi (Risto Juvonen) writes:
huh, I'm very pleased that I'm living in Finland, our "secret police"
has better things to do with taxpayers money that they would waste
time for investigating pornography. And, they could not even do that:
pornography is not enough big crime that they can do house search.
Nice to live in _free_ country! Sorry for you, U.S. citizens...
I hope that one of the "better things" they have to do is investigate
child abuse. I think that /child/ pornography is so likely to damage
the children photographed that it ought to be treated very seriously.
However, I also hope that the student(s) involved in posting it will
not be dealt with as severely as the creator(s) of the photographs.
Unless, of course, it is shown that they are the same people.
--
Ed McGuire 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/ Dallas, Texas 75234
Member of Technical Staff 214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 17:42:14 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:58:42 GMT
In article gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes:
> Netnews
That's "Usenet" or "UseNet", not "Netnews".
If you are going to be so picky about semantics, let me point out that
you are dead wrong. "Usenet" names the big seven. Since the pictures
were carried in the alt hierarchy, not any of the big seven, they
cannot be said to have been posted to Usenet. "Netnews" is the
generally accepted name for the entire news network. See the C News
documentation, for example.
--
Ed McGuire 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/ Dallas, Texas 75234
Member of Technical Staff 214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 18:07:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Good news for the Net (was: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell")
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:59:59 GMT
In article <1992Nov21.184453.4548@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
forwards a Clarinet article which states:
> ITHACA, N.Y. (UPI) -- The FBI is investigating whether a Cornell
>University sophomore has transmitted child pornography over computer
>bulletin boards, a report said Friday.
> The New York Times said agents this week raided a student's room as
>part of an investigation that began Nov. 11, after the administrator of
>another bulletin board told the Ivy League university of seeing material
>involving sexual exploitation of minors.
This is very good news... it reaffirms the principle that the poster
is responsible for material posted to the Net, not the indviduals
or orginizations providing the physical infrastructure and storage
for the Net.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 18:27:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:20:57 GMT
In article
gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes (In response to a UPI
article reposted by Carl Kadie):
>Washington DC! Listen up! Give the FBI more important things to do!
I agree with this sentiment in principle. However, I am extremely
happy that the FBI is investigating the poster of the articles in
question, and not trying to shut down Cornell's Netnews facilities or
confiscating their equipment. In short, I think the FBI is acting
responsibly (compared to much the recent history of electronic law
enforcement), and I applaud them.
>> Netnews
>That's "Usenet" or "UseNet", not "Netnews".
No. First of all USENET is capitalized "USENET" or "Usenet", not "UseNet",
secondly, Altnet *is* *not* Usenet... Usenet is the set consisting of the
"big seven" hierarchies, news, comp, rec, soc, sci, misc, talk. The set of
all hierarchies, including Usenet, Altnet, Gnusnet, Clarinet, and many that
have explicit name other than their hierarchy name may be most appropriately
referred to as "Netnews". So the UPI article was right and you're wrong.
>> In 1988, graduate student Robert Morris Jr. was convicted and fined $10,000
>> for launching a computer ``worm,'' which also destroys software but differs
>> from a virus in that it is self-perpetuating.
>THE PERSECUTION OF MORRIS WAS UNJUSTIFIED (and I _hate_ using all-caps for
>emphasis). It was his graduate project in computer risks and security. Given
>the worm's tenacity, the likelihood of its accidental release is high enough to
>believe that its release _was_ accidental. Regardless, it did nothing more
>than propagate itself. Many consider his worm a good thing.
Before pronouncing your ignorance to the world, why don't you read up
on the actual history of what happened? Quite a bit has been written,
both about the technical nature of the worm and about Morris's
motivation in writing it. 1) The worm was not a "graduate project",
and in fact was in way directly related to his graduate course work.
2) The worm did something much more than propagate itself... it
crashed machines. It did so by replicating uncontrollably due several
bugs. Even if one assumes no harmful intentions on Morris's part,
releasing the worm in this untested, buggy state was an extremely
irresponsible (and arrogant) act which I personally deplore. (I'll
add here that I do think the prosecution came down on the kid way
harder than was appropriate, however.)
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 19:26:40 1992
From: gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:05:36 GMT
Well, several folks have brought it to my attention that I was way off base
in my perception of Morris's worm. To those that served me my crow cooked to
delicate perfection, thanks for the info. To those that served it burnt to
a crisp, refuckinglax. Again, sorry for spreading my misinformation.
Blushing, [Ag]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 20:08:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.004934.21721@dsd.es.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 00:49:34 GMT
In article
gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes:
>THE PERSECUTION OF MORRIS WAS UNJUSTIFIED (and I _hate_ using all-caps for
>emphasis). It was his graduate project in computer risks and security. Given
>the worm's tenacity, the likelihood of its accidental release is high enough to
>believe that its release _was_ accidental. Regardless, it did nothing more
>than propagate itself. Many consider his worm a good thing.
This is rediculous. I attended a talk given by Donn Seeley, one of
the people who worked with the Berkeley crowd to disassemble the
worm. There isn't any likely reason to believe that this was an
innocent experiment gone awry. There is every reason that Morris was
pulling a prank he expected to get away with.
Many of us lost important time and MONEY in tracking this thing down
and stamping it out. I don't know _anyone_ who considers this worm to
be a good thing except perhaps the poster of the above offal.
-- Rich
--
Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson Rich Thomson
Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com IRC: _Rich_ PEXt Programmer
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 20:26:18 1992
Date: Monday, 23 Nov 1992 19:29:14 EST
From: Nicholas C. Hester
Message-ID: <92328.192914IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
In article ,
gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) says:
>
>
>> Netnews
>That's "Usenet" or "UseNet", not "Netnews".
On IBM machines the reader for Usenet is called NETNEWS. People around
here often refer to the perusal of Usenet groups as "reading NetNews."
___
Nicholas Hester
ia80024@Maine.bitnet
ia80024@Maine.maine.edu
From caf-talk Caf Nov 23 20:33:21 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.acm,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.college.grad,comp.org.acm,misc.int-property
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, et al.] host an RMS talk
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:17:47 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.011747.1361@clarinet.com>
In article knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes:
>Rental car fees could probably be saved by having someone (with a nice enough
>car :) drive down and get him. Payment to this person would be a couple hours
>conversation with Stallman.
This must be some new definition of "payment" with which I was previously
unfamiliar. :-)
(IT'S A JOKE, OK????)
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 01:12:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.college.grad,comp.org.acm,misc.int-property
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: host an RMS talk
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.055249.7803@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:52:49 GMT
Considering that there are other views on this very
important subject, I HOPE that you will be having
someone join rms to take the opposite side (or
at least a moderate position).
--
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420 fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com Ham radio: AA6ER
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 01:52:17 1992
From: news@ossi.com (OSSI Newsstand)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1eshqhINNfai@ossi.ossi.com>
Date: 24 Nov 92 06:24:17 GMT
gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes:
>> In 1988, graduate student Robert Morris Jr. was convicted and fined $10,000
>> for launching a computer ``worm,'' which also destroys software but differs
>> from a virus in that it is self-perpetuating.
>THE PERSECUTION OF MORRIS WAS UNJUSTIFIED (and I _hate_ using all-caps for
>emphasis). It was his graduate project in computer risks and security. Given
>the worm's tenacity, the likelihood of its accidental release is high enough to
>believe that its release _was_ accidental. Regardless, it did nothing more
>than propagate itself. Many consider his worm a good thing.
>This country (USA) is pissing me off.
>Regards, [Ag]
Perhaps it was a grad project, but he is smart enough cookie to know
how many millions of dollars his "project" cost to clean up after.
He's lucky not to have been near me when I was picking up the
pieces. If I could have gotten close enough, I would have crippled
him for LIFE!
His irresponsibility needed to be made an example of.
He couldn't have NOT know the damage he would do.
FRY the BASTARD !!!
Im sick of people feeling sorry for "poor little morris"
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 01:52:19 1992
From: news@ossi.com (OSSI Newsstand)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1eshs8INNfc0@ossi.ossi.com>
Date: 24 Nov 92 06:25:12 GMT
news@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko) writes:
>In article <1enjq4INNslt@clinet.fi> alien@clinet.fi (Risto Juvonen) writes:
>>
>> huh, I'm very pleased that I'm living in Finland, ...
>>Nice to live in _free_ country! Sorry for you, U.S. citizens...
>I'm sorry for us, too. One of these days, I'm going to move to a country
>that's *actually* civilized, instead of just pretending to be. I'm American
>by an accident of birth, not by choice. A few years ago, I fixed the error
>of having been born in Illinois. Perhaps, once I can overcome my inertia,
>I will fix the error of having been born in the U.S.
>So, where can I go to learn Finnish? :-)
>John Opalko
>john@n7kbt.rain.com
Are there any good jobs in Amsterdam? (I'm seriously toying with
moving there...
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 07:09:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.111112.16857@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 11:11:12 GMT
In article , emcguire@intellection (Ed McGuire) writes:
>I hope that one of the "better things" they have to do is investigate
>child abuse. I think that /child/ pornography is so likely to damage
>the children photographed that it ought to be treated very seriously.
I don't think that particular witchhunt is popular here, and I hope it
never will be. We have enough trouble from the current US imports
like the "drug delers" witchhunt, which is used as an excuse for
trying to get phone tapping authority despite the fact that Finland
has one of the lowest volumes in drug trade in the world. (oh, there
was a mention of "terrorism" also but apparently it was realized how
ridiculous it was and dropped)
Followups directed to alt.society.civil-liberty.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 08:47:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: eduard@cvi.ns.nl (Eduard Tulp)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.113219.28937@cvi.ns.nl>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 11:32:19 GMT
In article <1eshs8INNfc0@ossi.ossi.com> news@ossi.com (OSSI Newsstand) writes:
>news@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko) writes:
>
>>I'm sorry for us, too. One of these days, I'm going to move to a country
>>that's *actually* civilized, instead of just pretending to be. I'm American
>>by an accident of birth, not by choice. A few years ago, I fixed the error
>>of having been born in Illinois. Perhaps, once I can overcome my inertia,
>>I will fix the error of having been born in the U.S.
>
>>So, where can I go to learn Finnish? :-)
>
>Are there any good jobs in Amsterdam? (I'm seriously toying with
>moving there...
>
There are. But Finnish will not help you very much overhere...
But seriously, I noticed that John Opalko lives in Oregon which I think is
a very civilized state (I also happen to have friends living there...) I
was rather surprised to hear that Measure no. 9 lost something like 54 to
46. And that's too close for comfort, as my friend noticed. And you do not
have to be gay (I'm not, nor is my friend for that matter) to disapprove! I
think something like no. 9 would cause some sort of uproar in The
Netherlands. Mind you, as far as I know child porn is illegal here. I
cannot really say that I disagree. A matter of personal opinion perhaps.
Eduard T.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 08:53:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: alan@ssd.ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <9211241039.AA05786@george.ukpoit.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 10:24:48 GMT
> >I'll bet they're payed a hell of a lot more than Ronald McD would pay 'em.
> >
> Well, that's a callous attitude. Working for McDonald's is not known to
> cause serious psychological problems throughout life.
>
That's debatable! I know some people who've worked in McDonald's and
similar meat places, and lived to regret it!
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 10:14:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: guest@veronica.cs.wisc.edu (Guest account)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 15:01:36 GMT
alien@clinet.fi (Risto Juvonen) writes:
[carl kadie's reprint of the clarinews article...]
> huh, I'm very pleased that I'm living in Finland, our "secret police"
>has better things to do with taxpayers money that they would waste
>time for investigating pornography. And, they could not even do that:
>pornography is not enough big crime that they can do house search.
>Nice to live in _free_ country! Sorry for you, U.S. citizens...
> alien
I agree- why waste the time. Anybody know how many points fluency in
french gets you on Canada's point system? The U.S. is too fucked up
to fix. I've had enough of our flavor of "freedom" where a govt. "for
the people" can shit all over everyone and get away with it.
-Tim Petlock
petlock@turing.org
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 11:13:02 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <168A9991D.EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 15:53:14 GMT
In article
news@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko) writes:
>So, where can I go to learn Finnish? :-)
My guess: try Finnishing school! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :) :) :)
>John Opalko
--Eric
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 12:54:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 17:42:46 GMT
EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
|news@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko) writes:
|>So, where can I go to learn Finnish? :-)
|My guess: try Finnishing school!
I don't know.... I s'pose that you could always go to a dive shop and buy
or rent some swimming Finns to translate for you. ;)
--
Bigotry is not a family value. Boycott Colorado and Tampa.
Michael Adams (StarOwl@uiuc.edu, wi.4962@n7kbt.rain.com)
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 14:59:43 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.52
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.195933.21004@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 19:59:33 GMT
[See the end of this article for information about obtaining the full
CAF-News electronically and about CAF-News in general.]
Topics discussed in CAF-News 02.52:
1-10 about the screening of GIF files by system administrators, and the
proper response to complaints concerning images displayed by
others in public
11 about the posting of political information in a mass mailing
12 discusses making sysadmins the first contact for harassment
complaints
Abstract of CAF-News 02.52:
[Week ending October 25, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-10 are about the screening of GIF files by system administrators,
and the proper response to complaints concerning images displayed by others
in public.
1. A discussion of the appropriateness of screening GIF files is
continued from earlier postings. "... it's certainly not as binary as
'good' vs. 'bad'..." There are issues of copyright, creativity,
originality. "... there's no original creativity here, it's just
someone's facility with a sampler/scanner."
2. "... in a working shop our [system administrator's] job is to
facilitate use of our systems." Some sysadmins have policy
responsibility, some do not, but all sysadmins shoulder some social
responsibility. "... I would not want to be a system user or citizen
of a world in which EVERY small decision was engraved in stone in an
official policy."
3. One occasionally has policies against viewing certain material on
University equipment, and the University subscribes to all available
newsgroups. Sometimes the best way to deal with this is "not dealing
at all". "The question is not of suppressing it, but of making users
(by non-suppressive means!) to abandon... misuse by themselves."
<1992Oct19.102507.15648@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
4. "Why do [users] want *.pictures? ... It is *getting them for free* or at
least the feeling of that. ... Cost of transmission and storage *is* an
issue. And users... should become aware of it."
<1992Oct19.113827.17687@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
5. A sysadmins job is to do what management wants. "Management should
be making the policy decisions, not the [system] administrators
[regarding rules for viewing images on company equipment]."
<70@ocdis01.UUCP>
6. "The line between prohibited sexual harassment and protected
expression is very, very fine. ... No one should try to enforce the
rules unless they are authorized by the procedures." An excerpt from
the UIUC Code on Campus Affairs is provided as an example of who might
be authorized to take action.
<1992Oct19.175336.24090@eff.org>
7. Complaints should be resolved in an informal way if possible. However,
"In many cases a sysadmin has supervisory responsibility over people who are
not technically under his or her control. ... At the least, they should be
able to direct users to a more appropriate means of complaint."
<1992Oct20.150640.1599@news.columbia.edu>
8. Excerpts from a brochure issued by the President's Office at UK are
listed in which sexual harassment is defined to be conduct which
interfers with an individual's work, or creates an offensive working
or academic environment. The display of sexually explicit material
must be justified by a compelling educational purpose to be
permissable in the public University environment. "It is the
responsibility of each of us to prevent sexual harassment and to
respond appropriately to such illegal behavior when it occurs." How
should a sysadmin act in the face of such direction?
<1992Oct20.131432.2258@ms.uky.edu>
9. The definition of sexual harassment at UK in unconstitutional in the US.
What is an appropriate response? Not illegal prior review. References are
provided to relevant material.
<1992Oct20.192932.21030@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
10. Regarding the actions to be taken by sysadmins over complaints "What about
informally saying `I've received some complaints about this; could we find
some way for you to do it without bothering others?'" Informal attempts to
resolve problems should preceed the application of bureaucracy.
<1992Oct21.83754.29551@ms.uky.edu>
Note 11 is about the posting of political information in a mass mailing.
11. Two issues: is the user being punished for promoting a viewpoint and is the
user receiving due process. If the mailer is a student, is the action against
the student kept confidential in compliance with FERPA. References provided
for these points.
<1992Oct23.050254.20807@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 12 discusses making sysadmins the first contact for harassment complaints.
12. "If the person you go to with a complaint does not understand the situation
surrounding the complaint, they will not be in a ... position to offer
reasonalble advi[c]e or take reasonable action." There are dangers in
ignoring the problem as trivial, or in responding in a draconian manner, if
a fist contact isn't aware of the complexities of the issues.
<1992Oct23.193222.2611@news.columbia.edu>
- John F. Nixon]
About CAF-News:
The abstract is for the most recent "Computers and Academic Freedom News"
(CAF-News). The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n52".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n52
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, John F. Nixon, Aaron Barnhart, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not
an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial
decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 15:18:14 1992
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.191354.157@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Date: 24 Nov 92 19:13:54 GMT
guest@veronica.cs.wisc.edu (Guest account) writes:
>> huh, I'm very pleased that I'm living in Finland, our "secret police"
>>has better things to do with taxpayers money that they would waste
>>time for investigating pornography. And, they could not even do that:
>>pornography is not enough big crime that they can do house search.
>>Nice to live in _free_ country! Sorry for you, U.S. citizens...
>> alien
>I agree- why waste the time. Anybody know how many points fluency in
>french gets you on Canada's point system? The U.S. is too fucked up
>to fix. I've had enough of our flavor of "freedom" where a govt. "for
>the people" can shit all over everyone and get away with it.
I guess you aren't aware of the fact that the Canadain courts decided
last spring that anything containing "violence" and sex at the same
time was *automatically* obscene, and therefore illegal to import or
possess. Canadain customs is confiscating *spanking* videos under this
decision.
When it comes to free speech, *nowhere* in the world is all that safe.
--
Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO: 1:105/51 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 15:57:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: 76630.3577@compuserve.com (Duncan Frissell)
Subject: Harassment
Message-ID: <921124205113_76630.3577_EHL72-1@CompuServe.COM>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 20:51:14 GMT
Here is a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for harassment charges:
****************************************************************************
NOTICE
All speeches, writings, representations, or actions constituting symbolic
speech; made, produced, or performed by me which are believed by anyone to
be; or which are held by any person or organization to be; RACIAL, SEXUAL,
OR ANY OTHER FORM OF HARASSMENT were made, produced, or performed by me with
the specific intent to return the legal status of the person to whom they
were directed to that legal status which they would have enjoyed prior to
the year 1900.
Such speech, writing, representation, or action constituting symbolic
speech; is thus POLITICAL SPEECH and is absolutely protected by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, No government
agency or private institution acting under the orders of any government
agency can legally punish me for such speech, writing, representation, or
action constituting symbolic speech.
****************************************************************************
Use it wisely.
Duncan
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 16:49:48 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 21:39:34 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 16:49:48 1992
From: jiro@shaman.com
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.125748.19653@shaman.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 12:57:48 GMT
In article <1992Nov23.215422.18851@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>In <1992Nov19.184048.7621@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rkeller@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Keller) writes:
>>Look, it's the net.police!
>Yes, well, the net.police appear to be working with the FBI this time
>around. I noticed a story on ClariNews which described an FBI
>investigation at Cornell and mentioned that a student's room had been
>searched.
You are quite right. The FBI did search the individual's room and he has
been detained pending formal charges of distributing child pornography.
According to the Cornell Daily Sun report I read, his neighbours were
altogether unsurprised that he was caught for this particular crime.
I have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous system administrator.
His reaction to the virus (where again students were arrested) and to
this incidence (which involves the Feds) was exactly what was warranted.
I think Cornell has had enough with being the "Bad Computing Center" of
the world -- that which emanates viruses and pornography and not research.
Jiro Nakamura
ps. Personally I wonder how the students have time for all those foibles...
Most of them are enginerds, don't they have better things to do like
xtrek or irc?
--
Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com (NeXTmail)
NeXTwatch / Technical Editor 76711,542 (CIS)
The Shaman Group +1 607 277-1440 (Voice/Fax)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 16:49:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 21:39:56 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 16:49:49 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.182209.24666@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 24 Nov 92 18:22:09 GMT
In <1992Nov24.125748.19653@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com writes:
>You are quite right. The FBI did search the individual's room and he has
>been detained pending formal charges of distributing child pornography.
>According to the Cornell Daily Sun report I read, his neighbours were
>altogether unsurprised that he was caught for this particular crime.
And why was that? (Feel free to answer via email, I'm just curious.)
>I have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous system administrator.
>His reaction to the virus (where again students were arrested) and to
>this incidence (which involves the Feds) was exactly what was warranted.
>I think Cornell has had enough with being the "Bad Computing Center" of
>the world -- that which emanates viruses and pornography and not research.
I agree. I can't imagine what the paranoia level would be around here if
our site was responsible for a sting of similar 'incidents.' Since
responsibility for such postings is hard to determine I can't blame a site
manager for reacting forcefully (or even over-reacting) when something
like this happens. They have to take action to protect themselves from
being held responsible.
In this case I think Cornell made the right decision. Access to
alt.binaries.pictures.* is not a fundamental human right. If you really
need to look at dirty pictures you can buy a magazine at your local
newstand (or subscribe).
-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
"A man who envies our family is a man who needs help."
-Lisa Simpson, "The Simpsons"
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 17:12:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy
From: lhp@daimi.aau.dk (Lasse Hiller|e Petersen)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.215052.7853@daimi.aau.dk>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 21:50:52 GMT
emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>In article gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes:
> > Netnews
> That's "Usenet" or "UseNet", not "Netnews".
>If you are going to be so picky about semantics, let me point out that
>you are dead wrong. "Usenet" names the big seven. Since the pictures
>were carried in the alt hierarchy, not any of the big seven, they
>cannot be said to have been posted to Usenet. "Netnews" is the
>generally accepted name for the entire news network. See the C News
>documentation, for example.
I disagree. The term USENET, at least as it "semi-officially" defined,
seems to cover also the alt.* hierarchy, among many other things.
In news.answers, Gene Spafford periodically writes, under
the subject "What is Usenet?":
*WHAT USENET IS
*--------------
*Usenet is the set of people who exchange articles tagged with one or
*more universally-recognized labels, called "newsgroups" (or "groups"
*for short).
*
*(Note that the term "newsgroup" is correct, while "area," "base,"
*"board," "bboard," "conference," "round table," "SIG," etc. are
*incorrect. If you want to be understood, be accurate.)
Later:
*In the shadowy world of news-mail gateways and mailing lists, the line
*between Usenet and not-Usenet becomes very hard to draw.)
And later:
*Among the periodic postings are lists of active newsgroups, both
*"standard" (for lack of a better term) and "alternative."
It seems to me that the only significant difference between alt.* and
the other newsgroup hierarchies is the creation guidelines.
Of course:
*WORDS TO LIVE BY #2:
* USENET AS ANARCHY
*--------------------
* Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.
To use your wording: you are dead wrong.
(Wow, a newbie flaming a sysadmin. :-)
--
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen -lhp@daimi.aau.dk / "I AM THE CRAWLY CATERPILLAR, WHO
lassehp@imv.aau.dk- Info.&Media Science / IS THE COCOON, WHO IS THE BUTTERFLY,
Aarhus University, DENMARK / ALL AT ONCE. RIGHT NOW." -Vaughn Bode
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 17:13:05 1992
From: alien@clinet.fi (Risto Juvonen)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Date: 24 Nov 1992 23:50:22 +0200
Message-ID: <1eu82uINNeie@clinet.fi>
news@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko) writes:
:
: I'm sorry for us, too. One of these days, I'm going to move to a country
: that's *actually* civilized, instead of just pretending to be. I'm American
: by an accident of birth, not by choice. A few years ago, I fixed the error
: of having been born in Illinois. Perhaps, once I can overcome my inertia,
: I will fix the error of having been born in the U.S.
:
There is lot good things is U.S., some better than here, but for me
your country is too political, too police and law-centered. Not enough
freedom, not enough own choices and too much violence. An american
dream could be a nightmare to me...here I can be what ever I want,
read any group/book/magazin I want and see every picture I wan. My
choice, my life, etc...
: So, where can I go to learn Finnish? :-)
:
:
Here's quite cold. Very cold weather, very expensive
food/cars/houses. But different police, different laws and judges will
not be selected by political backround. Freedom costs lot of
money...:)
: John Opalko
: john@n7kbt.rain.com
alien
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 19:53:35 1992
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: uiuc.acm,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.college.grad,comp.org.acm,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: [alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, et al.] host an RMS talk
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.004544.14040@das.harvard.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 92 00:45:44 GMT
In article <1992Nov24.011747.1361@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>In article knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes:
>>Rental car fees could probably be saved by having someone (with a nice enough
>>car :) drive down and get him. Payment to this person would be a couple hours
>>conversation with Stallman.
>This must be some new definition of "payment" with which I was previously
>unfamiliar. :-)
At least you won't have to put up with a couple hours of bell ringer
and mouse ball jokes. :)
Adam
Adam Shostack adam@das.harvard.edu
What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig. Or not to have a .sig
at all because of elections. How true that is.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 24 21:55:49 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 02:17:19 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.011721.9532JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM>
In article <1eshqhINNfai@ossi.ossi.com> news@ossi.com (OSSI Newsstand) writes:
"
"Perhaps it was a grad project, but he is smart enough cookie to know
"how many millions of dollars his "project" cost to clean up after.
"
"He's lucky not to have been near me when I was picking up the
"pieces. If I could have gotten close enough, I would have crippled
"him for LIFE!
"
"His irresponsibility needed to be made an example of.
"He couldn't have NOT know the damage he would do.
"FRY the BASTARD !!!
"Im sick of people feeling sorry for "poor little morris"
Morris got more than he deserved as he was an "example" of a US atty
who wanted to play with a "high tech" law and get points on his resume.
We have a cop like that here in
Detroit - his name is Lt. Leonard Corsetti. Thats what you get when
hiring cops with college degrees.
Morris should have had to pay the entire cost to clean up the mess, though.
It was a mistake to let it loose, nevertheless, he should have to repair
the damage.
--
Clinton/Gore in '92 | E-MAIL: jp@michigan.com CAT-TALK IS BACK as a FREE
PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST | SYSTEM!! 313-882-2209 300-14400 V.32/V.32BIS/TurboPEP
bye-bye Georgie.... | Anon-UUCP: System: tygra, Login: nuucp, no pw
Its been a bitch... | Get file "/cat/pub/filelist" for a list of files.
***************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 00:46:08 1992
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Nov 92 04:45:28 GMT
In article emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>I hope that one of the "better things" they have to do is investigate
>child abuse. I think that /child/ pornography is so likely to damage
>the children photographed that it ought to be treated very seriously.
Say, is it still the case (it was 4 or 5 years ago) that the majority of
child porn circulating in the US originated with US postal inspectors
for sting operations?
G
--
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 00:46:09 1992
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Nov 92 05:16:16 GMT
In article <1eshqhINNfai@ossi.ossi.com> news@ossi.com (OSSI Newsstand) writes:
>Perhaps it was a grad project, but he is smart enough cookie to know
>how many millions of dollars his "project" cost to clean up after.
I'm surprised people still swallow the 'official' line. His father
is a major-league hacker for the NSA. Those guys find all the holes in
Unix systems to exploit them for their own benefit. They *certainly*
don't report what they find to CERT et al. RTM almost certainly
found some of his dad's info on unix holes in his dad's briefcase
and did an asshole-level job of implementing it.
G
--
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 01:25:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 05:38:06 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 01:25:36 1992
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.003911.14398@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 00:39:11 GMT
In article <1992Nov24.125748.19653@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com writes:
>
>I have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous system administrator.
>His reaction to the virus (where again students were arrested) and to
>this incidence (which involves the Feds) was exactly what was warranted.
>I think Cornell has had enough with being the "Bad Computing Center" of
>the world -- that which emanates viruses and pornography and not research.
>
Remembering that the action taken was to remove a.b.p.e on the news
that a student is under investigation, would you apply this standard to
the library or the bookstore?
Only if you consider usenet to be a debased and valueless toy can you
maintain this position.
Would you close a library becasue the police were investigating a single
book? I would say that the action taken is the _worst_ thing that could
have been done. A simple and total removal of the suspect institution is
the most severe action that can be taken. The suspect article was probably
no longer on the system anyway.
DanZ
--
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 01:25:37 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 05:38:50 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 01:25:37 1992
From: mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.021323.10146@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 02:13:23 GMT
As a member of the Cornell community, I'd like to comment on this.
In article <1992Nov24.182209.24666@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>In <1992Nov24.125748.19653@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com writes:
>>I think Cornell has had enough with being the "Bad Computing Center" of
>>the world -- that which emanates viruses and pornography and not research.
I think it's unfortunate that that's the mindset expressed here. As far as
I can tell, the quality of the system and site admins at Cornell has
nothing to do with the string of unreleated incidents, and the fact that
all of these things have happened at Cornell seems to be coincidence.
The Cornell Information Technologies people are quite competent and clear
when spelling out computer regulations. This place isn't the anarchial
computer "zoo" it's made out to be. In fact, it's very calm. The outbreak
of viruses and students scanning and posting pornography could have happened
on ANY campus. It has nothing to do with how well the computing resources are
controlled.
>I agree. I can't imagine what the paranoia level would be around here if
>our site was responsible for a sting of similar 'incidents.' Since
>responsibility for such postings is hard to determine I can't blame a site
>manager for reacting forcefully (or even over-reacting) when something
>like this happens. They have to take action to protect themselves from
>being held responsible.
That's true.
>In this case I think Cornell made the right decision. Access to
>alt.binaries.pictures.* is not a fundamental human right. If you really
>need to look at dirty pictures you can buy a magazine at your local
>newstand (or subscribe).
I agree completely with you as well. One correction: only the
alt.*.*.erotica hierarchy was cut off here, not all of the *.pictures.*
groups. However, your premise is correct. Cornell is not obligated to
provide those groups to the users here. That's like forcing a technical
bookstore to carry "Playboy". I don't see this as censorship at all. If
users want access to those groups, they can obtain free UNIX accounts from
a number of sites that carry those groups. Cornell does not have to provide
them if it so chooses.
In addition, it's much easier for systems not to carry the erotica groups.
For one thing, they demand a LARGE amount of diskspace. For another thing,
not carrying the groups means you don't have to worry about them being
abused or improperly distributed from your own system.
That's my two bits. :)
mdw
--
Matt Welsh mdw@tc.cornell.edu +1 607 253 2737
"We're going away now. I fed the cat."
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 03:52:07 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 08:10:53 GMT
geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner) writes:
[...]
>In this case I think Cornell made the right decision. Access to
>alt.binaries.pictures.* is not a fundamental human right. If you really
>need to look at dirty pictures you can buy a magazine at your local
>newstand (or subscribe).
[...]
I hope Cornell decision was based on competent legal advice rather
than the rationale you suggest. Your rationale is too broad; it could
be used to justify almost any ban of almost any material.
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
library/challenged-materials.ala
=================
* Challenged Materials (ALA)
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
* Diversity in Collection Development (ALA)
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that
materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This
includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues."
=================
library/censorship.def.ala
=================
* Definition of "Censorship" and Related Terms (ALA)
=================
=================
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/library/challenged-materials.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/library challenged-materials.ala
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/library censorship.def.ala
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 04:28:12 1992
From: malu@imhps.im.se (Mats Luthman SYSTECON)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Nov 92 15:04:04 GMT
In article <1enjq4INNslt@clinet.fi> alien@clinet.fi (Risto Juvonen) writes:
huh, I'm very pleased that I'm living in Finland, our "secret police"
has better things to do with taxpayers money that they would waste
time for investigating pornography. And, they could not even do that:
pornography is not enough big crime that they can do house search.
Nice to live in _free_ country! Sorry for you, U.S. citizens...
Is 'pornography' a crime in Finland? I'm not sure I understand you
fully. I do, however, belive that laws regarding pornography in
Finland in some respects are more restrictive than in many states in
the USA. I'd be surprised if suspected distribution of child
pornography would not be enough for a search warrant. It definitely is
in Sweden.
--
Mats Luthman
Systecon AB (A subsidiary of Industri-Matematik AB)
Stockholm, Sweden
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 08:15:39 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc,comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: still the internet worm
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.121150.14828@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 12:11:50 GMT
In article , gtoal@ibmpcug (Graham Toal) writes:
>I'm surprised people still swallow the 'official' line. His father
>is a major-league hacker for the NSA. Those guys find all the holes in
>Unix systems to exploit them for their own benefit. They *certainly*
>don't report what they find to CERT et al.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised,
>RTM almost certainly
>found some of his dad's info on unix holes in his dad's briefcase
>and did an asshole-level job of implementing it.
but sorry, this is simply bullshit. There was nothing special about
the holes/vulnerabilities the worm used, and RTM jr. had worked with
computer security a lot. The implementation may have been sloppy, but
there's nothing suggesting there was any "insider knowledge" or
"secret knowledge" involved.
Followups directed out of alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 09:46:43 1992
From: 00hfstahlke@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: State legislatures and acad-f policy
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.084901.12342@bsu-ucs>
Date: 25 Nov 92 13:49:01 GMT
I've just read the new academic freedom news summary (for which my thanks go to
Carl), and I've finally decided to raise a decidedly political issue that also
influences policy and practice.
We have a large VAX cluster with e-mail and, as far as I can tell, the full
range of newsgroups. We don't exclude any newsgroups; VAX systech reports to
me and assures me that is the case. My concern is with the perception of some
in our university administration that most of what the cluster is used for is
email among students, largely for social purposes, and that that use is not
academic and should not be supported. I have demonstrated that, although mail
is a large use, it represents only about 15% of total CPU time, and that has
generally satisfied them. There is no way I can determine whether the other
allegation is true, that the mail is largely social, without looking at
everyone's mail files, which would be a waste of time even if it weren't a
violation of privacy.
The reason that the purpose for which mail is used is an issue occasionally,
and now I also include other non-academic uses like most game-playing, most
newsgroups, and most pornographic writing and pictures, is the concern that
state legislators, who ultimately decide our funding, may get the impression
that we are not good stewards of the resources they have given us and will cut
back on university support. Whether this is a bogeyman or a real concern, it
is perceived by many in influential positions to be worth thinking about.
My question, by now obvious, is how we deal with this concern. Do we let it
shape policy? Do we let it influence practice? How far? To keep it
continually to the fore is paranoid, but to ignore it completely is reckless.
We are managing these systems for the taxpayers of our state, and we cannot be
insensitive to their concerns.
I'd like to see some discussion of this side of the free speech and academic
freedom issue. I don't think there are easy answers to it, but someone out
there may have greater wisdom on it than I.
Herb Stahlke
Associate Director
University Computing Services
Ball State University
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 12:32:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 17:28:37 GMT
In article <1992Nov24.215052.7853@daimi.aau.dk> lhp@daimi.aau.dk (Lasse Hiller|e Petersen) writes:
>emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>>In article gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes:
>
>> > Netnews
>> That's "Usenet" or "UseNet", not "Netnews".
>
>>If you are going to be so picky about semantics, let me point out
>>that you are dead wrong. "Usenet" names the big seven. [...]
>>"Netnews" is the generally accepted name for the entire news
>>network. See the C News documentation, for example.
>
>I disagree. The term USENET, at least as it "semi-officially" defined,
>seems to cover also the alt.* hierarchy, among many other things.
>
>In news.answers, Gene Spafford periodically writes, under
>the subject "What is Usenet?":
Just because Gene Spafford says something doesn't make it gospel.
Despite Gene's definition of "Usenet" as "the set of people who
exchange articles tagged with one or more universally-recognized
labels, called 'newsgroups'", there are several independent entities
that fit this definition, *one* of which has always been referred
to as Usenet.
Usenet, the big seven, is the original Netnews entity... it has a
specific set of conventions (or guidelines) which do not apply to
many of the other entities which came into existence later, such
as Altnet. The people who got Altnet started would almost certainly
object to their network being referred to as "Usenet" since it was
established precisely for the purpose of being an alternative to
Usenet.
Yes, coloquially many people refer to the set of all newsgroups as
"Usenet", including apparently Spaf, but just because a lot of
people use the term that way doesn't make it correct.
From Spaf:
>*(Note that the term "newsgroup" is correct, while "area," "base,"
>*"board," "bboard," "conference," "round table," "SIG," etc. are
>*incorrect. If you want to be understood, be accurate.)
And furthermore, if you say that you would like to create a new
"Usenet newsgroup", people will assume that you mean the a newsgroup
in the big seven, and you will have to follow the guidelines established
for doing so. If you do not wish to follow such guidelines you can
instead create an Altnet newsgroup, or "alt group". The difference is
significant.
>Later:
>*In the shadowy world of news-mail gateways and mailing lists, the line
>*between Usenet and not-Usenet becomes very hard to draw.)
What is meant is that the difference between Netnews and non-Netnews
becomes hard to draw, not the difference between Usenet groups and,
say, Altnet groups.
Lasse concludes:
>It seems to me that the only significant difference between alt.* and
>the other newsgroup hierarchies is the creation guidelines.
Sure... that's the difference between Usenet and Altnet. Other hierarchies
have yet other differences, such as posting guidelines (some hierarchies
may not be posted to at all, such as Clarinet.) Those differences are what
define the various entities.
>To use your wording: you are dead wrong.
No. You wave Spaf's "What is Usenet" as definitive proof that you're
right and that Ed McGuire is wrong. But it just isn't so...
>(Wow, a newbie flaming a sysadmin. :-)
That's always a mistake. :-)
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 13:56:16 1992
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: news.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.101305.16157@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 92 15:13:05 GMT
>From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
>
>>I have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous system administrator.
>>His reaction to the virus (where again students were arrested) and to
>>this incidence (which involves the Feds) was exactly what was warranted.
>>I think Cornell has had enough with being the "Bad Computing Center" of
>>the world -- that which emanates viruses and pornography and not research.
>
>I agree. I can't imagine what the paranoia level would be around here if
>our site was responsible for a sting of similar 'incidents.' Since
>responsibility for such postings is hard to determine I can't blame a site
>manager for reacting forcefully (or even over-reacting) when something
>like this happens. They have to take action to protect themselves from
>being held responsible.
I seem to recall that, after the MBDF virus, some Cornell students who had
worked for CIT claimed that Lynn had initiated a program of monitoring
users *not* suspected of any wrong-doing. (The claim was made that it
was such monitoring that was, in part, responsible for identifying the
creators of the MBDF virus.)
If this was/is in fact the case, I find it rather troubling.
>In this case I think Cornell made the right decision. Access to
>alt.binaries.pictures.* is not a fundamental human right. If you really
>need to look at dirty pictures you can buy a magazine at your local
>newstand (or subscribe).
You're right. It's not a fundamental right--so if lack of resources or
somenthing like that prohibited Cornell from carrying the group, fine.
But I can't see any justification for Cornell's reaction (shutting the
group down) in this case, and I do not believe that they would have taken
similar action for many other groups, had allegedly illegal material been
posted by *one* of their students.
(I note, specifically, that they did not claim that there was a widespread
problem with other allegedly illegal materialcoming into, or out of, Cornell
via a.p.b.e. One could probably make such an argument--not on the basis of
child porn, but on the basis of copyright violation--but the CU administration
apparently did not, so it's not relevant to theis discussion.)
If you happen to look down on the group as just "dirty pictures," that is
irrelevant. They shouln't be in the business of making subjective
evaluations of the material.
Sincerely,
Proud former member of the CCLU.
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 14:36:35 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: Good news for the Net (was: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell")
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.192408.27427@bcars6a8.bnr.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 19:24:08 GMT
In article jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
|In article <1992Nov21.184453.4548@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
|forwards a Clarinet article which states:
|> ITHACA, N.Y. (UPI) -- The FBI is investigating whether a Cornell
|>University sophomore has transmitted child pornography over computer
|>bulletin boards, a report said Friday.
|> The New York Times said agents this week raided a student's room as
|>part of an investigation that began Nov. 11, after the administrator of
|>another bulletin board told the Ivy League university of seeing material
|>involving sexual exploitation of minors.
|This is very good news... it reaffirms the principle that the poster
|is responsible for material posted to the Net, not the indviduals
|or orginizations providing the physical infrastructure and storage
|for the Net.
Not necessarily, ask yourself whether this would have happened if:
- it wasn't a well-regarded University. Ie: it was a home
computer that the owner was permitting other people to
log into?
- the originator was in another country, and Cornell refused to
cut off a.b.p.e? (Excluding, for the moment, the possibility
that the FBI would go after the originator anyways)
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 15:03:28 1992
From: cc935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gerrold T. Sithe)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Date: 25 Nov 1992 19:59:56 GMT
Message-ID: <1f0lvsINNm06@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
> The New York Times said agents this week raided a student's room as
>part of an investigation that began Nov. 11, after the administrator of
>another bulletin board told the Ivy League university of seeing material
>involving sexual exploitation of minors.
If the net ever looses it's freedom, thank people like "the
administrator of another bulletin board."
When will people understand, there are no such things as
"immoral speech," an "immoral picture," or an "immoral thought."
There are only immoral _actions_.
If you don't like what a picture depicts, don't view it. If
you instead send federal agents with guns crashing into my dorm room,
it is not I who is the depraved one.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 16:48:00 1992
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: news.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.211049.13870@netcom.com>
Date: 25 Nov 92 21:10:49 GMT
I'm not sure why J.S. Greenfield finds monitoring of users not
suspected of wrongdoing, in a computer software context, troubling.
I'd think it would depend on what's being monitored and how. After
all, many anti-virus programs monitor all other programs, not just
those suspected in advance of wrongdoing.
We're talking about facilities provided by another, and it has always
been permitted to monitor (usually with general notice) for purposes
of maintaining the quality of service. Even the phone company does it,
albeit circumspectly.
Perhaps we should distinguish more carefully in this conversation
between monitoring and eavesdropping, and between what the government
is restrained from doing because of the Founding Fathers' concern
about abuse of government power, and what private service providers
may do. Note that there were some very large corporations with considerable
market power at the time of the Founding Fathers, yet there's nothing
in the so-called privacy articles and amendments dealing with private
power, as distinct from government power.
To the contrary, there's much in the Constitution in support of
private institutional power. For example, one often hears the bon mot
that freedom of the press applies only to those who own presses.
David
--
David Sternlight
PGP public key on request; RIPEM public key on server
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 18:17:40 1992
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: news.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.213432.12751@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 92 21:34:32 GMT
In <1992Nov25.101305.16157@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>I seem to recall that, after the MBDF virus, some Cornell students who had
>worked for CIT claimed that Lynn had initiated a program of monitoring
>users *not* suspected of any wrong-doing. (The claim was made that it
>was such monitoring that was, in part, responsible for identifying the
>creators of the MBDF virus.)
>If this was/is in fact the case, I find it rather troubling.
But it is unsubstantiated hype at the moment so why dwell on it at all?
>But I can't see any justification for Cornell's reaction (shutting the
>group down) in this case, and I do not believe that they would have taken
>similar action for many other groups, had allegedly illegal material been
>posted by *one* of their students.
Who can say... Having the FBI wander into your office can make you do
extreme things. I wish UseNet sites would do more about 'minor' offences
like copyright infringement.
>If you happen to look down on the group as just "dirty pictures," that is
>irrelevant. They shouln't be in the business of making subjective
>evaluations of the material.
I don't have any problem with the content of a.b.p.e or any other explicit
newsgroup. My father worked for Penthouse International when I was a kid
so I grew up without any predjudice against 'adult' entertainment,
tasteful or otherwise. I read alt.sex.stories, subscribe to Playboy,
support the First Amendment and basically despise most obscentity laws.
But that doesn't mean that I expect Cornell to provide access to a.b.p.e
to all its users. They can pay a commerical site for an account if they
want to read that.
If Dartmouth zapped the sex or alt.* groups I wouldn't be all that happy
about it but I don't feel like they are obligated to provide me with
access to groups that have nothing to do with the academic mission of the
school or my job responsibilities.
-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
"Economic deprivation makes freedom less relevant to a people."
- Paul E. Tsongas
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 18:17:42 1992
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.214322.13518@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 92 21:43:22 GMT
In <1f0lvsINNm06@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gerrold T. Sithe) writes:
> When will people understand, there are no such things as
>"immoral speech," an "immoral picture," or an "immoral thought."
>There are only immoral _actions_.
That's true. But some people consider exploiting a child for the purpose
of pornography to be immoral. I'm not all that sure about the morality of
the issue but I don't really consider it acceptable behavior, that's just
not a healthy thing to do to a kid.
The real problem is that the definition of 'child porn' is a bit vague and
can cover childhood snapshots of bath time in some places.
> If you don't like what a picture depicts, don't view it. If
>you instead send federal agents with guns crashing into my dorm room,
>it is not I who is the depraved one.
Well, that all depends on what's in the picture. Knowingly distributing
child pornography is currently a crime. I haven't seen the picture in
question so I don't know if it is or isn't illegal. But if it was, and the
poster knew it, he's an idiot for posting it.
-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
"Economic deprivation makes freedom less relevant to a people."
- Paul E. Tsongas
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 20:16:16 1992
From: nosilla@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Andrew J. Templin)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: State legislatures and acad-f policy
Message-ID: <3205@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 92 22:06:35 GMT
Previously, 00hfstahlke@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu has written:
>I've just read the new academic freedom news summary (for which my thanks go to
>Carl), and I've finally decided to raise a decidedly political issue that also
>influences policy and practice.
>
>We have a large VAX cluster with e-mail and, as far as I can tell, the full
>range of newsgroups. [ 00hfstahlke goes on to explain what usage the
VAX Cluster is used for, etc. Deleted for brevity. ]
>The reason that the purpose for which mail is used is an issue occasionally,
>and now I also include other non-academic uses like most game-playing, most
>newsgroups, and most pornographic writing and pictures, is the concern that
>state legislators, who ultimately decide our funding, may get the impression
>that we are not good stewards of the resources they have given us and will cut
>back on university support. Whether this is a bogeyman or a real concern, it
>is perceived by many in influential positions to be worth thinking about.
I would agree completely.
>My question, by now obvious, is how we deal with this concern. Do we let it
>shape policy? Do we let it influence practice? How far? To keep it
>continually to the fore is paranoid, but to ignore it completely is reckless.
>We are managing these systems for the taxpayers of our state, and we cannot be
>insensitive to their concerns.
>
>I'd like to see some discussion of this side of the free speech and academic
>freedom issue. I don't think there are easy answers to it, but someone out
>there may have greater wisdom on it than I.
>
>Herb Stahlke
>Associate Director
>University Computing Services
>Ball State University
Being a member of the Ball State Community, and having read this
newgroup for a quite a while, I would like to comment on University
Computing Services at Ball State University, and on this subject.
I am HORRIFIED at the idea of letting politicians who know nothing
about computer networks and the subculture it creates dictating what
may and may not be on that system - even if they DO grant the funding.
However, this is a valid point. Many at BSU complain about UCS and
the way they manage the VAX Cluster we have - but, in 99% of the
complaints I have heard, the user wants special privileges ABOVE
AND BEYOND the normal privs granted. Censorship is almost unheard
of, and you are only limited by the disk space quota. Also, the list of
newsgroups on UCS's VAX machines is enormous - more than I could possibly read.
Ball State grants a VAX account to anyone who is enrolled or
employed at the university - and, up to now, they could also
get an account on the Computer Science machine. (This was revoked
due to storage space, I understand.) I, and many others, have
benefited greatly as a result - the use of EMail results in a
terrific amount of idea exchange, etc.
The net result of this is that there is more computer literacy on
this campus than any other campus I have ever seen. Since this is
such an important goal with education today, I would think that
pointing this out would be a beneficial argument toward keeping the
VAX Cluster an "open" system.
NOTE: I am _not_ a UCS employee. I have never actually met
Mr. Stahlke, although we have corresponded upon occasion.
My point in posting this was to preserve the atmosphere of
expression and learning that has grown at Ball State - it
would be a damn shame to see it die.
--
Andrew J. Templin, Confused Programmer, Ball State University
VAX: 00AJTEMPLIN@bsu-ucs.bsu.edu ULTRIX: nosilla@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
"Ad Meorium Cthulhi Gloriam" "Carpe Carp"
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 21:17:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 16:54:51 GMT
In article <1992Nov24.111112.16857@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
I don't think that particular witchhunt is popular here, and I hope it
never will be.
I agree that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But am I the only one
who thinks that the victims of child pornography are the children,
that it is the government's responsibility to protect them, and that
laws prohibiting the making and distribution of child pornography
ought to be enforced? Does everyone believe that the posting of child
pornography to netnews should be either protected or ignored by the
government?
--
Ed McGuire 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/ Dallas, Texas 75234
Member of Technical Staff 214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 22:39:30 1992
From: cc935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gerrold T. Sithe)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Date: 26 Nov 1992 03:37:16 GMT
Message-ID: <1f1gpdINNb6h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
>I agree that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But am I the only one
>who thinks that the victims of child pornography are the children,
>that it is the government's responsibility to protect them, and that
>laws prohibiting the making and distribution of child pornography
>ought to be enforced? Does everyone believe that the posting of child
>pornography to netnews should be either protected or ignored by the
>government?
Protected by government. But wait, that's a redundancy.
Only the government can censor in the first place. Private parties can view
and distribute as their own convictions dictate. So the question is really,
should the government censor pictures of naked kids or not.
If children are below the age of consent (however the hell that is
determined), the responsibility of choosing photo shoots rests with the
parents. If the parents approve and the child, insofar as he is able, approves
then who is the government to use force of law to impose it's version of
morality on the family?
And just who determines what that legally enforcible "government
morality" is to be? Politicians? Political pressure groups? A majority of
American voters? Who is more qualified to make moral decisions for the child
than the child himself and his parents?
So the current laws are doubly sinister really. The government
censors expression in order to impose it's standards of morality!
No thanks!
From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 22:55:45 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.misc
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: [news.admin.misc] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIERARCHY
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:29:51 GMT
greeny@eff.org (J S Greenfield) wrote:
:dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
:
:>>ALERT ON POSTINGS TO AND CORNELL ACTION REGARDING
:>>ALT.BINARIES.PICTURES.EROTICA
:>>
:> First of all, is this a joke? A forgery? Or do you just like sounding
:>like a paranoid fool in public?
:
:I seem to recall from last year (when a Mac virus was released by some
:Cornell students) that a number of (other) Cornell students complained
:that Mr. Lynn had a tremendous tendency to overeact...
Really? You don't suppose he can be at least partially forgiven,
do you, given that the single most nefarious virus/worm ever released
to the world originated from his computing center (Robert Morris Jr.)?
A.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 00:12:27 1992
From: jma@reef.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Immorality in Pictures (Was Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child...)
Message-ID: <37731@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 92 05:01:49 GMT
Did cc935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu really type:
}
} When will people understand, there are no such things as
} "immoral speech," an "immoral picture," or an "immoral thought."
} There are only immoral _actions_.
}
} If you don't like what a picture depicts, don't view it.
No Sam (Sir/Ma'am)!
While I agree with you that pictures of consenting adults is not
immoral, pictures that involve non-consenting adults, or children in
*ANY* sexual reference, certainly are immoral. Child pornography
preys upon the naivete of a child. Children certainly do not consent
to pornographic photographs as they have not hit a level of
consciousness to determine if the photography violates their personal
sense of right or wrong.
--
Who: John 'Vlad' Adams (squig) Scott T. Downtrodder III)
Where: jma@cis.ufl.edu -or- jadams@coral.senod.uwf.edu
Why: Lead us not into tempation - we'll find it ourselves!
BBS: The Beachside 1.904.492.2305 - Pagan/Occult/Fido/IBM
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 03:05:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: peg@cs.washington.edu (Pete Granger)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov26.075941.22339@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 92 07:59:41 GMT
Sigh. I'll probably regret opening my mouth on this one. But I never
seem to learn.
In article <1f0lvsINNm06@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gerrold T. Sithe) writes:
> If the net ever looses it's freedom, thank people like "the
>administrator of another bulletin board."
No, it'll be more likely due to people, such as the young lad at
Cornell, posting things that he knows are illegal and essentially
daring people to do something about it. If you remember, just before
he posted that, he posted another message saying (to paraphrase),
"People are upset by the kapsters picture and they think it's kiddy
porn. Well, I've got one that's really going to cause some
controversy, but I don't care, and I'm going to post whatever I want."
Well, he posted it, and look what happened. So don't blame anyone but
him for his actions and the direct or indirect results of them.
(I'm assuming that the guy who got busted at Cornell was the one who
did this and posted the Ruko image, since we haven't seen anything
from him since.)
> When will people understand, there are no such things as
>"immoral speech," an "immoral picture," or an "immoral thought."
>There are only immoral _actions_.
Funny, I was just mentioning the Cornell guy's actions. And now
*you're* talking about actions, too. So you're right -- the picture
isn't immoral. It's just ink on paper, or pixels on a screen, or bits
on a disk. It has no idea about morals. However, the Cornell guy did
have some idea about morality, or he should have, and his action
(distributing this picture) could be taken as immoral. Speaking and
thinking are both actions, and hence can also be considered immoral.
Of course, I'd never suggest that we should police other people's
thoughts (can you say "Big Brother," everybody?). But when those
thoughts are translated into action, and begin to harm other people,
something should be done about it.
> If you don't like what a picture depicts, don't view it. If
>you instead send federal agents with guns crashing into my dorm room,
>it is not I who is the depraved one.
If you know the parents upstairs are beating their child, then you
should just ignore it, right? You're sick if you interfere with their
right to raise their child as they see fit.
Okay, the analogy is a bit extreme. Posting a second- or third-hand
picture of a little girl wrapped up in ribbons is not the same as
actually taking the pictures yourself, and it's certainly not the same
as physically abusing a child. But, at the same time, if you think a
crime is being committed, what is "depraved" about reporting it?
Please note: I think the current case is a little bit stupid. The FBI
is busting this kid who posted a picture, probably taken years ago in
a foreign country. Distributing the picture may not be that big a
deal, and in any case, the FBI can't do a thing about the source of
the picture. At the same time, it isn't up to the
enforcement/investigation agencies to decide whether a case is worth
prosecuting. If they're told that there's a crime being committed,
they don't have much choice but to follow it up. This is one case
where it is fair to say that they were just doing their job.
--
Pete Granger | "Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy
peg@cs.washington.edu | objects... And claw at you..."
| - Lt. Worf, ST:TNG, "The Dauphin"
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 06:36:29 1992
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Immorality in Pictures (Was Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child...)
Date: 26 Nov 1992 11:27:42 GMT
Message-ID: <1f2cbeINN6c7@iraul1.ira.uka.de>
In article <37731@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jma@reef.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes:
>Did cc935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu really type:
>}
>} When will people understand, there are no such things as
>} "immoral speech," an "immoral picture," or an "immoral thought."
>} There are only immoral _actions_.
>}
>} If you don't like what a picture depicts, don't view it.
>
>No Sam (Sir/Ma'am)!
>
>While I agree with you that pictures of consenting adults is not
>immoral, pictures that involve non-consenting adults, or children in
>*ANY* sexual reference, certainly are immoral. Child pornography
>preys upon the naivete of a child. Children certainly do not consent
>to pornographic photographs as they have not hit a level of
>consciousness to determine if the photography violates their personal
>sense of right or wrong.
Then what *is* child pornography? There is, *from the view of the
child too*, regardless of its moral maturity, a big difference between
a photo taken from a child in the shower and a photo of actual sexual
actions involving a child. And yet another thing if someone has
*drawn* a picture just from his mind, not involving any actual child.
olaf
--
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student | o | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany | _>\ _ | s_titz@ira.uka.de | is still |
| +49-721-60439 | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc | valid |
"Stop talkin' and start chalkin'!" - Eight Ball Deluxe
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 06:46:46 1992
From: miket@frog.CRDS.COM (Michael C Tiernan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.184749.17236@frog.CRDS.COM>
Date: 25 Nov 92 18:47:49 GMT
gaynor@inferno.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes:
>[...]
>This country (USA) is pissing me off.
>[...]
It's a free country, if you don't like it, LEAVE!
--
<< MCT >> Michael C Tiernan. - GEnie:M.Tiernan - AOL:M Tiernan/BCS Mike
UUCP = alfalfa!pro-angmar!m.tiernan OR miket@frog.UUCP
It's too bad that it takes almost half of our life
to realize that it was a "Do-It-Yourself" project.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 07:41:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: styri@hal.nta.no (Haakon Styri)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov26.122250.12362@nntp.nta.no>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 92 12:22:50 GMT
In article <1f1gpdINNb6h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cc935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Gerrold T. Sithe) writes:
>
> Protected by government. But wait, that's a redundancy.
> Only the government can censor in the first place. Private parties can view
> and distribute as their own convictions dictate. So the question is really,
> should the government censor pictures of naked kids or not.
Can they?
---
Haakon Styri *** std. disclaimer applies ***
Norwegian Telecom Research
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 08:15:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov26.115154.6043@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1992 11:51:54 GMT
In article <1f1gpdINNb6h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cc935@cleveland (Gerrold T. Sithe) writes:
>
>>I agree that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But am I the only one
>>who thinks that the victims of child pornography are the children,
>>that it is the government's responsibility to protect them, and that
>>laws prohibiting the making and distribution of child pornography
>>ought to be enforced? Does everyone believe that the posting of child
>>pornography to netnews should be either protected or ignored by the
>>government?
>
>
> Protected by government. But wait, that's a redundancy.
>Only the government can censor in the first place. Private parties can view
>and distribute as their own convictions dictate. So the question is really,
>should the government censor pictures of naked kids or not.
Definitively not. There's nothing whatsoever the problem with nudity.
I do think that it should not be accepted to photograph people under
age of consent having sex etc (meaning that as they are not considered
capable of the decision of having sex in the first place, it doesn't
make it any different if someone else is watching/photographing it),
and perhaps it's reasonable to extend that to criminalizing
distribution of such pictures - then again, perhaps not (as in the
risks of censorship on vague grounds could be too big).
Some control could perhaps be accepted in advertising -
> If children are below the age of consent (however the hell that is
>determined), the responsibility of choosing photo shoots rests with the
>parents. If the parents approve and the child, insofar as he is able, approves
>then who is the government to use force of law to impose it's version of
>morality on the family?
Well, I don't think this holds for everything - if the parents say
it's OK for their 11-year old son or daughter to work weekends
performing oral sex to adults and be filmed doing it as long as the
kid gives half the pay to parents, I don't think that's quite
acceptable. But I don't think there's a problem with a photographer
father or mother who takes pictures of the kid naked in every-day
situations and perhaps even sells them to be published in photography
magazines, or as separate albums. A naked kid posing for the explicit
purpose of photographing regularly goes somewhere in between, and I'm
not sure what to think of that.
I don't know what is considered "child pornography" in various
countries. Perhaps someone can enlighten? What was the Cornell
picture like when compared to the above examples?
Followups directed to alt.censorship and alt.society.civil-liberty.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 09:41:49 1992
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Date: 26 Nov 1992 14:40:41 GMT
Message-ID: <1f2nl9INN1ec@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
In a previous article, cc935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gerrold T. Sithe) says:
>
>>I agree that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But am I the only one
>>who thinks that the victims of child pornography are the children,
>>that it is the government's responsibility to protect them, and that
>>laws prohibiting the making and distribution of child pornography
>>ought to be enforced? Does everyone believe that the posting of child
>>pornography to netnews should be either protected or ignored by the
>>government?
>
>
> Protected by government. But wait, that's a redundancy.
>Only the government can censor in the first place. Private parties can view
>and distribute as their own convictions dictate. So the question is really,
>should the government censor pictures of naked kids or not.
>
> If children are below the age of consent (however the hell that is
>determined), the responsibility of choosing photo shoots rests with the
>parents. If the parents approve and the child, insofar as he is able, approves
>then who is the government to use force of law to impose it's version of
>morality on the family?
>
As a parent, I find this reasoning to be appalling. Parents do and should
have broad authority to raise their children as they see fit, but i draw the
line at child abuse. *Adults* should Be free to pose for whatever porno-
graphic photos suit them; they can understand the risks. But no one can
make that decision for someone else, and a child under a certain age cannot
make that decision for himself. There are *qualitative* differences between
the reasoning abilities of a child and those of an adult, so even full
disclosure doesn't help. "Honey, this man is going to have sex with you,
while mommy and daddy take pictures. Now, we haven't tested him, and we
therefore don't know if he has AIDS or other STDs. So here's a booklet that
explains all about those issues; you just let us know if you have any
questions."
> And just who determines what that legally enforcible "government
>morality" is to be?
It is not a matter of morality; it is a matter of protecting people who are
too young to decide for themselves what constitutes an acceptable risk.
Both from physical and psychological abuse. Question: Under this standard,
what would prevent a couple from "breeding" child prostitutes?
Politicians? Political pressure groups? A majority of
>American voters? Who is more qualified to make moral decisions for the child
>than the child himself and his parents?
>
This is a red herring; children by definition are not "qualified" to make
moral decisions, or even cost/benefit decision...else they would be treated
the same as adults. In most instances, the parents fill this role, but
some mechanism must remain in place to protect children from abusive
parents.
> So the current laws are doubly sinister really. The government
>censors expression in order to impose it's standards of morality!
>No thanks!
>
No; the government censors expression to protect children from abuse. By
definition, you cannot produce photos of a child having sex (just to name
the example that *least* makes my stomach turn) without committing sexual
abuse.
--
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out. It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 10:30:18 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 23:43:03 GMT
(Followups directed away from alt.comp.acad-freedom; this has gotten
far from the topic.)
In article <1992Nov24.215052.7853@daimi.aau.dk> lhp@daimi.aau.dk (Lasse Hiller|e Petersen) writes:
(Wow, a newbie flaming a sysadmin. :-)
Well, we could argue about what a flame is, but I decline -- suffice
it to say that I didn't feel at all scorched by your article :)
It doesn't matter greatly whether you or I think "Usenet" is the Big
Seven or not. There are as many opinions on the question of what
Usenet is as there are people reading news. Some people think it
names the software; some think it names the set of computers
exchanging news; some think it names the people reading the news; some
think it names the Big Seven; some think it names all of the
newsgroups; some think it names the current message base. "Netnews"
sometimes names the set of computers exchanging news; sometimes it
names the message base.
I think of Usenet as strictly the "Big Seven" to which the new group
creation guidelines apply because I've been taught to; maybe I'm
wrong. However, you will see the statement "Altnet is not Usenet"
come up regularly in news.groups whenever somebody tries to apply
Usenet policy to an alt group. In fact, the "alt" new group creation
guideline article never mentions "Usenet" even once.
I can also show that my preferred usage is found in some of the news
documentation. See the "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies" two-part
article posted by Gene Spafford. Here are some excerpts, probably
written by different people, and you can see how the use of the word
-- even the capitalization -- varies subtly.
"The Usenet software allows the support and transport of
hierarchies of newsgroups not part of the "traditional" Usenet
through use of the distribution mechanism."
"gnUSENET (gnUSENET is Not USENET) is a set of newsgroups that are
gated bi-directionally with the Internet mailing lists of the GNU
Project of the Free Software Foundation."
"[VMSnet groups] are carried by most major usenet news sites, and
almost half of all netnews sites."
The last paragraph especially exemplifies the distinction I draw
between netnews and Usenet, and between Usenet and other distributions
(e.g., VMSnet, the name for the vmsnet hierarchy).
So. I may not agree with everyone, but I am not dead wrong. My
opinion is strong that my usage is best and yours by implication is
wrong. It's just one person's opinion; I hope it does not offend you.
Regards, Ed
--
Ed McGuire 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/ Dallas, Texas 75234
Member of Technical Staff 214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 10:31:38 1992
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.misc,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Date: 26 Nov 1992 15:25:39 GMT
Message-ID: <1f2q9jINN9vr@iraul1.ira.uka.de>
In article <1992Nov25.211049.13870@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>I'm not sure why J.S. Greenfield finds monitoring of users not
>suspected of wrongdoing, in a computer software context, troubling.
Because in the usual legal context, no investigation is started
without evidence, at least in free countries like these.
>I'd think it would depend on what's being monitored and how. After
>all, many anti-virus programs monitor all other programs, not just
>those suspected in advance of wrongdoing.
Monitoring *programs* is a different issue than monitoring *users*.
GateKeeper monitors if some program accesses files it is supposed to
leave alone (e.g. MS Word writing into the resource fork of
SuperPaint), not what the users are doing. GateKeeper even keeps logs,
but only of such suspicious activity.
And you would agree that in order to prevent the spreading of viruses,
it may be necessary to monitor which programs (e.g. 'elm') are started
on your system, but not to look at the words (of language) you're
currently feeding through 'elm'. (And if a sysadmin wants to search
through personal mail in order to find any virus-related messages,
then he should tell the users so, and not just say 'we are looking in
our systems for viruses'. That's even another difference.)
>We're talking about facilities provided by another, and it has always
>been permitted to monitor (usually with general notice) for purposes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the most important point.
>of maintaining the quality of service. Even the phone company does it,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>albeit circumspectly.
In order to maintain quality of service, the phone company may ask
*if* you could *understand* what your conversation partner said
yesterday evening. They need not ask which deal or date you had just
made with her.
>Perhaps we should distinguish more carefully in this conversation
>between monitoring and eavesdropping, and between what the government
Exactly.
>is restrained from doing because of the Founding Fathers' concern
>about abuse of government power, and what private service providers
>may do. Note that there were some very large corporations with considerable
And what public schools may do, too.
>...
>To the contrary, there's much in the Constitution in support of
>private institutional power. For example, one often hears the bon mot
>that freedom of the press applies only to those who own presses.
Not exactly; I would rather state it as '...those who have access to
presses.' Someone who can't afford a printing press can still hire a
print shop to do the work. The Government restricting the business of
print shops would probably collide with other Consitutional
provisions. In the Soviet Union (formerly) ordinary citizens even were
not allowed to use photocopiers, *that's* a technical restriction of
free speech!
olaf
--
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student | o | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany | _>\ _ | s_titz@ira.uka.de | is still |
| +49-721-60439 | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc | valid |
"Stop talkin' and start chalkin'!" - Eight Ball Deluxe
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 13:21:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov26.181510.19544@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1992 18:15:10 GMT
In article ,
emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) said:
> ...am I the only one who thinks that the victims of child
> pornography are the children, that it is the government's
> responsibility to protect them, and that laws prohibiting the making
> and distribution of child pornography ought to be enforced? Does
> everyone believe that the posting of child pornography to netnews
> should be either protected or ignored by the government?
This discussion is going to degenerate into pure static unless people
take the time to define just what the phrase "child pornography" means.
(1) Are we talking about _all_ materials which are intended to be
arousing to people with a sexual interest in children, or just the
subset of materials the production of which which involved the
use/abuse of actual children? (That is, would a _drawing_, drawn
entirely from the artist's imagination, of an adult male penetrating a
seven-year-old girl come under the heading of "child pornography" as
the term is being used in this discussion?)
(2) With regard to the latter subset, are we talking about all such
materials or only those which depict children engaging in sexual acts?
(That is, would a full-frontal photograph of a nude seven-year-old boy
standing alone against a neutral backdrop come under the heading of
"child pornography" as the term is being used in this discussion?)
-- William December Starr
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 13:59:55 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: dejesus@saturn.nwc.navy.mil (Francisco X DeJesus)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1992 01:15:03 GMT
In article <1f0lvsINNm06@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gerrold T. Sithe) writes:
> When will people understand, there are no such things as
>"immoral speech," an "immoral picture," or an "immoral thought."
>There are only immoral _actions_.
Not anytime soon, I'm afraid. First they have to learn they have a choice of
what to view, listen to, and/or read. Then comes the hard part: they have to
learn that they also have a choice of what NOT to listen to, what NOT to
view, and what NOT to read.
--
Francisco X DeJesus ----- S A I C ----- dejesus@archimedes.chinalake.navy.mil
disclaimer: "Opinions expressed here are mine. Typos and errors are all yours."
From caf-talk Caf Nov 26 23:00:57 1992
Newsgroups: news.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.misc
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov26.215802.10176@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 92 21:58:01 EST
In article <1992Nov25.211049.13870@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>I'm not sure why J.S. Greenfield finds monitoring of users not
>suspected of wrongdoing, in a computer software context, troubling.
>I'd think it would depend on what's being monitored and how. After
>all, many anti-virus programs monitor all other programs, not just
>those suspected in advance of wrongdoing.
I regret that it has been quite some time since the MBDF virus was out,
and as such I'm really grasping at my memory to recall what was said
about CIT's activities. What I do recall was that one of the individuals
seemed to be a former CIT employee (and as such was familiar with the
tactics of CIT) and the impression given was that the monitoring could
be aptly described as "eaves-dropping."
I do not recall whether checking email was among the practices--but I
do recall getting the impression that this was the type of activity
they were talking about.
To me, such eaves-dropping is *not* a good thing, without very good cause.
(Note, that says nothing about legality.)
Of course, I can't verify at this time whether my understanding was
accurate. But if it was, then I don't see anything wrong with saying
that I find it troublesome.
>Perhaps we should distinguish more carefully in this conversation
>between monitoring and eavesdropping, and between what the government
>is restrained from doing because of the Founding Fathers' concern
>about abuse of government power, and what private service providers
>may do. Note that there were some very large corporations with considerable
>market power at the time of the Founding Fathers, yet there's nothing
>in the so-called privacy articles and amendments dealing with private
>power, as distinct from government power.
Since I made no comments about legality, I hardly see how this is
relevant. Perhaps we should distinguish more carefully in this
conversation between legality and morality.
--
J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
From caf-talk Caf Nov 27 13:10:06 1992
From: alien@clinet.fi (Risto Juvonen)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1f5nj7INN63k@clinet.fi>
Date: 27 Nov 92 17:57:59 GMT
malu@imhps.im.se (Mats Luthman SYSTECON) writes:
: Is 'pornography' a crime in Finland? I'm not sure I understand you
: fully. I do, however, belive that laws regarding pornography in
: Finland in some respects are more restrictive than in many states in
: the USA. I'd be surprised if suspected distribution of child
: pornography would not be enough for a search warrant. It definitely is
: in Sweden.
:
Some of our laws are maybe more restrictive than is some u.s. states,
what comes to porn. But, difference is, that our police has much
better things to do than look for any kind of porn. They do not care
and all what they can do is ask to stop distribution.
: --
: Mats Luthman
: Systecon AB (A subsidiary of Industri-Matematik AB)
: Stockholm, Sweden
alien
From caf-talk Caf Nov 27 20:21:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov27.235035.6585@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1992 23:50:35 GMT
In article <1992Nov26.075941.22339@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, peg@cs (Pete Granger) writes:
>But, at the same time, if you think a
>crime is being committed, what is "depraved" about reporting it?
I can think of examples. In Nazi Germany, it might have been a crime
being a jew, and I would still consider it unethical to report it to
police. In Finland smoking hemp for the purpose of intoxication is a
crime, but I still consider it unethical to report a friend smoking it
to the police. And so on.
>Distributing the picture may not be that big a
>deal, and in any case, the FBI can't do a thing about the source of
>the picture. At the same time, it isn't up to the
>enforcement/investigation agencies to decide whether a case is worth
>prosecuting. If they're told that there's a crime being committed,
>they don't have much choice but to follow it up. This is one case
>where it is fair to say that they were just doing their job.
By the way, how was the poster treated? Was any equipment or other
property confiscated? Was the person threatened with guns? Jailed?
Shot at? Was the door kicked in?
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Nov 27 22:51:46 1992
From: peg@cs.washington.edu (Pete Granger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov28.034310.7208@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 28 Nov 92 03:43:10 GMT
In article <1992Nov27.235035.6585@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Nov26.075941.22339@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, peg@cs (Pete Granger) writes:
>>But, at the same time, if you think a
>>crime is being committed, what is "depraved" about reporting it?
>
>I can think of examples. In Nazi Germany, it might have been a crime
>being a jew, and I would still consider it unethical to report it to
>police. In Finland smoking hemp for the purpose of intoxication is a
>crime, but I still consider it unethical to report a friend smoking it
>to the police. And so on.
Okay, you've got a point. We're well into grey areas here. Let me
clarify myself. Let me preface this by saying I strongly disagree with
everything I know about the Nazi "philosophy." But, if you genuinely
believed that it was wrong to be a Jew, then that belief system
(screwed up though it is) would dictate that you report the "crime."
Since I wouldn't believe it to be criminal, although by the letter of
the law it would be, I would not report it.
Smoking hemp, I consider a bad idea, but I would not report an
individual user -- a dealer or grower would probably be a different
story. Again, this is against the letter of the law, and I don't think
it should be done. But is there really anything to be gained by
reporting an individual user? Provided, of course, he isn't going to
his job as an air traffic controller, or something similarly dangerous
to others, under the influence.
So I guess I have to expand on what I said -- if you believe a crime
is being committed, and reporting that crime is in keeping with your
own belief system, then what is "depraved" about reporting it? Maybe I
should even add a clause about believing you can make a positive
difference by reporting it.
So, on the issue at hand (the arrest of the person who was posting the
alleged child pornography), I would say that such posting is
definitely against the letter of the law. But, as I said in my earlier
posting, it's pretty clear that nothing can be done by the FBI about
the *source* of the picture, and nailing this kid would do nothing
except maybe put a little scare into him (and the netters who heard
about it). So even though I think what he did was wrong, I don't think
it would have been worth calling in the FBI. I would have done exactly
what I did -- delete the picture, don't propagate it any further, and
urge that no further such pictures be posted.
Whoever reported the alleged crime apparently felt very strongly about
the case, and realized that there was a law which he could use to
support his beliefs, so there was nothing "depraved" about making the
report.
While I'm yammering, has anyone else noticed that the flow of images
(and junk) in a.b.p.e has dropped drastically in the last couple days?
It looks like somebody upstream from UW is doing a little censoring as
well. Only thing we've gotten here today was four parts of nmxbp106.
--
Pete Granger | "Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy
peg@cs.washington.edu | objects... And claw at you..."
| - Lt. Worf, ST:TNG, "The Dauphin"
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 04:13:51 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov28.081657.12591@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 08:16:57 GMT
In article <1992Nov28.034310.7208@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, peg@cs (Pete Granger) writes:
>So, on the issue at hand (the arrest of the person who was posting the
>alleged child pornography), I would say that such posting is
>definitely against the letter of the law.
I've heard it has a girl lifting her skirt, ie. it was just nakedness.
Doesn't sound like anything to do with pornography - your laws are
more silly than I thought if it really was against the law. You can
come and confiscate a lot of apartments in Finland by that standard,
as pictures of naked children are often used in the kind of
advertising which is dropped inside the apartments via the mail drop.
>Whoever reported the alleged crime apparently felt very strongly about
>the case, and realized that there was a law which he could use to
>support his beliefs, so there was nothing "depraved" about making the
>report.
OK. I gather you also said there would be nothing "depraved" of a
good citizen of Nazi Germany reporting a jew. I'm still not quite sure
about the meaning of "depraved", but those don't sound like things
which are ethical to do.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 11:36:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.african] Is it Libel or Free Speech?
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 15:56:48 GMT
[A repost - Aaron]
Article 9240 of soc.culture.african:
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Path: ddsw1!nucsrl!tellab5!laidbak!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!rpi!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psgrain!hippo!ucthpx!elc.mth.uct.ac.za!gavan
From: gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux)
Subject: Re: Just a repression (was Re: Just a thought - [subject deleted]
Sender: news@ucthpx.uct.ac.za (UCT News Admin.)
Message-ID: <1992Nov21.001743.16475@ucthpx.uct.ac.za>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:17:43 GMT
References:
Organization: University of Cape Town
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Lines: 18
barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart) writes:
: And I would simply add that Mr. Wohlberg understands what SA's version
: of "freedom of speech" is -- by immediately clamping arbitrary unfreedoms
: onto it -- and that makala has joyously embraced the American version,
: freedom unconditionally, that reflects the best of what this country has
: to offer.
:
: Of course, as you'll soon discover when reading Nat Hentoff's new book,
: _Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee_, this country is on its best
: behavior only every so often.
Hey, yeah, like the "American Way".
Libel is recognized in US law as much as it is in any other.
But then how do you sue a mailserver? A beta version at that.
Gavan Tredoux
UCT
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 11:36:06 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.african] Is it Libel or Free Speech?
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 15:57:33 GMT
[A repost - Aaron]
Article 9266 of soc.culture.african:
From: hardy@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Hardy Hulley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: Just a repression (was Re: Just a thought - [subject deleted]
Message-ID: <1992Nov22.204743.28725@ucthpx.uct.ac.za>
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:47:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucthpx.1992Nov22.204743.28725
References:
Sender: news@ucthpx.uct.ac.za (UCT News Admin.)
Organization: University of Cape Town
Lines: 51
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart) writes:
: nevin@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Nick) wrote:
: :
: :In article barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr.
: :Aaron Barnhart) writes:
: :
: :> And I would simply add that Mr. Wohlberg understands what SA's version
: :> of "freedom of speech" is -- by immediately clamping arbitrary unfreedoms
: :> onto it -- and that makala has joyously embraced the American version,
: :> freedom unconditionally, that reflects the best of what this country has
: : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?
: :> to offer.
: :>
: :
: :And what you would simply add is simply bullshit. Even in the United States
: :there are certain restrictions on speech.
:
:
: Depends on your vision, Mr. Hothead. I just finished reading Nat Hentoff's
: _Free Speech for Me -- But Not for Thee_, his new book. Hentoff certainly
: doesn't believe there are "certain restrictions on speech" at least not so
: far as I can tell.
It's quite obvious that there should be limitations placed upon what people
may say - shouting "FIRE" in a crowded cinema, for example, is a distinct
no-no. Anybody who supports unqualified freedom of speech is simply foolish.
: And you don't see makala holding back either, whereas his predators would
: seem to be saying, if only we had your chain to yank over here, pal,
: you wouldn't be allowed to post your rubbish.
Oh toad-crap! Nobody is in the least interested to inhibit Mweene's freedom of
expression - personally I find reading his stuff a wonderfully humerous way to
start every day. Unfortunately, however, Paul isn't simply exercising free
speech, he's indulging in libel, and in America (just as here) there are strong
laws designed combat such behaviour.
: Rubbish or not, politically correct or not, it should be expressed in
: America, regardless. If you see that fine ideal being ground into
: "bullshit," well then do something about it.
Perhaps Mweene should entertain us all with a long (and obviously fictional)
diatribe about your personal life. It would be interesting to see how long
your peculiar interpretation of freedom of speech persists - not very long I
suspect, but then you Yanks do change your minds ever so often.
: I am re-posting this to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk for starters.
You could embarress yourself if anybody there knows anything about free speech!
: Aaron
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 11:36:07 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.african] Is it Libel or Free Speech?
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 15:58:07 GMT
[A repost - Aaron]
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Just a repression (was Re: Just a thought - [subject deleted]
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:52:19 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Lines: 32
In <1992Nov21.001743.16475@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tred
oux) writes:
>Libel is recognized in US law as much as it is in any other.
Absolutely not.
In the US, libel law has been tremendously restricted due to a series
of Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s and 1970s.
Under current US law, it is virtually impossible for a "public
official" or a "public figure" to successfully win a libel suit. To
do so, the plaintiff must prove "malice" on the part of the defendant,
which in essence means intentionally printing false statements. The
same holds for statements on "matters of public concern."
In many US states, libel awards even against private figures still require
at a minimum a finding of "gross negligence."
This is in stark contrast to the law in the RSA and UK, where simply
printing falsehoods can result in liability.
Gavan, you talk like a know-it-all, but when put to the test in the two
instances where I've had some expertise, it seems like you're mostly
talking out of your arse.
--
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com)
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past. - Wm. Faulkner
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 11:36:07 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.african] Is it Libel or Free Speech?
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 15:58:47 GMT
[A repost - Aaron]
From: gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux)
Subject: Re: Just a repression (was Re: Just a thought - [subject deleted]
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 15:39:29 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Lines: 42
lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
: In <1992Nov21.001743.16475@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tr
edoux) writes:
:
:
: >Libel is recognized in US law as much as it is in any other.
:
: Absolutely not.
:
: In the US, libel law has been tremendously restricted due to a series
: of Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s and 1970s.
:
: Under current US law, it is virtually impossible for a "public
: official" or a "public figure" to successfully win a libel suit. To
: do so, the plaintiff must prove "malice" on the part of the defendant,
: which in essence means intentionally printing false statements. The
: same holds for statements on "matters of public concern."
:
: In many US states, libel awards even against private figures still require
: at a minimum a finding of "gross negligence."
:
: This is in stark contrast to the law in the RSA and UK, where simply
: printing falsehoods can result in liability.
Obviously the law of libel differs markedly from country to
country, my point was simply that libel, as a legal concept,
is recognized as much in US law, just
as it is in say UK law, and hence the claim that the US has some sort of
unconditional freedom of speech is quite false. I'm well aware of US
differences with regard to political and other public figures, no two
legal systems are the same. Note that none of that applies to Mweene
libelling UCT, students and staff, hence it's irrelevant.
: Gavan, you talk like a know-it-all, but when put to the test in the two
: instances where I've had some expertise, it seems like you're mostly
: talking out of your arse.
Oh yes, but it's so difficult to get past your nose when I do, making
me sound kinda muffled. As for your expertise, tell it to the marines.
Gavan Tredoux
UCT
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 11:36:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.african] Is it Libel or Free Speech?
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 15:59:17 GMT
[A repost - Aaron]
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Just a repression (was Re: Just a thought - [subject deleted]
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 03:40:47 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Lines: 43
In <1992Nov24.153929.15599@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tred
oux) writes:
>lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>: In <1992Nov21.001743.16475@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan T
redoux) writes:
>:
>:
>: >Libel is recognized in US law as much as it is in any other.
>:
>: Absolutely not.
>:
>Obviously the law of libel differs markedly from country to
>country, my point was simply that libel, as a legal concept,
>is recognized as much in US law, just
>as it is in say UK law, and hence the claim that the US has some sort of
>unconditional freedom of speech is quite false.
To say that libel is "recognized in US law *as much* as it is in any
other" is not the same as "the US has a law of libel." In fact, Libel
is recognized in US law much less than in SA law, almost vanishingly
so.
I'm well aware of US
>differences with regard to political and other public figures, no two
>legal systems are the same. Note that none of that applies to Mweene
>libelling UCT, students and staff, hence it's irrelevant.
Obviously you're not aware that "group libel" is not recognized in the
US. Thus, unless Mweene named individual (or easiliy identifiable)
students and staff, or claimed that UCT's official policy was to
discriminate, he would not be liable. Even if he did make such a
claim about UCT, UCT is a public figure for libel law purposes, and
unless UCT could prove that Mweene intentionally lied about UCT's
practices, there'd be no liability. Furthermore, because there are no
punitive damages in US libel law, UCT would be extremely unlikely to
collect anything since its hard to imagine anyone putting much faith
in Mweene's rantings so as to harm UCT.
--
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com)
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past. - Wm. Faulkner
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 15:46:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sci.econ,misc.jobs.misc
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Faculty underclass
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 19:44:59 GMT
Message-ID:
According to a couple of paragraphs on page 1303 of volume 258
of *Science* (20 November 1992), the "AAUP in a new report de-
cr[ies] the growth of a 'large but poorly paid "underclass"' of
part-time faculty" at US colleges and universities. "The AAUP
says that almost 40% of faculty in higher education are part
time ... The AAUP calls on institutions to draw up long-term
plans to reduce reliance on part-timers, who, it suggests, should
make up no more than 15% of faculties. . . . The AAUP also pro-
poses that part timers--who are disproportionately female--be
made eligible for pay increases, promotions, fringe benefits,
and inclusion in institutional governance."
Is this anything other than a losing battle?
I have plenty of my own opinions on collective action, the future
of education in the US, the treatment of women, my own career,
and so on, but I'm trying to ask a fairly narrow question, today.
Does anyone see a fundamental difference between this report and
such other rear-guard actions as textile industry quotas, the
vehicle-worker strikes of the last two decades in the US, or the
recent protests against BOAC's capital infusion into United Air?
Until the AAUP expands its vision beyond protection of its own
territory--and, in particular, until it shows leadership and
imagination in negotiating the conflicts between the already-
tenured and the not-on-tenure-track--it will stay on the wrong
side of historical inevitability.
--
Cameron Laird
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 16:41:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college,alt.binaries.picturesb.erotica.d
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.57
Message-ID: <1992Nov28.214117.12264@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 21:41:17 GMT
[See the end of this article for information about obtaining the full
CAF-News electronically and about CAF-News in general.]
Topics discussed in CAF-News 02.57:
1-6 about the latest computer-related criminal bust at Cornell
University
7-9 concern reports of heavy-handed systems administration at
Southwest Missouri State University
10-11 concern the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire's actions to limit
the postings of one of its students
12 lists two noteworthy professional associations' ethics codes
Abstract of CAF-News 02.57:
[Week ending November 22, 1991
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-6 are about the latest computer-related criminal bust
at Cornell University.
1. A news report on the incident: "The New York Times said agents
this week raided a student's room as part of an investigation that
began Nov. 11, after the administrator of another bulletin board
told the Ivy League university of seeing material involving sexual
exploitation of minors."
<1992Nov21.184453.4548@eff.org>
2. A statement from Cornell's VP of I/T: "One of these sources may
have originated at Cornell, but there appear to be other sources
associated with other institutions. [...] Effective immediately,
Cornell's official newstand will no longer provide access to the
[alt.binaries.picturesb.erotica] hierarchy at least until we can
ascertain that there has been no violation of the law."
<1992Nov18.202832.1951@mail.cornell.edu>
3. The plot thickens. "Federal officials said they were
investigating whether the student used an electronic scanner to
transmit child pornography onto a computer file and send the
pictures through an international computer bulletin board."
<9211201816.AA21284@dahlia.cit.cornell.edu>
4. On the one hand, "It would have been all-too-easy to restrict
access to the whole alt hierarchy, or even all of Usenet, during the
'interim' period during which investigations are occurring," says one
Cornell user. Yet the school's code on such investigations, "Section J
of Article II of Title 3 of the Cornell Code of Conduct [...] is far,
far, far too vague. Further, Article II of Title 1 seems to exclude
the possibility of simultaneous University and criminal action."
<9211202036.AA12053@crocus.cit.cornell.edu>
5. "Would Mr. Lynn have ordered cornell.general (or whatever you have
like that) shut down if these individuals had posted the questionable
item(s) there? Would the university have closed off the Arts Quad if
they caught someone distributing alleged child pornography there? I
think not. I think that in any of those circumstances, the
individuals would have been addressed, while the forum would have been
left alone.
<1992Nov21.170010.3289@eff.org>
6. "I do think their rapid action demonstrates their ignorance as
to the actual nature of a.p.b.e." But they *do* know the nature of
cu.general -- "If someone were to start posting binaries, in
particular child pornograpy there, I think they would be much more
likely to deal with the person individually." So why close one and
not the another? One, "cooperation with the FBI in the matter,"
two, "simply by virtue of having *some* protected speech content
in them" doesn't get a.b.p.e. and similar newsgroups completely off
the hook.
<9211211820.AA14627@crocus.cit.cornell.edu>
Notes 7-9 concern reports of heavy-handed systems administration
at Southwest Missouri State University.
7. "One of my friends was recently ordered by the head of [the]
computer department to unsubscribe to a list server he was using,
because 'students never sign off of the list servers at the end of the
semester.' And he was actually using it for ACADEMIC purposes [...]
Our school DOES have a few problems with Internet, the main one being
people who ftp 5 or 6 megabyte files at peak hours. They seem to
think that the simplest way to solve all this would be to cut stu-
dents off from Internet entirely."
<1992Nov18.073637.22768@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
8. Maybe the author of article #7 should transfer to a school where
high-quality access is guaranteed and promoted. "When students
start asking the admissions office questions like: [...] Do all
students get Internet access? Under what limits? Do all students
get usernames? On what kind of systems? Limits? then the
university will start realizing the importance of such facilities."
9. Or maybe he should follow the lead of the alternative student
press and start his own system. "Too costly to startup? Too much
for students to manage without the official support and funding of
the university? Hmmmmm. Don't underestimate the power of pissed
off students!"
Notes 10-11 concern the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire's
actions to limit the postings of one of its students.
10. The note's author sends this from the school's director of
computing services: "If, after being requested [by a mailing list or
newsgroup's 'owner'] to stop, he [Robert McElwaine] continues to send
his materials The University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire will take steps
revoke his Internet privileges." The author adds that McElwaine
*should* cool it, because he's only posting "canned prefabricated
materials," but also finds this "attempt to prevent him from doing so
to be a bit scary."
<1992Nov6.065819.22603@gnosys.svle.ma.us>
11. "I worry, since explusion from a communications medium is not a
typical university sanction. (Typical sanctions include things like
informal warnings, formal warnings, university suspensions.) I note
that labeling Internet access a "privilege" does not remove due
process requirements."
<1992Nov16.161114.15845@eff.org>
Note 12 lists two noteworthy professional associations' ethics codes.
12. "Librarians must resist all efforts by groups or individuals to
censor library material [...] must protect each user's right to
privacy [...] must adhere to the principles of due process and
equality of opportunity [...] must distinguish clearly in their
actions and statements between their personal philosophies and
attitudes and those of an institution or professional body."
"Information professionals should [...] protect each information
user's and provider's right to privacy and confidentiality [...]
serve the legitimate information needs of a large and complex
society while at the same time being mindful of individuals' rights
[...] resist efforts to censor publications."
<1992Nov16.185943.18940@eff.org>
- Aaron]
About CAF-News:
The abstract is for the most recent "Computers and Academic Freedom News"
(CAF-News). The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n57".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n57
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, John F. Nixon, Aaron Barnhart, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not
an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial
decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:16:33 1992
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Could someone post the latest results in the election.
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 21:58:04 GMT
RE: Recent elections in Ireland
dwilkins@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins) writes:
[...]
>In the abortion referenda, the voting was
>
> `substantive issue', or `right to life': No
> `right to travel': Yes
> `right to information': Yes
[...]
Will this last result mean an end to the bans on the talk.abortion
newsgroup at Irish universities?
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1992
=================
* Computer material that was banned/challenged in academia in 1992
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley
*, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of
Wyoming, United Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network,
Virginia Tech, Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid
Laurier U. (2), Williams College **
========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
=================
=================
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/banned.1992
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 22:13:34 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:08 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.132949.13515@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 92 13:29:49 GMT
In <1992Nov25.003911.14398@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> Would you close a library becasue the police were investigating a single
>book? I would say that the action taken is the _worst_ thing that could
>have been done. A simple and total removal of the suspect institution is
>the most severe action that can be taken. The suspect article was probably
>no longer on the system anyway.
No, I wouldn't close the whole library. But this isn't a comparable
resource. alt.binaries.pictures.* is hardly an academic resource.
But let's look at it your way: By keeping news available and pulling the
plug on the affected group I think Cornell has found a way to keep the
'library' open while dealing with one book.
-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
_____________________________________________________________________________
Cerebus for Dictator in 1992!! | "Whether you are quiet and alive or quiet
"Vote for me or else." | and dead makes no difference to Cerebus."
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 22:14:23 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:08 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.160553.3177@news.columbia.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 92 16:05:53 GMT
In article <1992Nov25.132949.13515@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>In <1992Nov25.003911.14398@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>> Would you close a library becasue the police were investigating a single
>>book? I would say that the action taken is the _worst_ thing that could
>>have been done. A simple and total removal of the suspect institution is
>>the most severe action that can be taken. The suspect article was probably
>>no longer on the system anyway.
>
>No, I wouldn't close the whole library. But this isn't a comparable
>resource. alt.binaries.pictures.* is hardly an academic resource.
>
Care to defend this statment? I have used posting from that group for
educational purposes, and I refuse to believe I am unique in this.
In terms of academic freedom, an academic resource must be specifically
exempt from judgments of it's value. "I can't let you into that wing
of the library because it doesn't contain anything that could be of
interest to your research."
>But let's look at it your way: By keeping news available and pulling the
>plug on the affected group I think Cornell has found a way to keep the
>'library' open while dealing with one book.
>
What "affected group"? The student was suspected of posting a single
article that almost certainly had expired off thier site before the raid.
Removing the group at the news of an investigation is a cynical reactionary
attempt to avoid bad press, and nothing else. It couldn't even be seen as
an attempt to limit liability on the part of the university.
DanZ
--
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 22:14:45 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:09 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.202502.8771@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 92 20:25:02 GMT
In <1992Nov25.160553.3177@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> Care to defend this statment? I have used posting from that group for
>educational purposes, and I refuse to believe I am unique in this.
There are plenty of other sources of digitized artwork on the net besides
the alt.binaries.pictures.* hierarchy. No site is obligated to provide a
specific group, especially if it could make them liable for a user's
illegal actions.
NB: Someone at Cornell has pointed out that the admin there only closed
down alt.binaries.pictures.erotica but that doesn't change my point.
> In terms of academic freedom, an academic resource must be specifically
>exempt from judgments of it's value. "I can't let you into that wing
>of the library because it doesn't contain anything that could be of
>interest to your research."
That works well with a library, but not with an alt.* group, sorry. If you
REALLY want it, pay for an account on a public site that carries it.
> What "affected group"? The student was suspected of posting a single
>article that almost certainly had expired off thier site before the raid.
>Removing the group at the news of an investigation is a cynical reactionary
>attempt to avoid bad press, and nothing else. It couldn't even be seen as
>an attempt to limit liability on the part of the university.
I see it as an attempt to limit liability. Sometimes the police get it
right and arrest the right people. Sometimes they get it wrong and
confiscate thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of equipment. I
understand and support any effort by any admin to limit their site's
liability for illegal actions by an individual user. Sure, this is a case
of locking the barn after the horse has run away but it will prevent
future abuses.
Again, if you don't like it, start up your own site. Buy a NeXT or
something.
-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
"An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-Spock, "STVI:TUC", Stardate 9523.8
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 22:15:27 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:10 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov25.210004.12913@netcom.com>
Date: 25 Nov 92 21:00:04 GMT
DanZ says that "In terms of academic freedom, an academic resource
must be specifically exempt from judgments of it's value."
I believe this to be at variance with generally accepted public
policy. It confuses academic resources provided by individuals with
academic resources provided with public funds. It ignores the common
decision problem when demands for academic resources far outstrip the
funds available for such resources.
In the specific context of this thread, it is the above issues which
arise, not the issue of privately or individually provided academic
resources.
I doubt anyone would object to someone at Cornell providing a database
of materials (that did not violate the laws) at his own expense for
use by himself and fellow researchers, even via network access over
his own facilities. That's not, as I understand it, what this discussion
is about.
Allocators of funds are constantly making decisions about the relative
values of alternative uses for those funds, starting with the granters
of public moneys for research projects, and going on from there.
Nobody is "entitled" to access or funds just because they declare
their particular interest to be an academic resource.
In short, resort to "academic freedom" in this discussion can be a
close relative of the remark that 'patriotism is the last refuge of
the scoundrel.'
(To avoid flames from those unfamiliar with the quote, note that it
does not say that everyone who is patriotic is a scoundrel.)
David
--
David Sternlight
PGP public key on request; RIPEM public key on server
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 22:16:12 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:10 1992
From: jiro@shaman.com
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov26.000739.6828@shaman.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1992 00:07:39 GMT
In article <1992Nov24.182209.24666@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>In <1992Nov24.125748.19653@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com writes:
>>You are quite right. The FBI did search the individual's room and he has
>>been detained pending formal charges of distributing child pornography.
>>According to the Cornell Daily Sun report I read, his neighbours were
>>altogether unsurprised that he was caught for this particular crime.
>And why was that? (Feel free to answer via email, I'm just curious.)
I only know what the Daily Sun wrote about the topic. Apparently
his hallmates thought him to be the type that would distribute
child pornography.... (Whatever that means, draw your own conclusions).
>>I have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous system administrator.
>>His reaction to the virus (where again students were arrested) and to
>>this incidence (which involves the Feds) was exactly what was warranted.
>>I think Cornell has had enough with being the "Bad Computing Center" of
>>the world -- that which emanates viruses and pornography and not research.
>
>I agree. I can't imagine what the paranoia level would be around here if
>our site was responsible for a sting of similar 'incidents.' Since
>responsibility for such postings is hard to determine I can't blame a site
>manager for reacting forcefully (or even over-reacting) when something
>like this happens. They have to take action to protect themselves from
>being held responsible.
>
>In this case I think Cornell made the right decision. Access to
>alt.binaries.pictures.* is not a fundamental human right. If you really
>need to look at dirty pictures you can buy a magazine at your local
>newstand (or subscribe).
I entirely agree as well. I am against anti-pornography laws (for 1st
amendment and other reasons) but I do not think that other people (i.e.
Cornell University and its patrons and students) need to endanger
themselves legally by carrying the groups at their expense. The same
holds for virii, as well.
As for ad hominem attacks by people who knew Stuart Lynn in kindergarten,
grow up, you aren't in kindergarten anymore.
--
Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com (NeXTmail)
NeXTwatch / Technical Editor 76711,542 (CIS)
The Shaman Group +1 607 277-1440 (Voice/Fax)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:11 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 22:16:53 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:11 1992
From: jiro@shaman.com
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <1992Nov26.001605.6981@shaman.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1992 00:16:05 GMT
In article <1992Nov25.003911.14398@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> Remembering that the action taken was to remove a.b.p.e on the news
>that a student is under investigation, would you apply this standard to
>the library or the bookstore?
> Only if you consider usenet to be a debased and valueless toy can you
>maintain this position.
Cornell University is apparently assisting the FBI in their investigation
of the suspect. I can only assume that their logs have traced it to
this individual.
As for the campus bookstore, it does not sell child pornography nor would
that be its mission in an academic environment. If the bookstore (or the
library) was found to have material considered by the police or federal
government to be illegal for whatever reason, I can only assume that
they would remove that material. What are their options? To be
held either as an accomplice or in contempt of court?
> Would you close a library becasue the police were investigating a single
>book? I would say that the action taken is the _worst_ thing that could
>have been done. A simple and total removal of the suspect institution is
>the most severe action that can be taken. The suspect article was probably
>no longer on the system anyway.
Closing the library would be analagous to closing down all of USENET
access at Cornell. That was not done.
If you found that a certain facility of the university was being
used for illegal activities, it would be stupid to keep running that
facility at the university's expense.
Grow up. Certain newsgroups have a very tenuous reason for existence
on any system. Just as Cornell University does not have subscriptions
to Penthouse and Hustler, there is no valid academic reason why they
should *have* to provide a.b.p.* to their students.
- Jiro Nakamura
--
Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com (NeXTmail)
NeXTwatch / Technical Editor 76711,542 (CIS)
The Shaman Group +1 607 277-1440 (Voice/Fax)
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 22:18:00 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:12 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Nov 92 20:16:29 GMT
In article <1992Nov25.210004.12913@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
Allocators of funds are constantly making decisions about the relative
values of alternative uses for those funds, starting with the granters
of public moneys for research projects, and going on from there.
Nobody is "entitled" to access or funds just because they declare
their particular interest to be an academic resource.
However, the group was removed at the same time as an investigation of
one user of it was reported, and no explanation in terms of funds was
given. Nor did the removal come at the end of Cornell's fiscal year.
--
Ed McGuire 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/ Dallas, Texas 75234
Member of Technical Staff 214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:12 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 22:18:08 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:12 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: 27 Nov 92 20:19:46 GMT
In article <1992Nov26.001605.6981@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com writes:
If the bookstore (or the library) was found to have material
considered by the police or federal government to be illegal for
whatever reason, I can only assume that they would remove that
material.
Yes, but would you have them remove all the related books on the same
shelf?
--
Ed McGuire 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/ Dallas, Texas 75234
Member of Technical Staff 214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:33:34 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 22:28:49 GMT
[On the one hand, an institution shouldn't keep materials illegally.
On the other hand, an institution of learning should have goals just
minimizing potential legal liability. (The "best" way minimize
potential legal liability would be to ban *all* books, public areas,
students, teachers, computers, and computer newsgroups.) Here is the
American Library Association's suggested policy on challenged
materials. The gist is that material should only be banned after due
process. - Carl]
CHALLENGED MATERIALS
An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
The American Library Association declares as a matter of firm
principle that it is the responsibility of every library to have a
clearly defined materials selection policy in written form which
reflects the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, and which is approved by the
appropriate governing authority.
Challenged materials which meet the criteria for selection in the materials
selection policy of the library should not be removed under any legal or
extra-legal pressure. The LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS states in Article I that
"Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views
of those contributing to their creation," and in Article II, that "Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval." Freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution of the
United States, but constitutionally protected expression is often separated
from unprotected expression only by a dim and uncertain line. The
Constitution requires a procedure designed to focus searchingly on challenged
expression before it can be suppressed. An adversary hearing is a part of
this procedure.
Therefore, any attempt, be it legal or extra-legal, to regulate or suppress
materials in libraries must be closely scrutinized to the end that protected
expression is not abridged.
Adopted June 25, 1971; amended July 1, 1981; amended January 10, 1990, by the
ALA Council.
[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 18:21:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: edward@twg.com (Edward C. Bennett)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov28.230236.1791@twg.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 23:02:36 GMT
In article emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>
>I think that /child/ pornography is so likely to damage
>the children photographed that it ought to be treated very seriously.
I've always wondered about this claim. How does taking a child's picture
harm the child? Many of us were probably photographed au natural by
our parents. Where is the damage? Now you'll probably say something
about pictures of children having sex with each other. Again, I ask
how does the photograph harm the child? Sure, the act being photographed
is causing major psychological damage, but how does the picture inflict
harm? OK, the picture could be sold and published. Given the (usual)
secrecy of the child pornography business in this country the pictured
child is very likely to be unaware of the picture's destiny. Suppose
the picture is used to persuade other children into posing. This is
similar to above, the child viewing the pictures may be harmed, but
how does that harm the child in the pictures?
Now, before your knee jerks and you accuse me of trying to legitimize
child pornography, let me make clear my point. I'm saying that the
pictures are only a symptom, child abuse, mental, physical, sexual,
and anything else that harms a child is the real disease. Don't fight
a result, fight the cause. As bad as the pictures are, they are not the
root of the problem. Will stopping the pictures stop child abuse? I
doubt it, but neither will rounding up college students.
>However, I also hope that the student(s) involved in posting it will
>not be dealt with as severely as the creator(s) of the photographs.
Well, at least in the case of RUKO, I think the creators are in
another country.
--
Edward C. Bennett edward@twg.com
The Wollongong Group (415) 962-7252
1129 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
"He's become a growling, snarling mass of white-hot canine terror"
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 18:34:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 23:31:36 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Nov28.233136.1925@cbnews.cb.att.com>
In article emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>I agree that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But am I the only one
>who thinks that the victims of child pornography are the children,
>that it is the government's responsibility to protect them, and that
>laws prohibiting the making and distribution of child pornography
>ought to be enforced? Does everyone believe that the posting of child
>pornography to netnews should be either protected or ignored by the
>government?
I, for one, believe that the government should not be involved, and that there
should be no such crimes, per se, as producing, distributing, or possessing
child pornography.
"Child pornography" is not a crime against the government, but rather a
potential offense against the child, and should be pursued by the child and
his or her guardians. The real "crime," when it occurs, is using a child
without his or her consent, either in action or images. The crime would
occur if the "child" does not consent to participating in the "pornography"
and relinquishing the rights of its distribution.
Note that consent must be "informed". This reduces the problem of young
children being used, since it would be difficult for someone to demonstrate
that the child understood what he or she was consenting to. It might be
possible, but only under rare occasions. Older "children" (e.g., 16 or
17) could more reasonably give such consent (ala Traci Lords, who began
making adult videos at age 16 with a fake ID).
Note also the "child" must give consent, not the parents. This would prevent
parents from taking advantage of their children. Of course, the parents
could object to consent, which would require the child to declare emancipation
to consent.
The child and his/her guardians could then sue for damages and bring charges
of assault where appropriate.
Now as to material which has been created without consent, its ownership would
revert to the victim. In most cases the victim would simply destroy the
material; however, they would have the option of selling it themselves if
they so wished.
James Parker
In this scheme, child pornography can be handled in a manner consistent without
creating a new class of crime.
jap@cb1focus.att.com
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 20:26:50 1992
From: peg@cs.washington.edu (Peter Granger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov29.010722.12750@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 29 Nov 92 01:07:22 GMT
In article <1992Nov28.081657.12591@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Nov28.034310.7208@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, peg@cs (Pete Granger) writes:
>>So, on the issue at hand (the arrest of the person who was posting the
>>alleged child pornography), I would say that such posting is
>>definitely against the letter of the law.
>
>I've heard it has a girl lifting her skirt, ie. it was just nakedness.
>Doesn't sound like anything to do with pornography - your laws are
>more silly than I thought if it really was against the law.
Apparently, we are talking about two different pictures. The one which
most of us are focusing on is the one called "ruko.gif". It shows (and
bear in mind that I saw it for about 10 seconds, over a month ago) a
little Japanese girl, probably about 10 years old, nude except for a
few red ribbons wrapped around her. She is not being physically
abused, but she does not look happy with the situation. There is also
an inset closeup of her genitals. This is not a simple picture of a
nude child -- this was, as far as I can see, intended to be a sexually
arousing picture of an underage child.
> You can
>come and confiscate a lot of apartments in Finland by that standard,
>as pictures of naked children are often used in the kind of
>advertising which is dropped inside the apartments via the mail drop.
Well, I haven't seen the pictures you're talking about, but I'm
betting they aren't the kind that is being discussed here. If they
are, then Finland must be kind of a strange place. What are they
advertising? If it is things like soap, diapers, and baby lotion, then
there's probably nothing wrong with having naked children in the ads,
since it pertains to the product. If they are advertising cigarettes,
tires, and televisions, then naked children don't seem pertinent to
the advertising, and may be there just to draw attention, in which
case it seems inappropriate, at least.
>>Whoever reported the alleged crime apparently felt very strongly about
>>the case, and realized that there was a law which he could use to
>>support his beliefs, so there was nothing "depraved" about making the
>>report.
>
>OK. I gather you also said there would be nothing "depraved" of a
>good citizen of Nazi Germany reporting a jew. I'm still not quite sure
>about the meaning of "depraved", but those don't sound like things
>which are ethical to do.
No, you don't gather entirely right. The point I was making was that a
person should not be considered depraved for using the law to support
his beliefs. Whether or not those beliefs are immoral, unethical, or
depraved, is another matter entirely. It is something of a fine line,
but I am trusting that you can understand the distinction. As I said
in my previous posting, I would not think that such a law was ethical,
or moral, and I would not report someone for violating such a law. It
is very strongly against my beliefs. But I do not think it is wrong to
support laws which one feels are morally right.
--
Pete Granger | "Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy
peg@cs.washington.edu | objects... And claw at you..."
| - Lt. Worf, ST:TNG, "The Dauphin"
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 20:56:15 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 01:46:12 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 20:56:15 1992
From: mcastle@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle)
Subject: Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 23:42:16 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Nov28.234216.23104@umr.edu>
In article <1992Nov26.001605.6981@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov25.003911.14398@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>> Would you close a library becasue the police were investigating a single
>>book? I would say that the action taken is the _worst_ thing that could
>>have been done. A simple and total removal of the suspect institution is
>>the most severe action that can be taken. The suspect article was probably
>>no longer on the system anyway.
>
>Closing the library would be analagous to closing down all of USENET
>access at Cornell. That was not done.
>
But it is very analagous to closing down a wing of the library, as Dan
mentioned earlier.
>If you found that a certain facility of the university was being
>used for illegal activities, it would be stupid to keep running that
>facility at the university's expense.
>
So, if an individual is using campus photocopiers to make copies of *possible*
child pornography, the university should remove all campus photocopiers?
>Grow up. Certain newsgroups have a very tenuous reason for existence
>on any system. Just as Cornell University does not have subscriptions
>to Penthouse and Hustler, there is no valid academic reason why they
>should *have* to provide a.b.p.* to their students.
If the university didn't want the group, they shouldn't have carried it
in the first place. I feel that when the decision was made to carry the
group in the first place, that carried an implicit support for the group.
Does anyone know if Cornell plans on reinstating abpe after this is all
over?
>
> - Jiro Nakamura
>
mrc
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 22:16:34 1992
From: jrc1947@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov29.022457.27193@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Date: 29 Nov 92 02:24:57 GMT
A lot of thesearguments seem to depend on "the child's consent". It's
hardly necessary to point out that with young children, such consent
is often meaningless becasue they do not understand what they are doing or
why. That's why the feds feel it's necessary to be protectors. The feds
have the power to be informed of many more kinds of threats than a set of
parents is. Nice theory :)
Shit, the feds have the power and better experience with the criminal
elements that can cause serious harm of all kinds to all kinds of
people. But they have to go by a legal system that has been generalized
and diluted by addenda till the life and meaning is squeezed out of it.
The parents generally understand the child much better than the "feds"
do, and the child understands him/her*self* best of all. But the parents
and child have little power.
I doubt that photography hurts young children seriously. Not that I'm
advocating child porn. Depends on so many things. A child being coaxed
to pose with genital exposure may feel embarrassment and may not, it depends
on age and upbringing. Actual physical molestation of a child certainly
will hurt them. Photography is more "distant". That's why some people get
a kick out of dirty pictures :)
It's a case where someone of authority is trying to protect someone else of
lesser authority from influences judged to be damaging. People have been
trying for a long time to decide which influences are most likely to be
damaging, and haven't had much luck. Does exertion of authority over a
person hurt them more than resulting distancing from influences judged to
be damaging? By the time the arguments are settled and done, seems like
nobody could even care :-|
From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 22:24:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov29.031134.3605@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 03:11:34 GMT
edward@twg.com (Edward C. Bennett) writes:
>our parents. Where is the damage? Now you'll probably say something
>about pictures of children having sex with each other. Again, I ask
>how does the photograph harm the child? Sure, the act being photographed
>is causing major psychological damage, but how does the picture inflict
>harm? OK, the picture could be sold and published. Given the (usual)
I believe the logic is that if there is a demand for these pictures,
then someone might place a child into a situation that otherwise would
not have been.
But even this logic is not necessarily the only thing involved, as there
might be an effort afoot to suppress "child pornography" that does not ever
involve any children (drawings without a subject and computer generated
images). Given that there has been prosecution against parents who have
taken pictures of children in situations where they would have been even
if no picture had ever been taken, and the pictures were not going to be
distributed, then it is clear there is more motive than the above logic.
There are a lot of people who have a certain "puritan ethic" and combine
that with a lack of respect for the concept of different people with
different beliefs living together, you get people who are trying to push
their "morals" on others. This makes its way into politians, then into
prosecutors, then into law enforcement. It comes in the form of laws
and directed enforcement and prosecution.
>Now, before your knee jerks and you accuse me of trying to legitimize
>child pornography, let me make clear my point. I'm saying that the
>pictures are only a symptom, child abuse, mental, physical, sexual,
>and anything else that harms a child is the real disease. Don't fight
>a result, fight the cause. As bad as the pictures are, they are not the
>root of the problem. Will stopping the pictures stop child abuse? I
>doubt it, but neither will rounding up college students.
Unfortunately there are TOO MANY knee jerkers and feel gooders out there.
They believe if they address the SYMPTOMS of problems they are correcting
the situation. In many cases it is the symptom that hurts, or appears to
hurt, despite the actual cause. Those who don't really think about the
problems end up just reacting to the symptoms. This not only applies to
child pornography, but it also occurs to other problems in the United
States, such as drugs and violence. The policitians won't, or can't,
address the causes because the people that vote them in can't see the
causes, and the media isn't in the business to report causes because
reporting causes is not profit making since it is boring to most people.
--
/************************************************************************\
| Phil Howard, pdh@netcom.com, KA9WGN Spell protection? "1(911)A1" |
| "It's not broken... it's just functionally challenged" --Phil and Pete |
\************************************************************************/
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 09:44:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general] Re: Posting e-mail
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 14:38:36 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 09:44:10 1992
From: roma@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Roma)
Subject: Re: Posting e-mail
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 07:19:30 GMT
ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita) writes:
>I've always felt that posting a private e-mail conversation to a public
>forum was not polite. I still feel that way. However, someone has
>mentioned that they felt it was unethical. I would like to question
>this assertion. Some time past, I received a message that was filled
>with profanity, and hostility. I felt (and still do) that the *proper*
>action to take was to post the note to a group of which we were both
>members. Yes, it was impolite. However, I didn't think it unethical.
The moment you drop a letter into a USPS mailbox, you lose control of the
mail. Postal regulations do not permit mail to be ``retracted'' by the
sender. Once mailed, the USPS is bound by law to deliver the letter to
the addressee and only to the addressee, to the best of its ability.
In my capacity as a member of the CCSO UNIX system administration staff,
more than one user of our systems has asked me to ``undeliver'' mail that
they had inadvertantly sent to other persons. I politely decline these
requests because I view such intervention as improper. Following the Postal
Service analogy, once a person injects email into the data stream, CCSO's
only duty is to deliver it to the addressee.
I feel that the recipient of mail (whether paper or electronic) obtains
possession of the mail and is therefore entitled to use it as he/she chooses,
which includes resending it to other individuals or submitting it to forums
having wider distribution. There are times that this may be imprudent and
even impolite but I don't think reposting private email is unethical under
any circumstances.
As with any other form of communication, sending email requires a bit of
discretion and common sense. If you have reason to believe the recipient
won't keep your mail in confidence, you should probably reconsider what
you're posting, why you're posting it and to whom you're posting it.
Caveat postor!
--
Jon Roma
Computing and Communications Services Office,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Internet: roma@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!roma
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 12:21:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov29.161400.7204@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 16:14:00 GMT
In article <1992Nov29.010722.12750@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, peg@cs (Peter Granger) writes:
>>I've heard it has a girl lifting her skirt, ie. it was just nakedness.
>>Doesn't sound like anything to do with pornography - your laws are
>>more silly than I thought if it really was against the law.
>
>Apparently, we are talking about two different pictures.
I guess I probably misunderstood or received incorrect information, as
your description matches information I got from other sources.
>abused, but she does not look happy with the situation. There is also
>an inset closeup of her genitals. This is not a simple picture of a
>nude child -- this was, as far as I can see, intended to be a sexually
>arousing picture of an underage child.
So? I don't think "intended to be sexually arousing" is the problem,
I think the possible bother or harm to a child is the problem.
>Well, I haven't seen the pictures you're talking about, but I'm
>betting they aren't the kind that is being discussed here. If they
>are, then Finland must be kind of a strange place. What are they
>advertising? If it is things like soap, diapers, and baby lotion, then
>there's probably nothing wrong with having naked children in the ads,
>since it pertains to the product.
The pictures are mostly in catalogs/leaflets advertising sometimes
things like you mention, often also bathroom stuff (showers, bathtubs,
towles), houses, sometimes doctor services, sometimes something else.
>If they are advertising cigarettes,
>tires, and televisions, then naked children don't seem pertinent to
>the advertising, and may be there just to draw attention, in which
>case it seems inappropriate, at least.
Well, naked men&women are used for things like that sometimes (tobacco
advertising is against the law, by the way) but I don't think the
inappropriateness you talk above is the same issue we were discussing.
The "attention-drawing" use of children (care instinct -arousing) and
sexually arousing men/women in advertising is very common and I think
there's some regulation of that here, but that's not to protect the
models and thus is a totally different issue (closer to
"truth-in-advertising" questions than "child abuse").
>No, you don't gather entirely right. The point I was making was that a
>person should not be considered depraved for using the law to support
>his beliefs. Whether or not those beliefs are immoral, unethical, or
>depraved, is another matter entirely. It is something of a fine line,
>but I am trusting that you can understand the distinction.
OK, now I understand what you're saying. However I don't quite agree
- if the belief is that a father should buy some candy to his daughter
rather than buy a hemp cigarette and smoke it and the law is
"mandatory life sentence for drug use" I think it's still quite
unethical to report the father to authorities. I wouldn't think that
FBI is necessarily bad enough in most cases, but using agencies with
habits like kicking down doors and threatening families with guns
(like the DEA) to support one's beliefs doesn't get my support, not
matter what one thinks of drug use.
>But I do not think it is wrong to
>support laws which one feels are morally right.
So basically I guess I'm saying that I think it is wrong, if the harm
done by punishment/investigation is bad enough.
//Jyrki
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 16:10:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Northwestern U. policies
Message-ID: <9211292110.AA01231@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 09:10:21 GMT
Here are some general polices from Northwestern University.
Rules And Regulations Of Student Conduct Policy
Statement On Student Rights And Responsibilities
Policy On Summary Suspensions
Guidelines For Access To Student Records
University Statutes: Article V, Students
University Statement On Sexual Harassment
Trustee Statement On Disruption
[Reference: gopher -p 1/handfact/HANDBOOK nuinfo.nwu.edu]
========================================================
Source: University Relations
Last Updated: October 1991
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF STUDENT CONDUCT
POLICY STATEMENT ON STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------------
(Students are temporary residents of the state of Illinois and,
as such, are subject to the laws of the state and to the
ordinances of the cities of Evanston and Chicago. In addition,
every student is required to comply with all rules and
regulations enacted and published by the University or under the
delegated authority of the University.
- University Statutes
Article V Section I
University-enacted rules and regulations are found in
several sources, including the Undergraduate Catalog, the
Graduate School Catalog, the undergraduate and graduate housing
bulletins, notices disseminated from time to time by the
University or its schools and departments -- and this handbook.
Particular reference is made to the appendix to this section
of the handbook containing excerpts from the University Statutes,
the Trustee Statement on Disruption, a description of the
University Hearing and Appeals System, Guidelines for Access to
Student Records, the Drug Abuse Policy Statement, the University
Statement on Sexual Harassment, and other information.
A student or student organization found to have violated any
of the University's rules or regulations shall be subject to
appropriate disciplinary action as provided by the University
Hearing and Appeals System.
The following material includes those rules and regulations
believed to be of broadest interest and most general application.
When questions arise as to more particular areas -- housing,
athletics, social affairs, and the like -- students are urged to
contact the Guidance and Counseling Department in the Office of
the Dean of Students for direction to the most appropriate source
of information.
The exercise of individual rights by students and other
members of the Northwestern community may not abridge the
following rights.
1. The right of a faculty or staff member to exclude from a
classroom or other University premises, during the progress of
a class or other University-sponsored program or activity,
persons not enrolled in the class or other unauthorized
persons.
2. The right to privacy of a student or faculty or staff member
in his or her office or other work area or lodging.
3. The right of the University to take actions reasonably
determined to secure the rights in 1) and 2) and to assure
that students, faculty, and staff may pursue their legitimate
goals on University premises or at University functions
without interference.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================
POLICY STATEMENT ON STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Drafted by the students, faculty, and staff, this statement first
appeared in the 1969-70 Student Handbook.
At Northwestern University, life outside the classroom is an
integral part of the educational process. The exercise of
responsibility is an important part of the development of the
full potential of the student as an individual and as a citizen.
The student's awareness of the extent of his or her rights and
responsibilities is necessary to the exercise of responsibility
within the University community. To further these objectives and
in recognition of students as members of the Northwestern
University community, the University has adopted the following
statement of policy
This policy statement has been formulated in a spirit of
cooperation and community by representatives of students,
faculty, and administration. It is a living document and thus is
subject to change through participation of representatives of the
same groups who participated in the original formulation.
1. An applicant will be considered for admission to the
University and for financial aid without regard for race,
color, national origin, religion, sex, handicap, or political
belief.
2. The student has freedom of research, of legitimate classroom
discussion, and of the advocacy of alternative opinions to
those presented in the classroom.
3. The student will be evaluated on knowledge and academic
performance for purposes of granting academic credit and not
on the basis of personal or political beliefs.
4. The teacher-student relationship within the classroom is
confidential and disclosures of a student's personal or
political beliefs expressed in connection with course work
will not be made public without explicit permission of the
student. It is understood that the teacher may undertake the
usual evaluation of knowledge and academic performance.
5. Students' records may be released to persons outside the
University only on request of the student or through
compliance with applicable laws.
6. Information on rules, rates, and regulations deriving from
contractual agreements with the University will be made
available to students on request.
7. The University will not act in derogation of the rights of
students to be secure in their possessions. Students will be
secure against invasion of privacy and unreasonable search and
seizure.
8. Students will be free from censorship in the publication and
dissemination of their views as long as these are not
represented as the views of Northwestern University.
9. Student publications are free from any official action
controlling editorial policy. Publications shall not bear the
name of the University or purport to issue from it without
University approval.
10. Students are free to form, join, and participate in any group
for intellectual, religious, social, economic, political, or
cultural purposes.
11. A student is free, individually or in association with other
individuals, to engage in off-campus activities, exercising
the right of a citizen of the community, state, and nation,
provided he or she does not in any way purport to represent
the University.
12. Students are free to use campus facilities for meetings of
student chartered campus organizations, subject to regulations
as to time and manner governing the facility.
13. Students may invite and hear speakers of their choice on
subjects of their choice, and approval will not be withheld by
University officers for the purpose of censorship.
14. Students will have their views and welfare considered in the
formation of University policy and will be consulted by or
represented on University committees that affect students as
members of the University community.
15. Students are free to assemble, to demonstrate, to
communicate, and to protest, recognizing that freedom requires
order, discipline, and responsibility and further recognizing
the right of all faculty and students to pursue their
legitimate goals without interference. (See the Trustee
Statement on Disruption, Section IV.)
16. Students will be exempt from disciplinary action or dismissal
from the University except for academic failure, failure to
pay a University debt, or violation of a student or University
rule or regulation. Rules and regulations shall be fully and
clearly promulgated in advance of the supposed violation. The
University has no legal authority over a student when outside
University property, except where the student is on the
property of a University-affiliated institution or where the
student is engaged in a project, seminar, or class for
academic credit. A student is subject to local, state, and
federal statutes.
17. A student is free to be present on campus and to attend
classes pending action on criminal or civil charges, except
for reasons relating to his or her physical or emotional
safety and well-being or for reasons relating to the safety
and well-being of students, faculty, staff, or University
property.
18. It is recognized that every member the community has the
responsibility to conduct oneself in a manner that does not
violate the rights and freedoms of others and has the
responsibility to recognize the principles within this
statement of policy.
========================================================
Source: University Relations
Last Updated: October 1991
POLICY ON SUMMARY SUSPENSIONS
As provided in Article V of the University Statutes, a
student may be suspended pending a prompt hearing in cases in
which the president, a vice president designated by the
president, or in cases involving students on the Chicago campus,
the dean of a school on that campus, finds that such a suspension
is necessary for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of
students, faculty, or University property. Actions that may
warrant summary suspension include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. Sale, distribution, use, or possession of illegal drugs
on University premises or at University functions;
2. Use or possession of dangerous weapons on University
premises or at University functions;
3. Theft of or damage to property on University premises or
at University functions;
4. Obstruction or disruption of teaching, research,
administration, hearing procedures, or other University
activities, or of other authorized activities on
University premises;
5. Physical abuse of any person or action that threatens or
endangers the health or safety of any person on
University premises or at University functions or while
such person is properly fulfilling his/her duties as a
University employee, whether or not such abuse or action
occurs on University premises;
Any student suspended pursuant to the provisions of this
statement will be required to remove him/herself immediately from
residence halls and/or Greek units and will be excluded from
University property unless the student's presence on campus is
explicitly authorized by the vice president for student affairs.
A student so suspended may request an expedited hearing before
the University Hearing Board, which will schedule a hearing
within three days of the request or as soon thereafter as
possible.
===============================================================
Source: University Relations
Last Updated: October 1991
GUIDELINES FOR ACCESS TO STUDENT RECORDS
The following guidelines are based upon the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, which governs access
to records maintained by certain educational institutions and
agencies and the release of such records.
An individual who is or has been in attendance at
Northwestern University may inspect and review his or her
education records. Applicants for admission are not entitled to
such inspection and review. Education records are records, files,
documents, microfilm, computer tapes, and other materials which
contain information directly related to a student and which are
maintained by the University. Education records, however, do not
include records made by University personnel which are in the
sole possession of the record maker and which are not accessible
to or revealed to any other person; records of the department of
public safety; employee records; medical and counseling records;
and admission records prior to matriculation.
Although included in the above definition of education
records, in no case shall an individual who is or has been in
attendance at Northwestern University have access to financial
records of his or her parents or any information contained
therein; confidential letters and statements of recommendation
placed in a record prior to January 1, 1975, if such statements
are used solely for the purposes for which they were specifically
intended; or to confidential recommendations received after
January 1, 1975, relative only to admission, placement, and
receipt of honors or honorary recognition provided the student
has signed a waiver.
An enrolled student or a previously enrolled student may
waive his or her right of access only in regard to
recommendations; only for admission, placement (employment
application), and receipt of honors; only if on the individual's
request he or she will be notified of the names of all persons
making confidential recommendations; and only if the confidential
recommendations are used solely for the purpose for which they
were specifically intended and if the waiver is not required as a
condition for the service to be performed.
Directory (public) information as specified here, provided
the indicated conditions are met, may be provided on request to
persons outside the University. Directory (public) information
includes name, date and place of birth, local and home addresses,
telephone numbers, school or college, class, participation in
activities, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, the
most recent previous educational agency or institution attended,
and weight and height for members of varsity athletic teams. Any
student who does not desire inclusion of this information in the
annual Faculty/Staff/Student Directory or other dissemination of
the information by the University may notify the Office of the
Registrar in writing. For the telephone directory the complete
entry must be omitted. No partial deletion or edited entry can be
accepted. Notification must be received by the Registrar's Office
no later than October 1 of the academic year concerned. Students
may not prohibit the verification of the fact of attendance or of
the awarding or lack of awarding of a degree.
A student wishing to review his or her educational record
should first request access in the office holding the record. If
the office fails to grant access, then the student should file a
written request for access with the associate provost of
university enrollement, who will review the request and forward
it to the department head, who shall notify the student of the
time and place at which the record may be viewed, no later than
45 days after the date of the request. Copies of records or
portions of records may be provided to the student on request for
a fee that covers University costs for copying the record.
Information from a student's education record may be
released to the parents of the student, provided the student is a
dependent as defined for federal income tax purposes. Directory
information may be provided on request; however, all other
requests for information, including a review of a student's
education record, from any individual or agency other than the
student, University personnel, and parents which has not been
expressly authorized by the student shall be referred to the
associate provost of university enrollment.
In the event a student challenges the content of his or her
education record on the basis that an item(s) is inaccurate,
misleading, or otherwise inappropriate, the custodian of the
education record shall discuss the challenge with the student and
attempt to resolve the challenge within the framework of
maintaining the integrity, accuracy, and usefulness of the
record. If the student wishes to insert a written explanation
respecting the content of the record, such written explanation is
to be accepted and included in the record.
If the custodian and student are unable to resolve the
challenge, they shall schedule a meeting with the dean of
admission, financial aid, and student records for a further
review.
An ad hoc committee of two faculty members and one
administrator appointed by the president shall act as an appeal
review committee in the event a challenge is not resolved by the
associate provost of university enrollment.
The ad hoc committee normally would be the final step.
However, its decision, as all decisions, is appealable to the
president of the University.
An annual notification to students shall be made and shall
include the types of education records and information contained
therein.
===============================================================
Source: University Relations
Last Updated: October 1991
UNIVERSITY STATUTES: ARTICLE V, STUDENTS
1. Student Discipline
a. Disciplinary Standards. Students are temporary residents
of the state of Illinois and, as such, are subject to the
laws of the state and to ordinances of the cities of
Evanston and Chicago. In addition, every student is
required to comply with all rules and regulations enacted
and published by the University or under delegated
authority of the University. A student or student
organization found to have violated any of such rules and
regulations of the University shall be subject to
appropriate disciplinary action as provided below.
b. University Hearing and Appeals System. The University
Hearing and Appeals System shall include a University
Hearing and Appeals Board, which shall consist of six
faculty members and three students. The president of the
University shall determine the methods by which the members
of the board are selected, shall appoint one member of the
board to serve as chairman, and shall provide for the
selection of alternate members of the board. It shall be
the duty of the board to consider cases, other than those
arising because of unsatisfactory academic work, which may
call for discipline of a student or group of students of
any school on the Evanston campus. Upon a finding adverse
to the student, the University Hearing and Appeals Board
shall have the power to place a student on probation, to
suspend the student, to exclude the student from the
University, or to impose such other sanctions on students
or student organizations as shall be found appropriate. The
initial hearing of cases may be assigned by the president
to student or any other hearing boards whose actions shall
be subject to review by the University Hearing and Appeals
Board. The hearing or review of individual cases may be
delegated by the University Hearing and Appeals Board to a
subcommittee of its membership or to any other hearing
board.
c. Chicago Campus Hearing and Appeals System. The president
may establish a Chicago Campus Hearing and Appeals System,
which shall consider cases which may call for discipline of
a student or group of students of any school on the Chicago
campus.
d. Hearing Procedures. A student or student organization
subject to disciplinary action is entitled to notice of the
charge and a fair hearing in accordance with published
procedure. In a case in which suspension or exclusion is
ordered, no final action shall be taken until the student
has had the opportunity to request and obtain a review of
the record by the president or by a vice president
designated by the president to review the case. A student
may be suspended pending a prompt hearing in cases in which
the president, a vice president designated by the
president, or, in cases involving students on the Chicago
campus, the dean of a school on that campus, finds that
such a suspension is necessary for reasons relating to the
safety and well-being of students, faculty, or University
property.
2. Failure in Academic Work
Whenever it shall appear that any student is not making
satisfactory progress in his or her studies, the student may
be excluded by vote of the faculty of the college or school in
which the student is enrolled or by a committee or board that
has been delegated such responsibility by that college or
school. A student shall be notified in writing no later than
the middle of a term that, because of unsatisfactory work in a
previous term or terms, he or she is subject to exclusion in
the event of unsatisfactory work during the term for which the
notice is issued. In the absence of written and timely notice
the student may request and then shall be granted a hearing by
the faculty (or its committee or board) before the student is
excluded.
3. Publications
No student or students shall publish any papers or other
publication or production bearing the name of the University,
or purporting to issue from it, without permission obtained,
with the knowledge of the provost, from the vice president for
student affairs, or the dean of the college or school in which
the students are enrolled.
4. Northwestern Community Council
a. Membership. The membership of the council shall consist of
15 persons: 5 students (undergraduate and/or graduate and
professional), an equal number of faculty members
(including at least 1 from the Chicago campus and no more
than 2 from any single school), 2 administrative personnel,
and 3 staff personnel. The president shall determine the
methods by which the members of the council are selected
and shall appoint one member of the council to serve as
chairman.
b. Convening of the Council. The council shall be convened
from time to time when either the president or the Steering
Committee of the University Senate determines that there is
an issue of broad University-wide concern about which the
council's advice might be sought.
c. Responsibilities and Powers. It shall be the duty of the
council to address the charge accompanying its being
convened and to make recommendations to the officers of the
University and to the University Senate.
===============================================================
Source: University Relations
Last Updated: October 1991
UNIVERSITY STATEMENT ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Northwestern University is committed to the maintenance of
an environment free of discrimination and all forms of coercion
that impede the academic freedom or diminish the dignity of any
member of the University community. The University reaffirms this
policy specifically as it pertains to prevention of sexual
harassment and to the obligations of male and female students,
faculty, administrators, and staff in their capacities as
teachers and colleagues in this regard.
It is the policy of Northwestern University that no male or
female member of the Northwestern community - students, faculty,
administrators, or staff - may sexually harass any other member
of the community. Sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
constitute harassment when
1. submission to such conduct is made or threatened to be
made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition
of an individual's employment or education;
2. submission to or rejection of such conduct by an
individual is used or threatened to be used as the basis
for academic or employment decisions affecting that
individual; or
3. such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially
interfering with an individual's academic or
professional performance or creating an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive employment, educational, or living
environment.
A member of the University community who believes that he or
she has been the victim of sexual harassment or who becomes aware
of an incident of sexual harassment as defined above should bring
any such matter to the attention of either the school dean, the
dean of students, or the associate vice president for personnel,
as he or she prefers. An individual who wishes to make a
complaint may be accompanied by a fellow student, staff member,
or faculty member if the complainant desires. The person
receiving the complaint should immediately seek to resolve the
matter by informal discussions with the persons involved. If the
complainant or the alleged offender is not satisfied with the
proposed resolution, he or she may secure review of the matter by
either the provost, the senior vice president for business and
finance, or the vice president for student affairs, as
appropriate.
If, for any reason, a member of the community prefers in the
first instance not to approach the school dean, the dean of
students, or the associate vice president for personnel with his
or her complaint, that person should discuss the complaint with
the equal opportunity officer the director of the Women's Center,
the director of Chicago campus residence halls and student
activities, or a designated member of the General Faculty
Committee, the Northwestern University Staff Advisory Council, or
the Associated Student Government, who in turn shall bring the
complaint to the attention of the appropriate administrator.
During 1990-91, Professor Arlene Daniels (sociology), Ms. Janet
Stephens (Medical School), and Ms. Shahrzad Tadjkakhsh (ASG
president) have been designated by GFC, NUSAC, and the ASG,
respectively, to receive such complaints.
The provost, the vice president for student affairs, and the
senior vice president for business and finance are responsible
for ensuring that there is timely and thorough investigation of
all complaints. Accordingly, if the school dean, the dean of
students, or the associate vice president for personnel has
probable cause to believe that an act of sexual harassment has
taken place, that person shall immediately notify the provost if
the person complained against is a faculty member or academic
administrator, the vice president for student affairs if the
person complained against is a student, or the senior vice
president for business and finance if the person complained
against is a member of the staff.
The University will take appropriate steps to ensure that a
person who in good faith brings forth a complaint of sexual
harassment will not be subjected to retaliation. The University
also will take appropriate steps to ensure that a person against
whom such a complaint is brought is treated fairly, has adequate
opportunity to respond to such accusations, and that findings, if
any, are supported by clear and persuasive evidence. Complaints
of sexual harassment shall be handled confidentially, with the
facts made available only to those who need to know in order to
investigate and resolve the matter. The complainant and the
person complained against will be notified of the final
disposition of the complaint.
If a complaint of sexual harassment is found to be
substantiated, appropriate corrective action will follow, up to
and including the separation of the offending party from the
University, consistent with University procedures.
If the suggested procedures outlined above do not result in
a satisfactory resolution of a complaint, members of the
University community retain the right to file formal complaints
in cases of alleged sexual harassment. Complaints against
students are filed with the executive secretary of the University
Hearing and Appeals System; against staff, with the associate
vice president for personnel; and against faculty and academic
administrators, with the provost.
===============================================================
Source: University Relations
Last Updated: October 1991
TRUSTEE STATEMENT ON DISRUPTION
Northwestern University stands for freedom of speech,
freedom of inquiry, freedom of dissent, and freedom to
demonstrate in peaceful fashion. The University recognizes that
freedom requires order, discipline, and responsibility, and
stands for the right of all faculty and students to pursue their
legitimate goals without interference. This University,
therefore, will not tolerate any attempt by any individual,
group, or organization to disrupt the regularly scheduled
activities of the University. Any such effort to impede the
holding of classes, the carrying forward of the University's
business, or the arrangements for properly authorized and
scheduled events, would constitute an invasion of the rights of
faculty and students and cannot be permitted. If any such attempt
is made to interfere with any University activity, the leaders
and participants engaged in disruptive tactics will be held
responsible and will be subject to appropriate legal and
disciplinary action, including expulsion.
===============================================================
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 16:24:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Policy: "USING COMPUTERS AT RENSSELAER"
Message-ID: <9211292124.AA01302@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 09:24:41 GMT
[Reference: gopher windex.its.rpi.edu 70]
USING COMPUTERS AT RENSSELAER
Rensselaer strives to achieve its educational and research
goals by providing quality computing facilities. These include
large and small systems, communication networks and personal
computers as well associated software, files, and data.
Although computers affect how we communicate and interact with
each other, computers do not change underlying societal values
and established individual rights with respect to personal
privacy and ownership of property. Computing facilities are
also recognized as community resources. Each computer user,
therefore, is expected to act responsibly in order to protect
the rights of others and to use computing facilities
appropriately.
Computers are tools intended to help people in their work,
learning, and research efforts. Like other tools, computing
equipment and associated software, files, and data belong to
someone, either to an individual, an organization, or the
Institute and, as such, are private property. The nature of
one's access to and use of Rensselaer's computing facilities
is determined by an individual's relationship to the
Institute. It is each computer user's responsibility to find
out about particular conditions of use and to obtain required
authorization in advance of any use. In some cases,
authorization may be simply receiving a password to a class
account in order to do required homework; in other cases, it
may require first finding out who is the owner of a particular
piece of equipment and then getting the owner's permission to
use it. Using or attempting to use computing facilities
without authorization is not acceptable behavior.
Examples of misuse of computing facilities include, but are
not limited to:
1. Using another person's computer account without
permission;
2. Using a computer account for purposes other than those
intended by the account administrator;
3. Reading, changing, duplicating, or deleting files or
software without permission of the owner or system
administrator;
4. Distributing information not intended for distribution
by its owner (e.g. private notes, computer projects,
theses, telephone access codes, passwords, copyrighted
material);
5. Deliberately preventing others from using a system
without acceptable cause or unreasonably slowing down a
system;
6. Bypassing accounting mechanisms;
7. Violating copyright or licensing agreements regarding
software or software documentation;
8. Deliberately wasting computer resources (e.g. printing
blank pages or unnecessary copies);
9. Using any computer facility to violate the Grounds for
Disciplinary Action (e.g. harassment, fraud, falsifying
information, academic dishonesty, etc.) Note: Harassment
is that which is annoying or threatening to the person
receiving the message or action; 10. Attempting to modify
system hardware or software without the permission of the
system administrator.
When there is an indication that a misuse of computing
facilities has occurred, the administrator of the computer
system is authorized to investigate the incident.
Investigations involving accessing a user's private files or
data require prior authorization from the appropriate RPI
official. For students, this is the Dean of Students or
designee; and for faculty, staff, and outside users, it is the
Provost or designee. Misuse of computing resources may be
referred to the appropriate authority for disciplinary or
legal action.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 16:25:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Louisiana Tech University Computer Policies
Message-ID: <9211292125.AA01310@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 09:25:12 GMT
[To access this item via gopher, try typing:
gopher -p "1/Other Gopher and Information Servers/all" gopher.tc.umn.edu 70
Then choose:
Louisiana Tech University/
Policies/
- Carl]
Louisiana Tech University
Computer Policies
The computing facilities at Louisiana Tech are provided for the use of
Louisiana Tech students, faculty and staff in support of the programs of the
University. All students, faculty and staff are responsible for seeing that
these computing facilities are used in an effective, efficient, ethical and
lawful manner.
The following policies relate to their use.
1.
Computer facilities and accounts are owned by the University and are to be
used for university-related activities only. All access to central computer
systems, including the issuing of passwords, must be approved through the
Computer Center. All access to departmental computer systems must be approved
by the department head or an authorized representative.
2.
Computer equipment and accounts are to be used only for the purpose for which
they are assigned and are not to be used for commercial purposes or
non-university related business.
3.
An account assigned to an individual, by the Computer Center or a department,
must not be used by others without explicit permission from the instructor
or administrator requesting the account and by the Computer Center or
department assigning the account. The individual is responsible for the
proper use of the account, including proper password protection.
4.
Programs and files are confidential unless they have explicitly been made
available to other authorized individuals. Computer Center personnel may
access others' files when necessary for the maintenance of central computer
systems. When performing maintenance, every effort is made to insure the
privacy of a user's files. However, if violations are discovered, they will
be reported immediately to the appropriate Vice President.
5.
Electronic communications facilities (such as MAIL) are for university-related
activities only. Fraudulent, harassing or obscene messages and/or other
materials are not to be sent or stored.
6.
No one may deliberately attempt to degrade the performance of a computer
system or to deprive authorized personnel of resources or access to any
university computer system.
7.
Loopholes in computer security systems or knowledge of a special password must
not be used to damage computer systems, obtain extra resources, take resources
from another user, gain access to systems or use systems for which proper
authorization has not been given.
8.
Computer software protected by copyright is not to be copied from, into, or
by using campus computing facilities, except as permitted by law or by the
contract with the owner of the copyright. This means that such computer and
microcomputer software may only be copied in order to make back-up copies,
if permitted by the copyright owner. The number of copies and distribution
of the copies may not be done in such as way that the number of simultaneous
users in a department exceeds the number of original copies purchased by that
department.
An individual's computer use privileges may be suspended immediately upon the
discovery of a possible violation of these policies. Such suspected
violations will be confidentially reported to the appropriate faculty,
supervisors, department heads, Computer Center staff, and Vice Presidents.
The appropriate administrative staff or supervising department head will judge
an offense as either major or minor. A first minor offense will normally be
dealt with by the Computer Center administrative staff or supervising
department head after consultation with the instructor or administrator
requesting the account. Additional offenses will be regarded as major
offenses. Appeals relating to minor offenses may be made to the supervising
Vice Presidents. Major offenses will be dealt with by the supervising
Vice Presidents.
Violations of the policies will be dealt with in the same manner as violations
of other university policies and may result in disciplinary review. In such
a review, the full range of disciplinary sanctions is available including the
loss of computer use privileges, dismissal form the University, and legal
action.
Violations of some of the above policies may constitute a criminal offense.
Individuals using campus computer facilities should be familiar with the
Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:73, Computer Related Crimes.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 16:25:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: University of North Texas Computer Policy
Message-ID: <9211292125.AA01321@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 09:25:42 GMT
[Reference: gopher -p "1/UNT Procedures & Policies" gopher.unt.edu]
COMPUTER RESOURCES SECURITY POLICY
1. PURPOSE:
The purpose of this document is to:
* Establish policy for the protection of University
computer resources;
* Assign general responsibility for establishing,
implementing, and administering security policies,
standards, and procedures; and
* Establish the associated sanctions for loss,
corruption, misuse and/or unauthorized disclosure of
University computer resources.
2. SCOPE:
This policy applies to:
* centrally administered computer systems, departmental
computer systems, and personal computers, including all
means of accessing the preceding;
* all computerized institutional data regardless of the
office in which it resides or the format in which it is
used;
* any and all users of University computer resources; and
* all aspects of computer resource security including,
but not limited to, accidental or unauthorized
destruction, disclosure, misuse, or modification of or
access to University computer resources.
In addition to or in lieu of the above:
* Use of computer resources which are entrusted to the
University by other organizations (e.g., foundations
and government agencies) is governed by the terms and
conditions agreed upon with those organizations.
* Use of copyrighted data, software, and materials is
governed by the terms and conditions of the copyright.
* Use of external resources accessed via University
computer resources is subject to the guidelines of
those external resources. * All use of University computer resources is subject to
federal and state regulations and laws, including, but
not limited to:
* the Texas Computer Crimes Statute (Section 1,
Title 7, Chapter 33 of the Texas Penal Code);
* Federal Copyright Law, Title 17, Section 117; and
* the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of
1974.
* Use of University computer resources is subject to all
other applicable University policies.
3. DEFINITION OF TERMS:
3.1. Computerized institutional data - Data owned by the
University and used to conduct University business,
which is captured, stored, maintained, and/or accessed
using University computer systems, including all forms
of machine-readable data produced using University
computer systems.
3.2. Computer hardware assets - Any and all equipment
involved in the operation of a computer system,
including, but not limited to, computers, data
communications equipment, workstations, and various
peripherals such as printers and plotters.
3.3. Computer software assets - Any and all programs
involved in the operation of a computer system,
including, but not limited to, operating systems, data
communications software, data base management systems,
and applications software.
3.4. University computer resources - any and all
computerized institutional data, computer hardware
assets, and computer software assets owned or licensed
by the University.
3.5. Centrally administered computer system - a computer
system, including the supporting data communications
network, used for capturing, storing, maintaining, and
accessing computerized institutional data under the
direct management of the Computing Center. This
includes campus-wide data communications networks such
as the broadband and fiber optics networks which span
departmental computer systems.
3.6. Departmental computer system - any computer system,
including the supporting data communications network,
not under the direct management of the Computing Center
which contains multiple workstations connected by some
type of data communications network, including, but not
limited to, departmental minicomputers and the common
resources of local area networks (LANs), such as file,
database, and print servers, but not including personal
computers which can also be used as standalone
workstations.
3.7. Personal computer - a microcomputer which may be used
as a standalone device and/or a workstation on a
network.
3.8. Computer installation - the department responsible for
the operation of a computer system, that is, a
University office that maintains computer hardware,
software, and services for capturing, storing,
maintaining, and accessing computerized institutional
data. The Computing Center is the computer
installation for centrally administered computer
systems. The department which owns a departmental
computer system is that system's computer installation.
3.9. Workstation - any device capable of receiving data from
or transmitting data to a computer system.
3.10. Administrative application - a specialized automated
system used by an office/ department for administrative
purposes. It does not include software tools for
microcomputers such as word processing, data base, and
spreadsheet software, but does include specialized
administrative applications developed using these tools
to capture, store, maintain, and/or access computerized
institutional data.
3.11. Data/application steward - The individual(s)
responsible for establishing the rights to access
specific data elements, a file and/or application. In
this document data steward applies to stewardship of
data elements and/or files and application steward
applies to stewardship of applications.
3.12. Data custodian - A person who has de facto control over
access to computerized institutional data regardless of
medium. In other words, a person who has a copy of a
report is a custodian of the data on that report. A
person who has a copy of data on a diskette is
custodian of the data on that diskette.
3.13. Computer resources guardian - The person charged with
enforcement of security policies and procedures for the
computer installation.
3.14. Computer resources security committee - The committee
assigned the responsibility to review policy
recommendations for computer resources security for
University computer installations.
3.14. Computer resources security coordinator - A person in
the Computing Center (the Associate Vice President for
Computing or his/her designee) assigned the
responsibility for the formulation of computer security
procedures for the centrally administered computer
system and for the coordination of procedures for the
departmental computer systems and personal computers.
4. GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS:
4.1. University computer resources -- general:
* University computer resources shall be used solely
for legitimate University-related purposes.
* University computer resources may not be
transported without appropriate authorization.
* University security measures must take into
account local, state, and federal reporting and
auditing requirements, as well as provisions to
eliminate, as far as is feasible, the incidence of
theft, fraud, destruction, or other abuses of the
University computer resources.
* Violations or suspected violations of computer
measures or controls must be reported at once to
management and/or those responsible for computer
security.
4.2. Access to University computer resources:
* Access to University computer resources is
considered a privilege granted by the University.
Users of University computer resources must not
abuse or allow others to abuse their access to
University computer resources.
* Access to the University computer resource of any
computer installation must be approved by the
management of that computer installation.
* All individuals authorized to use University
computer resources are responsible for all usage
of their logon access and should keep their
passwords confidential to protect University
computer resources.
* Users may not access University computer resources
without appropriate authorization and then only
for the purposes for which their access is
authorized.
* Any attempt to access or to assist in the access
of University computer resources via an
unauthorized means is a violation of this policy
and may subject the perpetrator(s) to sanctions
hereunder.
4.3. Computerized institutional data:
* All computerized institutional data is considered
to be an asset of the University and shall be
protected from loss, corruption, misuse, and
inappropriate disclosure.
* Certain computerized institutional data, by law,
is confidential and may not be released. Other
computerized institutional data, by University
policy, is confidential and likewise may not be
released. Users of University computer resources
are responsible for the protection, privacy and
control of all data, regardless of the data
storage medium.
4.4. Copying of computer software, data, and manuals:
* Computer software, computer data, and/or software
manuals may not be copied or transmitted
electronically without appropriate prior consent.
* Computer installations will take appropriate and
reasonable steps to inhibit attempts to obtain
unauthorized copies of computer software, computer
data, and/or software manuals.
5. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES:
5.1. Information Resources Council
a. The Information Resources Council will review and make
recommendations to the Information Resources Steering
Committee concerning proposed changes to this policy. b. The Information Resources Council will have the
authority to adopt a set of standards to implement this
policy and to approve changes to that set of standards.
These standards will be subject to review by the
Information Resources Steering Committee.
5.2. Standing Computer Resources Security Committee
a. The Chairman of the Information Resources Council will
appoint a Computer Resources Security Committee to be
chaired by a member of and reporting to the Information
Resources Council. The committee membership should
include representatives of the major areas of the
University. The committee membership should include as
ex-officio members the Computer Resources Security
Coordinator and other persons who are knowledgeable of
the various computer hardware and software platforms
used by the University.
b. The Computer Resources Security Committee will:
1. Serve as a forum for the exchange of security
information.
2. Promote discussion of possible computer security
policies and procedures.
3. Make recommendations to the Information Resources
Council regarding security issues.
5.3. Computer Resources Security Coordinator
a. The Associate Vice President for Computing or his/her
designee will function as computer resources security
coordinator for the University.
b. Among the responsibilities of the Computer Resource
Security Coordinator will be:
1. Ensuring that adequate security procedures,
including backup, disaster recovery, and
contingency planning, have been formulated for the
centrally administered computer systems.
2. Coordinating the implementation of security
procedures, including backup, disaster recovery,
and contingency planning, for the departmental
computer systems and personal computers.
3. Establishing mechanisms for monitoring compliance
with and violations of University computer
resource security policies and standards.
Establish procedures for investigation, logging,
and management reporting and follow-up of access
violations.
4. Performing periodic risk assessments and security
audits of existing and proposed systems.
5. Overseeing the development and maintenance of a
comprehensive Computer Resource Security Policy
Manual to include security procedures to implement
University computer resource security policies and
standards.
6. Overseeing the development of training courses for
training employees in University computer resource
security policies, standards, and procedures.
5.4. Department Heads
a. Department heads shall ensure that their departmental
computer systems follow University computer security
policies and standards.
b. Department heads shall ensure that all employees in
their department have access to this policy and are
familiar with its provisions.
c. Department heads shall ensure that employees of that
department are trained in security measures in their
use of University computer resources and that their
employees abide by University computer resource
policies and standards.
d. Department heads will take corrective action on
security violations within the department and will
report serious violations to the Computer Resources
Security Coordinator.
e. Department heads will ensure that computer resource
security responsibilities are included in the
performance evaluation criteria of appropriate
personnel, including the computer resource guardians,
data/application stewards, and data custodians.
f. Department heads will inform appropriate computer
resource guardians when employees have terminated so
that the terminated employee's access to University
computer resources may be disabled.
g. Department heads will identify data and/or application
stewards and computer resource guardians for their
departments. 5.5. Data/Application Stewards
a. Data/application stewards shall establish the rights to
access specific data elements, files, and/or
administrative applications via University computer
resources.
b. Data/application stewards shall ensure that the access
rights they have designated are enforced by the
security mechanisms of the computer system(s) on which
the data resides.
c. Data stewards shall establish the guidelines for
dissemination of the data on machine- and human-
readable forms within their purview of responsibility
and within the context of University policy and State
and federal regulations and laws.
5.6. Data Custodian
Data custodians shall ensure that any computerized
institutional data in their custody, whether in
machine- or human-readable form, is disseminated and/or
disclosed in accordance with University policy and the
guidelines established by the data steward.
5.7. Computer Resource Guardians
a. Computer resource guardians shall ensure that
procedures are put in place for the computer
installation to implement University computer resource
policies and standards.
b. Computer resource guardians shall ensure that, if
possible, the process by which a user accesses the
resources of their computer installation displays a
message advising users of their responsibility to
comply with the provisions of this policy.
c. Computer resource guardians are responsible to enforce
compliance with provisions of licensing agreements and
other computer resource contracts for the computer
installation.
5.8. Individual Employees/Students
a. All individuals, whether faculty/staff employees or
students, may be required to sign a confidentiality
agreement upon receiving the privilege of using
University computer resources. b. All individuals must comply with University computer
resource policies and standards.
c. All individuals authorized to use University computer
resources are responsible for all usage of their logon
access and should keep their passwords confidential to
protect University computer resources.
d. All individuals who use wide-area network services
(such as BITNET or the Internet) provided via
University computer resources shall abide by the
policies of those networks.
e. All individuals shall not attempt to access University
computer resources for which they have no
authorization.
6. SANCTIONS:
6.1. Penalties for violation of this policy range from loss
of computer resource usage privileges to dismissal from
the University, prosecution, and/or civil action. Each
case will be determined separately on its merits.
Referrals for legal action will be made through the
Office of the General Counsel.
6.2. If the offender is a faculty member, his or her
supervisor (usually the department chair) shall
initially recommend to the dean and thereafter to the
Provost the appropriate sanction. When termination is
recommended, the faculty member may appeal to the
University Review Committee or to the University Tenure
Committee, whichever is appropriate per the University
of North Texas Faculty Handbook.
6.3. If the offender is a staff member, the procedures to be
followed are those specified in the "Discipline and
Discharge Policy" of the University of North Texas
Personnel Policy Manual.
6.4. If the offender is a student, the procedures to be
followed are those specified in the "Code of Student
Conduct and Discipline" as printed in the University of
North Texas Student Guidebook. If the student in
violation of this policy is also an employee of the
University, sanctions may include termination of
employment.
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 16:26:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: U. of Nebraska at Omaha - Computer Policies
Message-ID: <9211292126.AA01324@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 09:26:10 GMT
[reference: gopher -p "1/Policies" odin.unomaha.edu 70]
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA (UNO)
OFFICE OF COMPUTING AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS (C & DC)
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
COMPUTER AND NETWORK USE
BACKGROUND: The University of Nebraska at Omaha has the responsibility for
securing its computing and networking systems (both academic and
administrative) to a reasonable and economically feasible degree
against unauthorized access, while making the systems accessible
for legitimate and innovative uses. This responsibility
includes informing persons who use the UNO computer and network
systems of expected standards of conduct and encouraging their
application. It is important for the user to practice ethical
behavior in computing activities because the user has access to
many valuable and sensitive resources and the user's computing
practices can adversely affect the work of other people.
Although most people act responsibly, the few who do not, either
through ignorance or by intent, have the potential for
disrupting every other user's work. BOTTOM LINE: For the good
of all users, improper use and abuse of the computers and
networks cannot be permitted.
PURPOSE: This policy provides direction to be used in allowing or denying
access to UNO computer or network resources.
STATEMENT: What follows constitutes a policy of computing practice for all
persons using the UNO computing and network system.
Disciplinary action for violating the policy shall be governed
by (but not limited to) the applicable provisions of student
handbooks, faculty and staff handbooks, personnel policy manuals
for the University of Nebraska at Omaha and applicable sections
of Chapters 28-1343 and 86-707, Statutes of the State of
Nebraska. As a minimum, persons who violate this policy will
have their access privileges to UNO computing systems removed
pending an evaluation of the alleged violation(s).
1. Computer and network system users are responsible for being
aware of and following the published procedures for
accessing UNO and other University of Nebraska computing
systems and networks.
2. A user must use only the computer accounts which have been
authorized for their use. Users are required to identify
all computing work with their assigned account numbers so
that responsibility for the work can be determined and so
the user can be contacted in unusual situations, e.g., the
return of misplaced output.
3. Users are responsible for the use of their computer
accounts. Users should make appropriate use of system-
provided protection features such as passwords and file
protections, and should take precautions against others
obtaining access to their computer resources. Do not make
an account available to others for any purpose. If
assistance is needed in using an account, contact the UNO
HELP Desk at 554-3282.
4. Computer accounts must be used only for the purpose for
which they are authorized. For example, student, faculty
and staff accounts, issued for legitimate classroom or
office work, must not be used for private consulting and/or
personal financial gain.
5. Do not access or copy the programs, files, data or data
packets belonging to other persons or to the UNO office of
C & DC or other U of N campuses or departments without prior
authorization. Do not attempt to access files for which you
do not have authorization. Programs, subroutines and data
provided by UNO are not to be taken to other computer sites
without permission. You may use software on computers only
if it has been legally obtained and its use does not violate
any license or copyright restriction. Do not inspect,
modify, distribute or copy privileged data or software, or
attempt to do so, without proper authorization from the
Director, C & DC. Do not use programs at UNO that were
obtained from other computer sites unless they are in the
public domain or authorization to use them at UNO has been
obtained. (Note: All software that is in the possession of
C & DC is checked for the presence of "viruses.")
6. No one should attempt to encroach on others' use of the
facilities or deprive them of resources.
7. Do not attempt to modify system facilities. Do not tamper
with or obstruct the operation of the computer systems or
networks.
8. Do not supply, or attempt to supply, false or misleading
information or identification in order to access computer
systems or networks.
9. Do not attempt to subvert the restrictions associated with
any computer accounts.
This policy is intended to work to the benefit of all who use
the UNO, the UNCSN or other U of N campus or department systems
by encouraging responsible use of scarce computer resources.
Additionally, this policy is intended to supplement Nebraska and
Federal law.
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS POLICY:
Richard M. Snowden, Director of Computing and Data Communications
DISTRIBUTION: Users of the UNO computing and network
facilities, all Computing and Data Communications personnel,
Campus Security, and the C & DC Policy Book.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 1990
________________________________________________
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 17:01:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: esage@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Eric Sage)
Subject: ISU usenet restrictions... Cornell is not alone!
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 22:00:46 GMT
Message-ID:
Something a friend of mine got a few days ago...
(From an ISU student whose name I'm deleting to save him from unwanted
attention...)
Our Computation Center has developed a policy to restrict access to
Usenet. It basically sets up a three tier system: Focused access,
which eliminates all alt. and rec. groups; Standard access, which
eliminates alt.personals.bondage, alt.sex, alt.sex.bestiality
,alt.sex.bondage, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, alt.sex.motss
,alt.sex.pictures ,alt.sex.pictures.d alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d;
and Full access, which allows all groups. In order to get anything but
Standard access, a form must be filed with the Computation Center to
allow a specific machine that you have full control over to get the
Full or Focused feed. All public-access machines will have only
Standard access.
What this means to students is that they have restricted access to
Usenet: most students (over 99%, I'm sure) do not own their own
machine with access to the ISU network. This means they can only use
the public access machines, which have the restricted Standard access.
Even those who do have a machine they can control must file the form
with the Computation Center, which denies them the ability to read
newsgroups anonymously (if the form is filed, the C. C. can assume
that the filer is reading at least one of the above mentioned
groups...)
The selection of which groups to censor was made solely on the basis
of the names and the descriptions of the groups. The University says
the policy is designed to comply with state and federal laws, but in
actuality they gain nothing from the enactment of this policy. It must
be assumed in any case that the University is not responsible for
ideas it does not express (posts to these newsgroups), and even if it
wasn't assumed, it would be much easier and less restrictive to just
place a message in some hard-to-miss place stating that ISU is not
responsible for what it posted to Usenet, 'read at your own risk'.
A group of students called the Students for Electronic Freedom have been
attempting to work with the administration to change this policy to one
that gives users the responsibility of reading or not reading material
they consider offensive. This solution would allow any students or staff
that wished to to read whatever groups they wish, without filing a form,
and without putting the university in the imagined legal bind.
I see Usenet and Internet as the best examples of the power of free speech,
and to see them marred by censorship like this is very offensive to me, and
many of my fellow students. That is why I feel a responsibility to make it
known to others that ISU is doing this.
Thanks for reading,
Any comments?
-esage@occs.cs.oberlin.edu
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 17:14:08 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: U. of Windsor bans discussions of sex
Message-ID: <9211292213.AA01418@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 10:13:56 GMT
[Email from gault@SERVER.uwindsor.ca (Randy Gault). Posted
with the author's permission.]
From gault@SERVER.uwindsor.ca Sat Nov 21 02:01:49 1992
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 03:05:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] Sex Censorship
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada
The University of Windsor also has banned all sex-related
newsgroups. Informally, reasons given to me had to do
with the frequency of illegal and offensive material found
in such groups.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: gault@SERVER.uwindsor.ca (Randy Gault)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] Sex Censorship
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 5:53:47 EST
You may post my previous Email with my name, if you wish.
You may want to post the following instead. It is interesting
to note that every single argument is flawed. This doesn't say
much for the reasoning ability of our CS department. :(
This has been re-edited. If you would prefer the longer posting
in its original form, I can send you that.
=============================================================================
This is NOT a statement of anyone working for the University of
Windsor; it is simply [my personal understanding -rg] of reasons that
have been given for the banning of sex-related newsgroups at the
University of Windsor. No public statement, to my knowledge, has yet
been made by the University on this subject.
* negative media attention
- One article each in: The Globe & Mail
The Windsor Star
a staff newsletter
* fear of possible future negative publicity
* hard core porn in some newsgroups
- the law is not clear about material originating outside of Canada
and arriving on Canadian networks
* some material may be contrary to the University's mission statement
or non-discrimination policy
* fear of legal action
* complaints of harassment
* the nature of UseNet
- UseNet is not free
- UseNet is not free speech
- UseNet is not a right
(See "What Is UseNet?" by Chip Salzenberg)
* The Dept. of Computer Science has to allocate resources ($$) for the
newsgroups received
- CPU time
- bandwidth
- disk storage
* resources devoted to UseNet on campus do not belong to a private
individual and must be used in an acceptable manner
* an individual does not have the right to force another to subsidize
his offensive opinions
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 17:36:02 1992
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov29.222815.5416@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Date: 29 Nov 92 22:28:15 GMT
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>In article ,
>emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) said:
>> ...am I the only one who thinks that the victims of child
>> pornography are the children, that it is the government's
>> responsibility to protect them, and that laws prohibiting the making
>> and distribution of child pornography ought to be enforced? Does
>> everyone believe that the posting of child pornography to netnews
>> should be either protected or ignored by the government?
>This discussion is going to degenerate into pure static unless people
>take the time to define just what the phrase "child pornography" means.
As a *practical* matter, I suggest that we use the definition in
18 USCS section 2252 (and following). This was put into law in
1991. And is *the law* in the US.
>(1) Are we talking about _all_ materials which are intended to be
>arousing to people with a sexual interest in children, or just the
>subset of materials the production of which which involved the
>use/abuse of actual children? (That is, would a _drawing_, drawn
>entirely from the artist's imagination, of an adult male penetrating a
>seven-year-old girl come under the heading of "child pornography" as
>the term is being used in this discussion?)
No. It must involve "the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct". This phrase occurs in pratically every paragraph of the law.
Section 2256. Definitions for chapter
Fort the purposes of this chapter [18 USCS sections 2251 et seq.] the
term --
(1) "minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2) "sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated --
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital,
oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whther
between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse (for the purpose of
sexual stimulation);
or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
of any person;
{it goes on to define other terms like "producing" and "distributing"}
>(2) With regard to the latter subset, are we talking about all such
>materials or only those which depict children engaging in sexual acts?
>(That is, would a full-frontal photograph of a nude seven-year-old boy
>standing alone against a neutral backdrop come under the heading of
>"child pornography" as the term is being used in this discussion?)
See the definition above. If his genitals or pubic area are being
"lasciviously exhibited" the answer is yes. And you will be up on federal
charges if you posses more than 3 such "visual depictions".
And you should see what sort of records you are required to keep if
you *produce* any sort of ""visual depictions" that are legal. You have to
have records of the name and age of *every* person in them, as well as
*any other names they have ever used*! And each item you distribute
must contain a statement identifying where the records are!
--
Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO: 1:105/51 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 19:26:35 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: U. of Nebraska at Omaha - Computer Policies
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 23:23:26 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Nov29.222328.6827JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM>
In article <9211292126.AA01324@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
"
"[reference: gopher -p "1/Policies" odin.unomaha.edu 70]
"
" UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA (UNO)
"
" OFFICE OF COMPUTING AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS (C & DC)
"
" POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
"
"
I wonder if Wayne State University will publish their Student Computer
Account Policy here in this group, or will they be to embarrased to do
so.
C'mon Mr. Edelman? Where is it? Oh, and please underline the parts where
a student's right to due process is explained.
--
Clinton/Gore in '92 | E-MAIL: jp@michigan.com CAT-TALK IS BACK as a FREE
PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST | SYSTEM!! 313-882-2209 300-14400 V.32/V.32BIS/TurboPEP
bye-bye Georgie.... | Anon-UUCP: System: tygra, Login: nuucp, no pw
Its been a bitch... | Get file "/cat/pub/filelist" for a list of files.
***************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 20:29:28 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer)
Subject: Re: [news.admin.misc, et al.] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Message-ID: <9211300129.AA11122@beebalm.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 15:29:10 GMT
J.S. Greenfield writes:
> I seem to recall that, after the MBDF virus, some Cornell students who had
> worked for CIT claimed that Lynn had initiated a program of monitoring
> users *not* suspected of any wrong-doing. (The claim was made that it
> was such monitoring that was, in part, responsible for identifying the
> creators of the MBDF virus.)
> If this was/is in fact the case, I find it rather troubling.
It should be noted that the "Cornell students" making the claims were, as far
as I know, only Randall Swanson, who was eventually indicted along with
Pilgrim and Blumenthal in the virus case.
I think he was trying to start a civil-libertarian controversy to distract
from the meat of the case. Not that I feel (a) he was stupid to do so or (b)
that Cornell Information Technologies was above reproach in the case.
----
Eric Scheirer - Sun Undergrad Lab Consultant - escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu
Any opinions expressed above are mine alone, and are not intended to
represent views of the Cornell CS Dept, or Cornell Information Technologies --
I don't even work for CIT!
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 22:06:36 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Message-ID: <1992Nov30.023028.28461@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 02:30:28 GMT
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:
>As a *practical* matter, I suggest that we use the definition in
>18 USCS section 2252 (and following). This was put into law in
>1991. And is *the law* in the US.
> (D) sadistic or masochistic abuse (for the purpose of
> sexual stimulation);
> or
> (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
> of any person;
How does it define "sadistic", "masochistic", or "lascivious"? Or are
these the means by which prosecutors can use to force their screwy morals
on the rest of us?
>See the definition above. If his genitals or pubic area are being
>"lasciviously exhibited" the answer is yes. And you will be up on federal
>charges if you posses more than 3 such "visual depictions".
Ditto.
--
/************************************************************************\
| Phil Howard, pdh@netcom.com, KA9WGN Spell protection? "1(911)A1" |
| "It's not broken... it's just functionally challenged" --Phil and Pete |
\************************************************************************/
From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 22:50:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 03:47:57 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Nov30.034757.1086@cbnews.cb.att.com>
In article <1992Nov29.222815.5416@qiclab.scn.rain.com> Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>And you should see what sort of records you are required to keep if
>you *produce* any sort of ""visual depictions" that are legal. You have to
>have records of the name and age of *every* person in them, as well as
>*any other names they have ever used*! And each item you distribute
>must contain a statement identifying where the records are!
If I'm not mistaken the US Supreme Court, in a rare burst of intelligent
reasoning, struck that law down.
James Parker
jap@cb1focus.att.com
